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 .
Introduction
Claims 1-19 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites “insects” in line 14, but both “wild insects” and “bred insects” are previously recited in the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “insects” in line 14 of Claim 1 to mean “bred insects.” The Examiner suggests that Applicant may wish to amend claim 1 to recite “bred insects” in line 14 of Claim 1 to clarify the scope of the claims.
Claims 2-17 each depend, either directly or ultimately, from Claim 1 and are, therefore, likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “insects” in line 14, but both “wild insects” and “bred insects” are previously recited in the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of claim 18 are unclear. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “insects” in line 14 of Claim 18 to mean “bred insects.” The Examiner suggests that Applicant may wish to amend claim 1 to recite “bred insects” in line 14 of Claim 18 to clarify the scope of the claims.
Claim 19 recites “insects” in line 11, but both “wild insects” and “bred insects” are previously recited in the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of claim 19 are unclear. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “insects” in line 11 of Claim 19 to mean “bred insects.” The Examiner suggests that Applicant may wish to amend claim 1 to recite “bred insects” in line 11 of Claim 19 to clarify the scope of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11-13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anaman et al., “Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Use of Sterile Insect Technique to Eradicate Screwworm Fly in the Event of an Invasion of Australia”, Preventative Veterinary Medicine, July 01, 1994 (hereinafter Anaman) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 11/20/2023) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 8,408,164 to Robinson, Jr.
Regarding claim 1, Anaman discloses a method comprising:
receiving information indicating a distribution of a population of wild insects within a predetermined geographic region (P. 87);
from said information determining a number of wild insects per unit area within the predetermined geographic region (P. 87);
placing, based on the number of wild insects per unit area, a plurality of insect release points, such that areas having higher numbers of wild insects are associated with relatively higher numbers of insect release points and areas having lower numbers of wild insects are associated with relatively fewer numbers of insect release points (see, e.g., P. 87).
However, Anaman does not expressly disclose:
generating an insect release route through the geographic region, the insect release route passing through each one of said plurality of insect release points;
following said insect release route with a quantity of bred insects; and
round respective ones of said release points releasing a predefined density of insects.
Nevertheless, Robinson, Jr. teaches
generating an insect release route through the geographic region (Col. 5, lines 5-35; Claim 17), the insect release route passing through each one of said plurality of insect release points (Claim 17);
following said insect release route with a quantity of bred insects (Col. 5, lines 5-35); and
round respective ones of said release points releasing a predefined density of insects (Col. 5, lines 5-35; Claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in Anaman with the route generation and releasing a predefined density of insects as taught in Robinson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide precision distribution of sterile insects with reduced manpower requirements. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in Anaman with the route generation and releasing a predefined density of insects as taught in Robinson with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. teaches the method of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Anaman discloses a method further comprising using ground-based data gathering to obtain population density data of a wild insect population around said geographical area (P. 87), and to generate from said population density data a digital population distribution map of said wild insect population (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. teaches the method of claim 2 (see above). Furthermore, Anaman discloses a method wherein said ground based data gathering comprises arranging traps over said geographic area and using measurements taken from said traps to assign population density numbers to an arrangement of cells applied to said geographical area at a predetermined resolution level (P. 87).
Regarding claim 7, Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. teaches the method of claim 3 (see above). Furthermore, Anaman discloses a method wherein the cells are equal area release cells (see Fig. 2; P. 87).
Regarding claim 8, Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. teaches the method of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Robinson, Jr. teaches a method wherein said following said release route is carried out using at least one ground distribution vehicle (Col. 3, lines 22-32), the method comprising modifying the release map according to the release resolution and the distribution parameters of said at least one ground distribution vehicle (e.g., ground speed, which would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as analogous to airspeed taught by Robinson, Jr. for an aerial vehicle) (Col. 3, lines 22-32; col. 5, lines 5-35).
Regarding claim 9, Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. teaches the method of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Robinson, Jr. teaches a method wherein following said release route is carried out using a piloted aircraft (Abstract; Col. 3, lines 22-32; col. 4, lines 52-66; col. 5, lines 5-35), the method comprising modifying the release map according to the release resolution and the distribution parameters of said piloted aircraft (e.g., airspeed) (Col. 5, lines 5-35).
Regarding claim 11, Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. teaches the method of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Robinson, Jr. teaches a method wherein the at least one distribution vehicle is an aerial craft with the ability to hover over a defined location (e.g., helicopter) (Col. 3, lines 22-32), the method comprising modifying the release map according to the release resolution and the distribution parameters of said aerial vehicle (e.g., airspeed) (Col. 5, lines 5-35).
Regarding claim 12, Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. teaches the method of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Anaman discloses a method wherein the insects to be released are one member of the group consisting of mosquitoes and sterile male insects (sterile male screwworms) (P. 83).
Regarding claim 13, Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. teaches the method of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Anaman discloses a method comprising obtaining additional data about said wild population following distribution and provide an updated distribution plan (P. 87).
Regarding claim 18, Anaman discloses a method comprising: A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions to cause a processor to:
receive information indicating a distribution of a population of wild insects within a predetermined geographic region;
from said information determine a number of wild insects per unit area within the predetermined geographic region;
place, based on the number of wild insects per unit area, a plurality of insect release points, such that areas having higher numbers of wild insects are associated with relatively higher numbers of insect release points and areas having lower numbers of wild insects are associated with relatively fewer numbers of insect release points;
However, Anaman does not expressly disclose
a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising processor executable instructions;
generate an insect release route through the geographic region, the insect release route passing through each one of said plurality of insect release points;
follow said insect release route with a quantity of bred insects; and
round respective ones of said release points release a predefined density of insects.
Nevertheless, Robinson, Jr. teaches:
a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising processor executable instructions (Fig. 5; Col. 5, lines 5-35);
generate an insect release route through the geographic region (Col. 5, lines 5-35; Claim 17), the insect release route passing through each one of said plurality of insect release points (Claim 17);
follow said insect release route with a quantity of bred insects (Col. 5, lines 5-35); and
round respective ones of said release points release a predefined density of insects (Col. 5, lines 5-35).
Regarding claim 19, Anaman discloses a method comprising:
receiving information indicating a distribution of a population of wild insects within a predetermined geographic region (P. 87);
from said information determining a number of wild insects per unit area within the predetermined geographic region (P. 87);
placing a plurality of insect release points in said predetermined geographic region (P. 87).
However, Anaman does not expressly disclose a method comprising:
generating an insect release route through the geographic region, the insect release route passing through each one of said plurality of insect release points;
following said insect release route with a quantity of bred insects; and
round respective ones of said release points releasing a density of said insects, said density being related to a respective determined number of wild insects per unit area associated with said respective one of said release points.
Nevertheless, Robinson, Jr. teaches a method comprising:
generating an insect release route through the geographic region (Col. 5, lines 5-35; Claim 17), the insect release route passing through each one of said plurality of insect release points (Claim 17);
following said insect release route with a quantity of bred insects (Col. 5, lines 5-35; Claim 17); and
round respective ones of said release points releasing a density of said insects, said density being related to a respective determined number of wild insects per unit area associated with said respective one of said release points (Col. 5, lines 5-35; Claim 17).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0037828 to Bennett (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 11/20/2023).
Regarding claim 10, Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. teaches the method of claim 1 (see above). However, while Robinson, Jr. teaches the use of an aircraft, helicopter or ground vehicle (Col. 3, lines 22-32) and teaches the method comprising modifying the release map according to the release resolution and the distribution parameters of an aircraft or helicopter (e.g., airspeed) (Col. 5, lines 5-35), neither Anaman nor Robinson, Jr. expressly discloses or teaches that said following said release route is carried out using a pilotless drone. Nevertheless, Bennett teaches the use of a pilotless drone (Paras. [0016]-[0017]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method taught by Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. with the use of a pilotless drone, taught in Bennett, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a low cost, high efficiency way to disperse the beneficial biological organisms (e.g., sterilized screwworms) over a target location, as taught in Bennett (Para. [0017]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method taught by Anaman in view of Robinson, Jr. with the use of a pilotless drone, taught in Bennett, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,727 (“the ‘727 Patent”). Furthermore, claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,410 (“the ‘410 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they include the same limitations with similar, equivalent wording as those in the '727 Patent and the ‘410 Patent and the instant application merely broadens the claims of to remove the specific type of vehicle (e.g., ground vehicle) being used to release the insects that is recited in the ‘727 and ’410 Patents. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to broaden the claims of the ‘515 Patent to remove the “age information" limitation and allowance thereof would be an improper time-wise extension of the '515 Patent.
Instant Application
US 11,812,727
US 10,945,410
1. A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
14. A method of preparing a distribution program for insects and distributing insects in accordance therewith, the method comprising:
receiving information indicating a distribution of a population of wild insects within a predetermined geographic region;
receiving information indicating a distribution of a population of wild insects within a predetermined geographic region;
obtaining distribution data of a wild population of insects;
obtaining vehicle distribution parameters including a distribution resolution level of at least one available distribution vehicle;
from said information determining a number of wild insects per unit area within the predetermined geographic region;
determining a number of wild insects per unit area within the predetermined geographic region;
generating a digital population density map from said distribution data at a resolution level consistent with said distribution level of said at least one available vehicle;
placing, based on the number of wild insects per unit area, a plurality of insect release points, such that areas having higher numbers of wild insects are associated with relatively higher numbers of insect release points and areas having lower numbers of wild insects are associated with relatively fewer numbers of insect release points;
placing, based on the number of wild insects per unit area, a plurality of insect release points
generating a digital release map by modifying said digital population density map in accordance with said vehicle distribution parameters, the distribution parameters modeling effects of an actual distribution process on said insects carried out with said vehicle such that when said insects are released according to said digital release map they arrive at points on the ground according to said digital population density map;
generating an insect release route through the geographic region, the insect release route passing through each one of said plurality of insect release points;
generating an insect release route through the geographic region, the insect release route passing through each insect release point;
generating a vehicle path using said release map, the path to be followed by said vehicle and defining dosages of insects to be released at respective grid locations along said path, said grid locations being set according to said vehicle distribution resolution level;
following said insect release route with a quantity of bred insects; and
following said insect release route with a quantity of bred insects using at least one ground distribution vehicle, said at least one ground distribution vehicle having a respective release resolution and distribution parameters;
sending said vehicle along said path; and
modifying a release map according to said respective release resolution and said distribution parameters of said at least one ground distribution vehicle; and
round respective ones of said release points releasing a predefined density of insects.
round respective ones of said release points releasing a predefined density of insects using said release map.
at each of said respective grid locations, obtaining the corresponding defined dosage of insects and automatically releasing from said vehicle the corresponding defined dosage of insects.
The Examiner suggests that Applicants may wish to file a terminal disclaimer to overcome these obviousness-type double patenting rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671