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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,619,043 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are related in a species/genus manner, with the instant claims being the more general (genus).
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,579,629 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are related in a species/genus manner, with the instant claims being the more general (genus).
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,530,506 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are related in a species/genus manner, with the instant claims being the more general (genus).
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/310,862 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite equivalent scope and features with minor language differences (synonyms, switched word order, etc.).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zass (US 2020/0413011 A1) in view of Norfleet (US 2022/0356674 A1), Turner (US 9,588,315 B1), and Geis (EP 3528185 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ZASS teaches a method of installing a fiber network (130), the method comprising steps of: causing one or more cameras to capture a plurality of photographs of an installation area (FIG. 1; par. [0245]); and obtaining the plurality of photographs and causing processing of the plurality of photographs to provide one or more remote visualizations of the installation area (FIGs. 17-19; par. [0291]). ZASS does not teach utilizing the one or more remote visualizations to determine an optimal route for trenching fiber cables; and installing the fiber network based on the determined optimal route. Furthermore, ZASS is silent regarding overhead/above-ground fiber cables.
NORFLEET teaches utilizing one or more remote visualizations to determine an optimal route for trenching fiber cables (FIGs. 5-7; pars. [0072]-[0075]). Furthermore, TURNER teaches installing a fiber network based on a determined optimal route (col. 3, lines 38-51, col. 6, lines 39-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of ZASS with the utilizing and installing steps taught by NORFLEET and TURNER, respectively. The motivation would have been to more efficiently install the fiber network.
GEIS teaches optimizing a fiber network that includes both above and below ground cables (“the processor is configured to determine the route based on inventory lines with existing pipe capacities, underground cable routes, and / or overhead lines ... Planning tool 410 allows the coordination and scheduling of the fiber rollout based on the following data: household and commercial demand and telecom network requirements; Stock routes with pipe capacities, underground cable routes and above-ground lines.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of ZASS as previously modified by NORFLEET and TURNER to include the combination of both above and below ground cabling disclosed by the optimization of GEIS. The motivation would have been to more efficiently install the fiber network.
Regarding claim 2, GEIS teaches the optimal route includes a combination of overhead and underground fiber cables. (“the processor is configured to determine the route based on inventory lines with existing pipe capacities, underground cable routes, and / or overhead lines ... Planning tool 410 allows the coordination and scheduling of the fiber rollout based on the following data: household and commercial demand and telecom network requirements; Stock routes with pipe capacities, underground cable routes and above-ground lines.”).
Regarding claim 3, NORFLEET teaches that determining an optimal route includes, based on the one or more remote visualizations, determining a route which includes a shortest overhead distance for installing the fiber network. (par. [0076]), note that the combination of references as with the discussion of claim 1 above relies upon GEIS to render obvious the integration of overhead cables (see citation to GEIS in claim 1 grounds of rejection.)
Regarding claim 4, TURNER teaches the installation area includes any of a highway system, a neighborhood, an intersection, a business park, and one or more buildings (col. 11, lines 37-43).
Regarding claim 5, ZASS teaches that the processing includes processing the plurality of photographs to define a three dimensional (3D) model of the installation area based on one or more location identifiers and one or more objects of interest in the plurality of photographs (pars. [0095]-[0097]).
Regarding claim 6, ZASS teaches that the steps comprise causing the one or more cameras to capture a 360 degree view of the installation area (par. [0141]).
Regarding claim 7, ZASS teaches that causing the one or more cameras to capture a plurality of photographs includes causing an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to fly a flight path over the installation area and capture the plurality of photographs (par. [0208]).
Regarding claim 8, ZASS teaches that the plurality of photographs are obtained from a combination of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and one or more camera systems (par. [0208]).
Regarding claim 9, ZASS teaches that causing the one or more cameras to capture a plurality of photographs is performed remotely (pars. [0082], [0114]).
Regarding claim 10, ZASS teaches that the steps further comprise, after the installing, performing a virtual site inspection of the fiber network (par. [0198]).
Regarding claim 11, ZASS teaches that performing a virtual site inspection of the fiber network includes causing the one or more cameras to capture a plurality of photographs of the installation area after the installation is completed (pars. [0265], [0266]).
Regarding claim 12, ZASS teaches that the steps further comprise providing a close-out package, wherein the close-out package provides verification of the fiber network installation (pars. [0083], [0143]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights