DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This first non-final action is in response to applicant's original filing on July 28, 2025. Claim 1-20 were cancelled. Claims 21-40 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Examiner's response
Applicant’s amendment with respect to the objections to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the Drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the Claim and Specification objections have been considered but are moot because applicant cancelled all claims and submitted a new set of claims.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the Claim rejections under 35 USC 101, 112 and 103 have been considered but are moot because applicant cancelled all claims and submitted a new set of claims.
Claim objections
Claim 21 line 17 recites “administrator”. It should be “an administrator”.
Claim 21 line 10 in “the remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for limitations “the remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode”.
Claim 21 line 18 recites “in the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for limitations “in the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode”.
Claim 21 line 28 recites “in remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode” It should be “in the remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or in the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode” . Claim 27 recites “in remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode”. Claim 28 recites “unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode”. Claims 27 and 28 are objected for the same reasons.
Please note, Examiner only lists some examples of claim terms subjected to claim objections. Applicant is expected to correct all claim terms (including claim terms not listed above) objected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The examiner notes that the claims are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. While the examiner has attempted to point out each of the issues, this list may not be exhaustive. Specifically:
Claim 21 line 4 recites “an operator”. Claim 21 line 8 recites “operators”, Claim 21 line 13 recites “operator’s works”, Claim 21 line 26 recites “operators”, Claim 22 line 4 recites “the operator”, Claim 24 line 4 recites “the operator”. Are all these operator(s) are the same or different?
Claim 21 recites “ a touch screen of a remote control of the drones”. Claim 22 recites “his remote-control” and claim 23 recites “a touch screen on the remote control of the drone”. Are all of these “touch screen”s and “remote control”s are the same one or different?
Claim 21 line 15 recites “the receivers are entered”. It not clear how the receivers are entered to where or by what?
Claim 21 line 17 recites “on-board cameras in a particular drone”, Claim 21 line 27 recites “an on-board camera in a drone operating”. Claim 22 line 2 recites “ the drone camera”. Are these drone camera(s) are the same or different?
Claim 25 line 2 recites “platform is designed to adapt to public sector organizations” How can the platform be made to adapt to public sector organizations? Which algorithms is used?
Claim 21 line 7 recites “a plurality of client accounts” and “each of account of the plurality of client accounts”. Claim 21 line 15 recites “client account”. Are all these client account(s) are the same or different?
Claim 28 recites “unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode, autonomous flights are programmed from the platform, and a monitoring area is assigned to detect problem autonomously”. Examiner reads it as “ in the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode, autonomous flights are programmed from the platform, and a monitoring area is assigned to detect a problem autonomously”. It is not clear to the examiner how autonomous flights are programmed from the platform? The platform provides coded instruction to drones/UAV for the automatic performance of a task or a schedule/plan for the autonomous flights?
Claim 22-40 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Please note, Examiner only lists some examples of claim terms subjected to claim rejection under 112(b). Applicant is expected to correct all claim terms (including claim terms not listed above ) rejected for the same reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Claim 21
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that Claim 21 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does Claim 21 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method (process) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 21 A method used to manage and automate drone fleets, through a platform as a service, characterized in that the method comprises:
the drones being configured for use in two modes:
as remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) controlled by an operator, and
as unmanned aerial systems (UAS) by programming autonomous flights from the platform; and
the platform being organized into a plurality of client accounts, wherein each of account of the plurality of client accounts has the following configuration: operators, receivers and administrator, and wherein:
the operators are in charge of piloting the drones in the remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode, and operators enter the platform with an associated routine and password via an interface integrated in a touch screen of a remote control of the drones, and operator's work is mandatory in areas where aeronautical regulations of a country require it;
the receivers are entered responsive to creation of the client account with assignment of receiver schedules and vacation periods, and in case of a problem detected by on-board cameras in a particular drone used in the remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or in the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode, the receivers are responsible for attending an alarm alert notification and going to an event site to execute corrective actions responsive to the problem detected by the drone; and
the administrator has access to the platform through private login through a web page associated with the platform, the web page being compatible for use on computers and smartphones, the administrator enters the web page using a password or digital certificate to access a database with statistics of each event,
the administrator organizes and controls operation of the client account, plans tasks for the operators and the receivers, and keeps data of the receivers and the operators up to date, in case of a problem detected by an on-board camera in a drone operating in remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode, the administrator and the receivers receive the alarm alert notification to review the problem live and have access to review detail, and only the administrator is qualified and enabled to cancel the alarm alert notification, if the alarm alert notification is canceled, the cancellation action is registered in the platform without being able to be deleted from the database, and a box is displayed in a user interface of the computer or smartphone for the administrator to input a reason for the cancellation of the alarm alert.
Claim 21 as a whole recites a method of organizing human interactions. Specifically, those limitations shown above as emphasized in bold print is a method specifically coordinating and linking events detected by drones to different personals and tracking information concerning those events and their status reasonably falls within commercial interaction/business relations. Further, those limitations highlighted above reasonably fall within managing personal behavior in that the event communicated with computer and personals (which based on the specification informs technicians). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 21. A method used to manage and automate drone fleets, through a platform as a service, characterized in that the method comprises:
the drones being configured for use in two modes:
as remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) controlled by an operator, and
as unmanned aerial systems (UAS) by programming autonomous flights from the platform; and
the platform being organized into a plurality of client accounts, wherein each of account of the plurality of client accounts has the following configuration: operators, receivers and administrator, and wherein:
the operators are in charge of piloting the drones in the remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode, and operators enter the platform with an associated routine and password via an interface integrated in a touch screen of a remote control of the drones, and operator's work is mandatory in areas where aeronautical regulations of a country require it;
the receivers are entered responsive to creation of the client account with assignment of receiver schedules and vacation periods, and in case of a problem detected by on-board cameras in a particular drone used in the remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or in the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode, the receivers are responsible for attending an alarm alert notification and going to an event site to execute corrective actions responsive to the problem detected by the drone; and
the administrator has access to the platform through private login through a web page associated with the platform, the web page being compatible for use on computers and smartphones, the administrator enters the web page using a password or digital certificate to access a database with statistics of each event,
the administrator organizes and controls operation of the client account, plans tasks for the operators and the receivers, and keeps data of the receivers and the operators up to date, in case of a problem detected by an on-board camera in a drone operating in remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode, the administrator and the receivers receive the alarm alert notification to review the problem live and have access to review detail, and only the administrator is qualified and enabled to cancel the alarm alert notification, if the alarm alert notification is canceled, the cancellation action is registered in the platform without being able to be deleted from the database, and a box is displayed in a user interface of the computer or smartphone for the administrator to input a reason for the cancellation of the alarm alert.
Claim 21 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an organizing human interactions having been integrated into a practical application. The limitation of through a platform as a service, drones being configured for use in two modes: as remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) controlled by an operator, and as unmanned aerial systems (UAS) by programming autonomous flights from the platform merely include implement organizing human interactions on a computer or vehicle environment, or merely use a computer as a tool/vehicle to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Thus, it is clear that the organizing human interactions is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the organizing human interactions having not been integrated into a practical application.
In addition, the limitation of “a box is displayed in a user interface of the computer or smartphone for the administrator to input a reason for the cancellation of the alarm alert” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
As such, the additional limitations of Claim 21 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since Claim 21 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 21 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 22-40 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more, as the limitations are either further part of the mental process or are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application using a similar analysis as applied to Claim 21 above.
As such, claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-30, 33-37, 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Horelik (US 20200346751) in view of Verna (US20120299751A1)
Regarding claim 21, Horelik teaches a method used to manage and automate drone fleets, through a platform as a service, characterized in that the method comprises
the platform being organized into a plurality of client accounts, wherein each of account of the plurality of client accounts has the following configuration: operators, receivers and administrator; the receivers are entered (?) responsive to creation of the client account with assignment of receiver schedules and vacation periods, and in case of a problem detected by on-board cameras in a particular drone used in the remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or in the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode, the receivers are responsible for attending an alarm alert notification and going to an event site to execute corrective actions responsive to the problem detected by the drone; (Horelik [0019]-- The emergency data manager 100 may automatically determine emergency type when possible based on available data, such as fire, medical, police, HAZMAT etc. Based on the emergency type and in some implementations, as severity level, a UAV may be automatically dispatched by the emergency data manager 100 and a data feed provided to the GUI 143; [0108] Each of the UAVs may be configured with various capabilities, equipment, sensors, etc., such as cameras, microphones, thermal cameras, etc., to enable certain surveillance capabilities (“surveillance drones”)) and
the administrator has access to the platform through private login through a web page associated with the platform, the web page being compatible for use on computers and smartphones, the administrator enters the web page using a password or digital certificate to access a database with statistics of each event (Horelik, [0084] –[0088]),
the administrator organizes and controls operation of the client account, plans tasks for the operators and the receivers, and keeps data of the receivers and the operators up to date, in case of a problem detected by an on-board camera in a drone operating in remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode, the administrator and the receivers receive the alarm alert notification to review the problem live and have access to review detail, and only the administrator is qualified and enabled to cancel the alarm alert notification, if the alarm alert notification is canceled, the cancellation action is registered in the platform without being able to be deleted from the database, and a box is displayed in a user interface of the computer or smartphone for the administrator to input a reason for the cancellation of the alarm alert (Horelik, [0084] –[0088]The emergency data manager 100 , via the geofence module 375 , is operative to filter all incoming emergency data related to devices 160 , alarms 196 and sensors 197 by geofences; 0036] The emergency data manager 100 may operate as an interface between the emergency networks 170 , databases 120 and devices 160 , to provide emergency data to the emergency networks 170; The emergency data manager 100 may, under some circumstances and for certain types of emergency data, store obtained emergency data in one or more databases which may be distributed databases. Protected data may be stored in protected data database 191;[0080] [0080] The emergency data manager 100 determines which of the emergency networks 170 and associated emergency responder devices 150 have authorization to receive particular types of emergency data. The emergency network managers 379 are operative to access emergency network profiles 335 and determine access levels to emergency data for emergency network entities and personnel. For example, a given emergency network 170 or emergency responder device 150 may, in certain circumstances, be granted access only to a particular subset of emergency data. For example, a police officer may only be given access to the location emergency data, while an EMT (emergency medical technician) may only be given access to an additional data emergency data. However, a given emergency network such as a national or regional emergency network, or associated emergency responder device 150 , may be given differential access to the entirety of the emergency data, or to particular emergency data categories within the databases based on any factor or set of factors. A management portal may be provided by the emergency network managers 379 to determine which emergency data categories are returned from one of the emergency networks 170 to a particular emergency network 170 or emergency responder device 150 . Other data services corresponding to the various databases 120 may also be coordinated with respect to granting access to protected data).
Horelik does not explicitly teach but Verna teaches limitation of as remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) controlled by an operator, and as unmanned aerial systems (UAS) by programming autonomous flights from the platform (A ground control operator can remotely fly and control an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), also known as a pilotless drone) and
the operators are in charge of piloting the drones in the remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode, and operators enter the platform with an associated routine and password via an interface integrated in a touch screen of a remote control of the drones, and operator's work is mandatory in areas where aeronautical regulations of a country require it( Verna, Restricted data can go to clients 220 controlled by authorities (e.g., police, government operators).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, emergency response services provided by drones, as taught by Horelik, drones being controlled by an operator, as taught by Verna, as Horelik and Verna are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using drones being controlled by an operator to follow regulations.
Regarding claim 22, Horelik teaches characterized in that the operator detects the event through an image obtained by the drone camera and projected on the screen of his remote-control (Horelik Fig. 9-10).
Regarding claim 23, Horelik teaches characterized in that upon detection of the event, the operator activates the alarm alert notification by pressing a button displayed on a touch screen of the remote control of the drone ([0042] an emergency alert 105 may be triggered by a device 160 in any of various ways such as, but not limited to, device fall detection, by the user pressing a soft button or a physical button (i.e. a “panic button”)).
Regarding claim 24, Horelik teaches characterized in that the alarm alert notification is sent directly to the receivers, taking as a criterion the receivers that are closest to a location of the event ([0051] the emergency data manager 100 is operative to push the ELS or AML data to the appropriate emergency network 170 based on a geofence analysis using the geofence database 101 ).
Regarding claim 25, Horelik teaches, characterized in that the platform is designed to adapt to public sector organizations ([0087] In the context of emergency services, one or more geofences may correspond to the jurisdictional boundaries of an emergency network 170 . The emergency network 170 may be operated by a public entity and may be for example, a public safety answering point (PSAP), a police department, a fire department, a federal disaster management agency, national highway police, etc., which have jurisdiction over a designated area and, sometimes, overlapping areas. Geofences are used to define the jurisdictional boundaries using various Geographic Information System (GIS) formats. A GIS file format refers to one or more standards for encoding geographical information into a computer file).
Regarding claim 26, Horelik teaches characterized in that the platform is configured to assign differentiated alarm alert signal notifications to correspond to different categories of receivers according to a type of event detected, and to send the alarm alert signal notification to the receivers associated with the type of event detected (Horelik, [0080]).
Regarding claim 27, Horelik teaches characterized in that the platform has three configurable options: perimeter limits classified into: radius distance according to coordinates of a physical location of a detected parameter, and configuration by sectorial perimeter limit, such as state, region, city or municipality borders, such that the perimeter limit allows configuring a minimum and maximum number of the receivers that receive the alert notification, and that are located within the configured perimeter limit(Fig. 6- 8 and corresponding paragraphs, [0080]-[0087]);;
the drones operating in remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode are able to automatically recognize the receivers that are closest and most expedient to the event location, to differentiate to which receivers send the alarm alert notification (Fig. 6- 8 and corresponding paragraphs, [0080]-[0087]); and
configuration to add an option for assigning differentiated time ranges, to assign minimum and maximum quantities of receivers associated with an event, according to demands of one or more activities associated with the event ( Fig. 6- 8 and corresponding paragraphs, [0080]-[0087]).
Regarding claim 28, Horelik teaches characterized in that unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode, autonomous flights are programmed from the platform, and a monitoring area is assigned to detect problem autonomously (Fig, 9-11 and corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claim 29, Horelik teaches characterized in that the monitoring area represents a potential forest fire hazard ([0112]-[0125] In a fire emergency as depicted, the surveillance UAV may be able to locate a fire in a building and identify persons in need of emergency assistance).
Regarding claim 30, Horelik teaches, characterized in that autonomous flights are programmed to identify people and/or motorized vehicles crossing a perimeter boundary ([0124]).
Regarding claim 33, Horelik teaches characterized in that the alarm alert notification issued by the operators is transmitted through an emergency call with voice recording, made directly to the receivers, to ensure receipt of the alarm alert notification, a link with an identifier containing the date and time associated with the event is sent to the receivers, and the alarm alert notification is transmitted to the administrator to monitor the activity of the receivers (Horelik, [0056]-[0059, [0067], Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 34, Horelik teaches characterized in that the alarm alert notification issued by the operators allows the receivers and the administrator to view the link from any internet-connected PC or smartphone with iOS or Android operating systems, and for the receivers and the administrator to: review a live transmission of the event, the live transmission having a limited time duration; open a GPS location map with detailed distances and fastest routes to the event site; and visualize on a location map, one or more receivers going to the event location (Horelik, [0056]-[0059][0067]).
Regarding claim 35, Horelik teaches characterized in that the platform leaves a record in the database wherein the record is only accessible to the administrator, who logs in with his credentials in the client account, and wherein the record comprises: an excerpt of the recording with time (configurable); high resolution images (configurable); images with different zoom levels (configurable); thermal imaging (configurable); and hyperspectral imaging (configurable) ([0067] determine authorization and access levels to protected data stored in the protected data database 191 or in the other databases 120 ).
Regarding claim 36, Horelik teaches characterized in that event log information and data associated with a procedure carried out is automatically stored in a private cloud, in a private session of the client account associated with the platform (Horelik, [0056]-[0059], [0067]).
Regarding claim 37, Horelik teaches characterized in that the administrator has at his disposal specific functions for special cases, the specific functions including one or more of: interlocking of the remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode or the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode at the site of the event so that a first drone continues recording in case of a particular event until its autonomy allows it, once its battery is consumed to return autonomously to its charging base; activation of the platform through a direct option, the platform allowing the administrator to synchronize other unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode drones that are associated with a particular client account to go to the site of the event to provide support, and to allow the first drone to return to its charging base, at an end of its autonomy; tracking of people and motorized vehicles, in the case of remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPAs) mode drones, by selecting an object via the touch screen associated with the drone and, in the case of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode drone, automatically detecting in response to selection of a configured object crossing a protected and configured boundary or perimeter, and for both modes, the platform being configured to predict a destination or route of the selected object; and prediction and prevention of forest fires by analysis of terrain parameters, where the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) mode drones remotely and autonomously detect elements that represent risks within a wide area of terrain ([0056], [0110], [0145]-[0153]) .
Regarding claim 39, Horelik teaches characterized in that alarm signal notifications are configurable, and allow assigning different categories of events, with different receivers assigned, each alarm signal notification is assigned to be transmitted to the receivers corresponding to its area (Horelik [0135][0157]).
Regarding claim 40, Horelik teaches characterized in that each client account has a system for processing statistical data on activity associated with performance of each of the receivers using an algorithm to evaluate actions of the receivers based on the following set of variables: response time in answering a call; response time to open a link sent; response time to press an option to go to a location associated with an event; response time to a place of an event; type of mobilization to an event site: on foot, bicycle, motorcycle, car, van, truck, tank, helicopter, airplane (configurable and editable by the administrator); geographical distance to an event site; vehicular traffic on a destination route; and contour lines of an affected territory (Horelik [0004][0135][0157] Fig. 4 and 5 and corresponding paragraphs ).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Horelik (US 20200346751) in view of Verna (US2012029975) in view of Ming ( CN 105719486 A machine translation)
Regarding claim 31, Horelik as modified by Verna does not explicitly teach but Ming teaches characterized in that autonomous flights are programmed by integrating a neural network to classify images and recognize prediction intervals (Fig. 6 -7 and corresponding paragraphs The convolutional neural network classification. through off-line training a convolutional neural network, sample the pedestrian with white binary contour image with different distances, different stature, the output is the probability of pedestrian, so as to realize the identification determination for the pedestrian, it uses convolutional neural network structure after classifying the same vehicle type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, emergency response services provided by drones, as taught by Horelik as modified by Verna, integrating a neural network to classify images and recognize prediction intervals, as taught by Ming, as Horelik, Ming and Verna are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using integrating a neural network to classify images and recognize prediction intervals to improve the system’s efficacy and robustness.
Regarding claim 32, Horelik as modified by Verna does not explicitly teach but Ming ,characterized in that the neural network classifies images and recognizes prediction intervals considering the following set of variables: ambient temperature, surface temperature, assignment of isotherms, historical data on forest fires, according to dates and geographic area, percentage of humidity and precipitation, thermal imaging, hyperspectral imaging, measurement distance, fire detection, wind speed and direction, contour lines (Fig. 6 -7 and corresponding paragraphs The convolutional neural network classification. through off-line training a convolutional neural network, sample the pedestrian with white binary contour image with different distances, different stature, the output is the probability of pedestrian, so as to realize the identification determination for the pedestrian, it uses convolutional neural network structure after classifying the same vehicle type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, emergency response services provided by drones, as taught by Horelik as modified by Verna, integrating a neural network to classify images and recognize prediction intervals, as taught by Ming, as Horelik, Ming and Verna are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using integrating a neural network to classify images and recognize prediction intervals to improve the system’s efficacy and robustness.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Horelik (US 20200346751) in view of Verna (US 20120299751A1 ) in view of Trurdle (US 2017092109 A1)
Regarding claim 38, Horelik as modified by Verna does not explicitly teach but Trurdle teaches the limitation of characterized in that a database is created in the private cloud to obtain statistics associated with performance of the receivers, a listing of receivers who attend specific requests, a listing of journeys of the receivers to locations of each event and times that each receiver takes to reach each location (Trurdle[0184]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, emergency response services provided by drones, as taught by Horelik as modified by Verna, obtaining statistics associated with performance of the receivers, as taught by Trurdle, as Horelik, Ming and Trurdle are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using obtaining statistics associated with performance of the receivers to improve the system’s efficacy.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666