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 Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claim 23 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.7-11, filed 02/25/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that although data and measurements are gathered by the sensor, the claim example is not directed to abstract subject matter. Additionally, applicant argues that the sensor for detecting the environmental conditions and a specific environmental condition are required to ultimately determine the specific environmental condition which can involve a large geographical area wherein baseline images must be obtained. The baseline images are part of the solution and not something which occurs post-solution, so the steps of "obtaining" and "detecting" should not be considered insignificant extra-solution activity". Lastly, the practical application of Applicant's claims involves using a sensor and baseline images of a geographical area to make sure help is dispatched or evacuations are done and to limit damage and the spread of the condition. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitations “obtaining baseline images for a geographical area” and “detecting, by at least one sensor, environmental conditions in a portion of the geographical area” are only the receiving of an image of an area and a simple tool for collecting data via a sensor which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the amended claim only recites these additional insignificant extra-solution activities wherein other additional recited elements in certain other claims are just only generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea. Furthermore, Applicant argues it is unknown and unexplained how a human mind can perform the steps of independent Claim 1. In reference to the limitation in the independent claims “and confirming a presence of a specific environmental condition detected by the at least one sensor in the portion of the geographical area using the baseline images” simply requires a person to confirm if an environmental condition is present using the sensor data and the obtained images which can be performed in the human mind.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.11-18, filed 02/25/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues there is no "environmental condition detection" in Massimi, and Massimi is only detecting damage to lattice supports of overhead power lines. Additionally, Applicant argues that Massimi does not perform "obtaining baseline images for a geographical area" due to Massimi only discussing geographical reference positions/coordinates. Further, the SAR image of the lattice support location is not taken as a "baseline image" but is taken only once. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Massimi is only directed to teach the obtaining of baseline images for a geographical area. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The environmental condition detection is directed toward the Vangara reference. For further clarification, Massimi, Abstract and Para. 62, teaches acquiring SAR images of an area of the earth's surface and making a comparison between expected positions of points of interest and actual positions in the acquired SAR images, i.e., obtaining baseline images for a geographical area. Therefore, Massimi does perform the obtaining of baseline images for a geographical area as required by the claims.
Additionally, Applicant argues that Vangara does not disclose "confirming a presence of a specific environmental condition detected by the at least one sensor in the portion of the geographical area using the baseline images". Vangara, FIG. 4 and Paras. 20, 22, 26, and 38 and Claims 1 and 6, teaches the unmanned aerial device may travel near the one or more users or the one or more objects for sensing and wherein a sense parameter associated with the smoke upon detecting fire within the pre-defined area and the temperature of the one or more users and objects within the area are processed as well as the images of the one or more objects and users are processed upon detecting the smoke within the area and generating an alert notification upon detecting an emergency situation within the area, i.e., confirms presence of a specific environmental condition being the generation of an alert for an emergency fire wherein the condition is detected by the sensor in the portion of the area being the sensors on the unmanned aerial device in the area in which the detection and confirmation for alert uses captured images. Therefore, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara teaches “and confirming a presence of a specific environmental condition detected by the at least one sensor in the portion of the geographical area using the baseline images” as required by the claims wherein the images are the baseline images of the area captured by the satellite of Massimi.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that these documents are not combinable and each document is direct to different problems, which are not related to one another. In response to applicant's argument that Vangara is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both the Massimi and Vangara references are in analogous fields of endeavor of image processing.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant argues Brinkschulte teaches away from using satellite because they "provide low image resolution". Examiner respectfully disagrees due to Claim 8 not reciting the use of satellite imaging. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., satellite imaging) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant argues that Applicant's disclosure and claim combinations are not for estimation deformation or damage. Therefore, Massimi does not disclose the limitation as required by Claim 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Claim 12 only recites "The method of claim 1, wherein the method uses a machine learning (ML) model". Massimi, Para. 69, teaches that the estimation step is implemented through artificial intelligence algorithms trained by machine learning techniques, i.e., the method uses a machine learning model.
Furthermore, Applicant argues Massimi discloses a processing device or system and not specifically a processor, a memory, and a display. Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74 teaches implementing the method by a processing device or system, i.e., a processor and memory. Additionally, Vangara, Para. 27, teaches a pre-defined area is streamed to a central command centre, i.e., a display. Therefore, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara teaches the use of a processor, memory, and a display.
Examiner has considered applicants arguments with respect to the new claim 23. However, arguments are moot due to new claims being presented and are therefore being analyzed as presented below. Accordingly, this action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to for the following informalities: Claim 23 recites “…store the baseline images in the memory receive, from at least…” wherein it is assumed a semicolon should be included after “memory”. Additionally, Claim 23 recites “…and the detected environmental conditions. wherein the processor…” wherein it is assumed the period after the word “conditions” is a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the geographical area" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. The claims recite obtaining images of a geographical area, detecting environmental conditions within that area using a sensor, and confirming the presence of an environmental condition using the sensor data and the images.
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
With regard to Step 2A – Prong 1, for example in Claim 1, the limitations of "and confirming a presence of a specific environmental condition detected by the at least one sensor in the portion of the geographical area using the baseline images", as drafted only involves mental processes or mathematical calculations, such as the determination of the presence of an environmental conditions detected by the sensor and images. That is, nothing in the above-described claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or on a piece of paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonably interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or through mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of a generic apparatus components, such as a processor, computer program, or machine-readable media, then it falls within the "mental processes", which include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or mathematical calculations groupings of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the following additional steps "obtaining baseline images for a geographical area; detecting, by at least one sensor, environmental conditions in a portion of the geographical area", i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity. The other additional recited element in certain other claims is just a processor and a memory, which are generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/steps amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic apparatus component, such as a processor, cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. It should be noted that a similar analysis may be performed with respect to independent Claims 13 and 23.
Further, with regard to dependent Claims 2-12 and 14-22 viewed individually, these additional steps are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, obtaining additional images for anomaly detection as recited in Claim 6 or predicting the speed and direction of fire spread based on the detected anomalies as recited in Claim 8 are only examples of routine and conventional image processing steps and do not amount to significantly more to consider as inventive steps. Accordingly, Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 12-14, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massimi et al. (US 20230228868 A1) in view of Vangara et al. (US 20200074143 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Massimi teaches "A method for environmental condition detection, wherein the method comprises: obtaining baseline images for a geographical area"; (Massimi, Para. 62, teaches a synthetic aperture radar, SAR, image acquisition step for acquiring SAR images of an area of the earth's surface on the basis of a respective geographical position of the given lattice support, i.e., obtaining baseline images for a geographical area. For further clarification, Massimi, Abstract and Para. 62, teaches acquiring SAR images of an area of the earth's surface and making a comparison between expected positions of points of interest and actual positions in the acquired SAR images, i.e., obtaining baseline images for a geographical area).
However, Massimi does not explicitly teach "detecting, by at least one sensor, environmental conditions in a portion of the geographical area; and confirming a presence of a specific environmental condition detected by the at least one sensor in the portion of the geographical area using the baseline images”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Vangara teaches "detecting, by at least one sensor, environmental conditions in a portion of the geographical area"; (Vangara, Para. 20, teaches an unmanned aerial device including a plurality of sensors configured to sense at least one of smoke and fire within a pre-defined area, i.e., detect environmental conditions being smoke and fire in a portion of an area by at least one sensor);
"and confirming a presence of a specific environmental condition detected by the at least one sensor in the portion of the geographical area using the baseline images"; (Vangara, FIG. 4 and Paras. 20, 22, 26, and 38 and Claims 1 and 6, teaches the unmanned aerial device may travel near the one or more users or the one or more objects for sensing and wherein a sense parameter associated with the smoke upon detecting fire within the pre-defined area and the temperature of the one or more users and objects within the area are processed as well as the images of the one or more objects and users are processed upon detecting the smoke within the area and generating an alert notification upon detecting an emergency situation within the area, i.e., confirms presence of a specific environmental condition being the generation of an alert for an emergency fire wherein the condition is detected by the sensor in the portion of the area being the sensors on the unmanned aerial device in the area in which the detection and confirmation for alert uses captured images).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Massimi wherein the images are the baseline images of the area captured by the satellite by including the detection of an environmental condition using a sensor and confirming its detection through the processing of the sensor data and the captured images which generate an alert upon detection taught by Vangara. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves detection (Vangara, Paras. 5-6, teaches the motivation of combination to be to capture occupants and other parameters with increased levels of smoke and improve smoke and fire detection).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is mounted to an apparatus"; (Vangara, Para. 7, teaches the unmanned aerial device includes a plurality of sensors, i.e., sensor mounted to an apparatus).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Massimi and Vangara references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 2. Thus, the method recited in claim 2 is met by Massimi in view of Vangara.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara teaches "The method of claim 2, wherein the apparatus is a pole, a building, or a drone"; (Vangara, Para. 7, teaches the unmanned aerial device includes a plurality of sensors, i.e., apparatus is a drone).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Massimi and Vangara references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 3. Thus, the method recited in claim 3 is met by Massimi in view of Vangara.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the baseline images are obtained from at least one satellite and the at least one satellite is a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite"; (Massimi, Paras. 2 and 62, teaches acquiring satellite synthetic aperture radar images of the earth's surface, i.e., the baseline images are obtaining from at least one satellite which is a SAR satellite).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the specific environmental condition is a flood, an earthquake, a landslide, arson, terrorist attacks, bombings, shootings, a fire, a biological attack, or a chemical spill"; (Vangara, Abstract, teaches an unmanned aerial device for smoke and fire detection, i.e., specific environmental condition is a flood).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Massimi and Vangara references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 7. Thus, the method recited in claim 7 is met by Massimi in view of Vangara.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the method uses a machine learning (ML) model"; (Massimi, Para. 69, teaches the estimation step is implemented through one or more predefined artificial intelligence algorithms trained by means of one or more predefined machine learning techniques, i.e., method uses a ML model).
Claim 13 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Massimi and Vangara references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Massimi and Vangara references discloses a processor and memory and display (for example, see Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74 and Vangara, Para. 27).
Claim 14 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Massimi and Vangara references, presented in rejection of Claim 3, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Massimi and Vangara references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74).
Claim 16 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Massimi and Vangara references, presented in rejection of Claim 5, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Massimi and Vangara references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74).
Claim 22 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 12. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Massimi and Vangara references, presented in rejection of Claim 12, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Massimi and Vangara references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massimi in view of Vangara and Anderson et al. (US 20190246579 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is located at least between 5 feet and 30 feet above a ground elevation of the portion of the geographical area".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Anderson teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is located at least between 5 feet and 30 feet above a ground elevation of the portion of the geographical area"; (Anderson, Para. 63, teaches a temperature sensor position 8-10 feet above a soil surface, i.e., at least one sensor is located at least between 5 and 30 feet above a ground elevation of the geographical area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Massimi and Vangara by including the sensor being located between 5 and 30 feet above ground taught by Anderson. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it detects temperature inversion (Anderson, Para. 63, teaches the motivation of combination to be to detect a presence of a temperature inversion).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 15 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Massimi, Vangara, and Anderson references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Massimi, Vangara, and Anderson references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massimi in view of Vangara and Chen et al. (US 7098796 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the step of confirming the presence of the specific environmental condition detected by the at least one sensor in the portion of the geographical area using the baseline images, further comprises: obtaining further images for the portion of the geographical area"; (Vangara, Claim 1, teaches capturing one or more images of the one or more objects and the one or more users within the pre-defined area and further generating one or more thermal images associated with the one or more objects and the one or more users, i.e., obtain further images for the portion of the geographical area being the additionally generated thermal images).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Massimi and Vangara references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 6.
However, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara does not explicitly teach "and identifying one or more anomalies between the further images for the portion of the geographical area and the baseline images for the portion of the geographical area".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Chen teaches "and identifying one or more anomalies between the further images for the portion of the geographical area and the baseline images for the portion of the geographical area"; (Chen, Claim 1, teaches detecting early fires in a predetermined area by capturing a plurality of images of the predetermined area during an interval for generating a plurality of difference frames and detecting a number of pixels that have fire characteristics in each difference frame by determining if each pixel of each difference frame satisfies the red component of the pixel being greater than a threshold and wherein if that step indicates that a flame in the area substantially increases during the interval than an early fire alarm is output, i.e., identify one or more anomalies between the further images and the baseline images of the portion of the geographical area being the indication of a flame between the difference frames of the predetermined area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Massimi and Vangara by including the identification of differences between the additional images and the previous images for the portion of the area taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it reduces false alarms (Chen, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to detect fires early and reduce false fire alarms).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 17 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Massimi, Vangara, and Chen references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Massimi, Vangara, and Chen references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massimi in view of Vangara, Chen, and Brinkschulte et al. (US 20250082972 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara and Chen does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 6, wherein the specific environmental condition is a fire, the method further comprising: predicting where the fire will spread and/or the speed of the fire in the geographical area based on the identified one or more anomalies".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Brinkschulte teaches "The method of claim 6, wherein the specific environmental condition is a fire, the method further comprising: predicting where the fire will spread and/or the speed of the fire in the geographical area based on the identified one or more anomalies"; (Brinkschulte, Paras. 6-7 and 22, teaches detecting forest fires using gas sensors directly in the forest wherein the terminal device is provided with data about different gas compositions and their concentrations which is compared with the gas compositions and their concentrations determined by the sensor device in which the forest fire early detection enables the direction and speed of spread of a forest fire to be recorded and predicted, i.e., predict where and the speed of the fire spread in the area based on the identified anomalies being the comparison of the gas concentrations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Massimi, Vangara, and Chen by including the prediction of where the fire will spread and the speed of the spread taught by Brinkschulte. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it detects fire early (Brinkschulte, Para. 7, teaches the motivation of combination to be to provide a method of forest fire early detection that works reliably and can be expanded and is inexpensive to install and maintain).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 18 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 8. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Massimi, Vangara, Chen, and Brinkschulte references, presented in rejection of Claim 8, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Massimi, Vangara, Chen, and Brinkschulte references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massimi in view of Vangara and Guillo et al. (US 20240005522 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein the portion of the geographical area is less than one acre".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Guillo teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the portion of the geographical area is less than one acre"; (Guillo, Para. 56, teaches detecting various stages of construction or the presence or absence of roads and/or grading in a geographic area wherein a user can define an area of less than an acre from an input of an aerial or satellite image, i.e., portion of a geographical area is less than one acre).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Massimi and Vangara by including the area image covering less than one acre taught by Guillo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it enables the tracking of activity of a geographical area (Guillo, Para. 1, teaches the motivation of combination to be to detect, analyze, and track activity of a geographical area).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 19 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 9. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Massimi, Vangara, and Guillo references, presented in rejection of Claim 9, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Massimi, Vangara, and Guillo references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74).
Claims 10-11 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massimi in view of Vangara and Raucher (US 20210283439 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is an orthogonal sensor".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Raucher teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is an orthogonal sensor"; (Raucher, Paras. 11 and 30, teaches wildfire detection UAVs may include cameras for detecting spectral line emissions, visible light cameras, infrared cameras, sensors for detecting materials associated with wildfires or wildfire smoke, sensors for detecting environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity, air pressure, wind direction, and wind speed or other types of sensors or combination of sensors, i.e., at least one sensor is an orthogonal multimodal sensor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Massimi and Vangara by including the orthogonal sensor taught by Raucher. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves wildfire response (Raucher, Para. 72, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve wildfire response).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara and Raucher teaches "The method of claim 1, further comprising a wind sensor"; (Raucher, Paras. 11 and 30, teaches wildfire detection UAVs being deployed to areas at risk of wildfire wherein the UAVs include sensors for wind direction and wind speed, i.e., sensors comprise a wind sensor located in a portion of the geographical area).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Massimi, Vangara, and Raucher references presented in the rejection of Claim 10, applies to claim 11. Thus, the method recited in claim 1 is met by Massimi in view of Vangara and Raucher.
Claim 20 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 10. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Massimi, Vangara, and Raucher references, presented in rejection of Claim 10, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Massimi, Vangara, and Raucher references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74).
Claim 21 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 11. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Massimi, Vangara, and Raucher references, presented in rejection of Claim 11, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Massimi, Vangara, and Raucher references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Massimi, Abstract and Para. 74).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massimi in view of Vangara, Chen, Cowan (US 20230011668 A1), and Scharf et al. (US 20240070845 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara and Chen teaches "An apparatus for performing environmental condition detection, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; (Massimi, Abstract and Paras. 62 and 74, teaches a synthetic aperture radar, SAR, image acquisition step for acquiring SAR images of an area of the earth's surface on the basis of a respective geographical position of the given lattice support wherein the method is implemented by a processing device or system, i.e., apparatus configured to obtain baseline images for a geographical area);
“a display”; (Vangara, Para. 27, teaches a pre-defined area is streamed to a central command centre, i.e., a display);
"
"receive, from at least one sensor, detected environmental conditions in a portion of the geographical area"; (Vangara, Para. 20, teaches an unmanned aerial device including a plurality of sensors configured to sense at least one of smoke and fire within a pre-defined area, i.e., detect environmental conditions being smoke and fire in a portion of an area by at least one sensor);
"confirm a presence of a specific environmental condition detected by the at least one sensor in the portion of the geographical area using the baseline images and the detected environmental conditions"; (Vangara, FIG. 4 and Paras. 20, 22, 26, and 38 and Claims 1 and 6, teaches the unmanned aerial device may travel near the one or more users or the one or more objects for sensing and wherein a sense parameter associated with the smoke upon detecting fire within the pre-defined area and the temperature of the one or more users and objects within the area are processed as well as the images of the one or more objects and users are processed upon detecting the smoke within the area and generating an alert notification upon detecting an emergency situation within the area, i.e., confirms presence of a specific environmental condition being the generation of an alert for an emergency fire wherein the condition is detected by the sensor in the portion of the area being the sensors on the unmanned aerial device in the area in which the detection and confirmation for alert uses captured images);
"wherein the processor is further configured to: receive further images for the portion of the geographical area"; (Vangara, Claim 1, teaches capturing one or more images of the one or more objects and the one or more users within the pre-defined area and further generating one or more thermal images associated with the one or more objects and the one or more users, i.e., obtain further images for the portion of the geographical area being the additionally generated thermal images);
"and identify one or more anomalies between the further images for the portion of the geographical area and the baseline images for the portion of the geographical area and use the identified one or more anomalies to confirm the presence of the specific environmental condition"; (Chen, Claim 1, teaches detecting early fires in a predetermined area by capturing a plurality of images of the predetermined area during an interval for generating a plurality of difference frames and detecting a number of pixels that have fire characteristics in each difference frame by determining if each pixel of each difference frame satisfies the red component of the pixel being greater than a threshold and wherein if that step indicates that a flame in the area substantially increases during the interval than an early fire alarm is output, i.e., identify one or more anomalies between the further images and the baseline images of the portion of the geographical area being the indication of a flame between the difference frames of the predetermined area which is confirmation of the presence of the environmental condition being a fire).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Massimi, Vangara, and Chen references presented in the rejection of Claim 6, applies to claim 23.
However, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara and Chen does not explicitly teach "and store the baseline images in the memory; and wherein the display is configured to output information associated with the presence of the specific environmental condition within the portion of the geographical area".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Scharf teaches "and store the baseline images in the memory"; (Scharf, Para. 72, teaches comparing a current input image to an earlier baseline image wherein such baseline images may be stored in a baseline image repository and to output data that is indicative of changes or deviations in the locations of certain features relative to the earlier baseline data, i.e., store baseline images in the memory).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Massimi, Vangara, and Chen by including the storage of baseline images in memory taught by Scharf. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves detection (Scharf, Para. 3, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve detection and estimation).
However, the combination of references of Massimi in view of Vangara, Chen, and Scharf does not explicitly teach "and wherein the display is configured to output information associated with the presence of the specific environmental condition within the portion of the geographical area".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Cowan teaches "and wherein the display is configured to output information associated with the presence of the specific environmental condition within the portion of the geographical area"; (Cowan, Claim 9, teaches the satellite image illustrates fire to a graphical user interface on a display to illustrate satellite images stitched together over various geographical regions with one or more indications of fire pixels in the images, i.e., display is configured to output information associated with the presence of the specific environmental condition within the portion of the area being the indications of fire pixels).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Massimi, Vangara, Chen, and Scharf by including the display outputting the presence of the condition in the area taught by Cowan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it has a higher confidence of distinguishing noise from wildfires (Cowan, Para. 3, teaches the motivation of combination to be to distinguish between noise and wildfires with high confidence).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
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 ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662