DETAILED ACTION
Note
Upon review of the Appeal Brief filed on 08/17/2026 for Application No. 18/409,108, the Examiner has reconsidered the rejections set forth in the final Office Action mailed on 03/20/2026. As a result of this reconsideration, the final Office Action dated 03/20/2026 is hereby vacated. The appeal is thereby rendered moot, and prosecution of the application is reopened. Accordingly, the non-final rejection set forth below is now presented for the Applicant’s consideration and response.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.5-14, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the sensor for detecting the environmental conditions and a specific environmental condition are required to ultimately determine the specific environmental condition in which the claimed baseline images are part of the solution itself and not something which occurs post-solution wherein the Final Office Action does not explain why the steps of obtaining and detecting are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, so the steps of "obtaining" and "detecting" should not be considered insignificant extra-solution activity". Additionally, the Applicant argues the Examiner improperly reduces the claimed sensor operation to generic data collection and the obtaining baseline images as merely receiving an image as opposed to considering the claimed method as a whole and considering the functional relationship. Lastly, the Applicant argues that the claim does not merely require obtaining an image and visually inspecting it wherein the confirmation does not occur in a vacuum and specifically concerns an environmental condition previously detected by the sensor in a portion of the area and uses the baseline images. 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 such as routine and conventional image processing steps which lack a technological improvement. The limitation of “obtaining baseline images for a geographical area” is on the obtaining of images of a geographical area which can be defined as a routine and conventional image processing step. The limitation of “detecting, by at least one sensor, environmental conditions in a portion of the geographical area” only require the detection of any environmental condition within an area using any type of sensor which can be defined as a routine and conventional image processing step. 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the final limitation of “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” only requires a person to confirm the presence of an environmental condition “using” the baseline images wherein the condition was initially detected by a sensor wherein this confirmation step using images can simply be a person mentally and visually verifying the presence of the condition which was first detected by the sensor by looking at the image. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.16-33, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant argues Applicant argues that Guillo does not teach a "portion" of a geographic area. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Guillo, Para. 56, explicitly teaches defining a polygon that encompasses an area with a size of less than an acre. Therefore, Guillo teaches a portion of the geographical area being the defined polygon of an area of the image includes portions that are less than one acre.
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, 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 such as routine and conventional image processing steps without technological improvement. 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, 5-8, 12-14, 16-18, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 20240411016 A1) in view of Kelly et al. (US 20210125477 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao teaches "A method for environmental condition detection, wherein the method comprises: obtaining baseline images for a geographical area"; (Zhao, Abstract, and Paras. 36 and 40-47, teaches pre-processing SAR data of the geographical region to determine a plurality of SAR images which are subdivided into a plurality of adjacent cells for defining an urban mask for each cell in which a deep learning classification algorithm is applied on the plurality of SAR images to compute a class for each cell of the region indicating a flooded urban area, a flooded rural area, or a non-flood area wherein the SAR data retrieved corresponds to the observation of each cell at different times, i.e., environmental condition detection being the classification of flooding and obtaining baseline images for a geographical area being the determining of a plurality of SAR images for a geographical region).
However, Zhao 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, Kelly teaches "detecting, by at least one sensor, environmental conditions in a portion of the geographical area"; (Kelly, Para. 116, teaches the sensor can include an alarm at the property and the system may receive sensor data from a fire alarm at the property indicating that the fire alarm has activated, i.e., detecting environmental conditions in a portion of the area by a sensor being the indication of a fire at the property by the 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"; (Kelly, Parsa. 114 and 118, teaches the satellite data can be used to verify or confirm local alarms at the property in which when a fire alarm at the property is activated, the satellite data may indicate the presence of smoke, heat, and/or flames at the property and based on the satellite data, the system can confirm that a fire is occurring at the property and determine a specific location of the fire based on the satellite data wherein satellite data can be images from a nanosatellite, i.e., confirm presence of a specific environmental condition being the confirmation of a fire using the satellite baseline images in which the condition is detected by the sensor in the portion of the area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zhao wherein the images are the baseline images of the area captured by the satellite by including the detection of a condition by a sensor and confirming the detection using the images taught by Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves detection (Kelly, 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 Zhao in view of Kelly teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is mounted to an apparatus"; (Kelly, Paras. 130, teaches the sensor of the monitoring system can include a sensor mounted to an autonomous vehicle, i.e., sensor mounted to an apparatus).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Zhao and Kelly references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 2. Thus, the method recited in claim 2 is met by Zhao in view of Kelly.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Zhao in view of Kelly teaches "The method of claim 2, wherein the apparatus is a pole, a building, or a drone"; (Kelly, Paras. 130, teaches the sensor of the monitoring system can include a sensor mounted to an autonomous vehicle such as aerial drones or ground drones, i.e., sensor mounted to a drone).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Zhao and Kelly references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 3. Thus, the method recited in claim 3 is met by Zhao in view of Kelly.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Zhao in view of Kelly 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"; (Zhao, Para. 37, teaches the SAR data are acquired by a SAR antenna on-board a satellite and transmitted to the ground, i.e., baseline images are obtained by a SAR satellite).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Zhao in view of Kelly 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"; (Kelly, Para. 26, teaches the nanosatellite may increase the frequency of capturing images of the property in response to sensor data, i.e., further images of the portion of the area are obtained);
"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"; (Kelly, Paras. 127-129, teaches a stored profile which can include previous satellite imagery of the property wherein the stored profile may be updated periodically based on received satellite data and the monitoring server may determine that the satellite data indicates a deviation from the historical satellite data and determine the property is at risk from a threat, i.e., identifying one or more anomalies between the further images of the portion of the area and the baseline images of the area being the identification of a deviation of the satellite data and the historical satellite data).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Zhao and Kelly references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 6. Thus, the method recited in claim 6 is met by Zhao in view of Kelly.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Zhao in view of Kelly 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"; (Zhao, Abstract, teaches a deep learning classification algorithm to indicate a class for each cell whether it is a flooded urban area, a flooded rural area, or a non-flooded area, i.e., specific environmental condition is a flood).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Zhao in view of Kelly 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"; (Kelly, Paras. 103 and 127-129, teaches a stored profile which can include previous satellite imagery of the property wherein the stored profile may be updated periodically based on received satellite data and the monitoring server may determine that the satellite data indicates a deviation from the historical satellite data and determine the property is at risk from a threat in which the monitoring server analyzes the nanosatellite images and the monitoring system data to determine a distance between the wildfire and the property, a path of the wildfire, and an estimated time that the wildfire will arrive at a given speed, i.e., environmental condition is a fire and predicting where the fire will spread and the speed of the fire in the area based on the identified anomalies being the deviations between satellite images to determine if a property is at risk then determining speed and path of the fire).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Zhao and Kelly references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 8. Thus, the method recited in claim 8 is met by Zhao in view of Kelly.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references of Zhao in view of Kelly teaches "The method of claim 1, wherein the method uses a machine learning (ML) model"; (Zhao, Abstract, teaches a deep learning classification algorithm which is structured as a fully convolutional neural network, i.e., uses machine learning 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 Zhao and Kelly references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Zhao and Kelly references discloses a processor and memory and display (for example, see Zhao, Claim 15 and Paras. 20, 22, and 66).
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 Zhao and Kelly references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Zhao and Kelly references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Zhao, Claim 15 and Paras. 20, 22, and 66).
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 Zhao and Kelly references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Zhao and Kelly references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Zhao, Claim 15 and Paras. 20, 22, and 66).
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 Zhao and Kelly references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Zhao and Kelly references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Zhao, Claim 15 and Paras. 20, 22, and 66).
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 Zhao and Kelly references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Zhao and Kelly references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Zhao, Claim 15 and Paras. 20, 22, and 66).
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 Zhao and Kelly references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Zhao and Kelly references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Zhao, Claim 15 and Paras. 20, 22, and 66).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of references of Zhao in view of Kelly teaches "An apparatus for performing environmental condition detection, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; a display; and a memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive baseline images"; (Zhao, Abstract, Claim 15, and Paras. 20, 22, 36, 40-47, and 66, teaches pre-processing SAR data of the geographical region to determine a plurality of SAR images which are subdivided into a plurality of adjacent cells for defining an urban mask for each cell in which a deep learning classification algorithm is applied on the plurality of SAR images to compute a class for each cell of the region indicating a flooded urban area, a flooded rural area, or a non-flood area wherein the SAR data retrieved corresponds to the observation of each cell at different times wherein the method may be realized by a computer readable program product having its code run by a computer system in which the representation may be advantageously displayed on a screen to visualize the flooded areas of the geographical region, i.e., apparatus for environmental condition detection comprising a processor and memory being the computer program product executed by a computer system and a display and receiving baseline images being the SAR images);
"and store the baseline images in the memory"; (Zhao, Para. 37, teaches storing the SAR data is a SAR database, i.e., store the baseline images in memory);
"receive, from at least one sensor, detected environmental conditions in a portion of the geographical area"; (Kelly, Para. 116, teaches the sensor can include an alarm at the property and the system may receive sensor data from a fire alarm at the property indicating that the fire alarm has activated, i.e., receive detected environmental conditions in a portion of the area from a sensor being the indication of a fire at the property by the 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"; (Kelly, Parsa. 114 and 118, teaches the satellite data can be used to verify or confirm local alarms at the property in which when a fire alarm at the property is activated, the satellite data may indicate the presence of smoke, heat, and/or flames at the property and based on the satellite data, the system can confirm that a fire is occurring at the property and determine a specific location of the fire based on the satellite data wherein satellite data can be images from a nanosatellite, i.e., confirm presence of a specific environmental condition being the confirmation of a fire using the satellite baseline images in which the condition is detected by the sensor in the portion of the area).
"wherein the processor is further configured to: receive further images for the portion of the geographical area"; (Kelly, Para. 26, teaches the nanosatellite may increase the frequency of capturing images of the property in response to sensor data, i.e., further images of the portion of the area are received);
"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"; (Kelly, Claim 13 and Paras. 127-129, teaches a stored profile which can include previous satellite imagery of the property wherein the stored profile may be updated periodically based on received satellite data and the monitoring server may determine that the satellite data indicates a deviation from the historical satellite data and based on determining that the satellite data indicates a deviation from historical conditions of the property, determining that the property is at risk from the threat, i.e., identifying one or more anomalies between the further images of the portion of the area and the baseline images of the area being the identification of a deviation of the satellite data and the historical satellite data and using the identified anomaly/deviation to confirm the presence of the specific condition being the determination that the property is at risk);
"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"; (Zhao, Paras. 63-66, teaches classifying each cell of the region of interest, superimposing the class on each cell to obtain a representation of the region of interest, and displaying the representation on a screen to visualize the flooded areas of the region, i.e., display outputs information associated with the presence of the environmental condition within the portion of the geographical area).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Zhao and Kelly references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 23. Thus, the apparatus recited in claim 23 is met by Zhao in view of Kelly.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Kelly and Anderson et al. (US 20190246579 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Zhao in view of Kelly 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 Zhao and Kelly 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 Zhao, Kelly, and Anderson references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Zhao, Kelly, and Anderson references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Zhao, Claim 15 and Paras. 20, 22, and 66).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Kelly and Guillo et al. (US 20240005522 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Zhao in view of Kelly 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 Zhao and Kelly 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 Zhao, Kelly, and Guillo references, presented in rejection of Claim 9, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Zhao, Kelly, and Guillo references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Zhao, Claim 15 and Paras. 20, 22, and 66).
Claims 10-11 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Kelly and Raucher (US 20210283439 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references of Zhao in view of Kelly 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 Zhao and Kelly 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 Zhao in view of Kelly 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 Zhao, Kelly, and Raucher references presented in the rejection of Claim 10, applies to claim 11. Thus, the method recited in claim 1 is met by Zhao in view of Kelly 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 Zhao, Kelly, and Raucher references, presented in rejection of Claim 10, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Zhao, Kelly, and Raucher references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Zhao, Claim 15 and Paras. 20, 22, and 66).
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 Zhao, Kelly, and Raucher references, presented in rejection of Claim 11, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Zhao, Kelly, and Raucher references discloses a processor and memory (for example, see Zhao, Claim 15 and Paras. 20, 22, and 66).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights