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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
Claims 1-13 and 23-31 are pending as the applicant filed response on 07/20/2026.
Election/Restrictions
2. A response on 07/20/2036 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 1-13 and 23-31. Claims 14-22 was cancelled.
Because these inventions are distinct for the reasons given on action dated 05/19/20260, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-13 and 23-31 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.
Regarding claims 1-13 and 23-31, the term “high-risk-lightning strike” “long-continuing-current”
are vague and a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-risk-lightning strike” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “high-risk-lightning strike” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “high-risk-lightning strike” occurs.
Note: In view of the PTO compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that due to the indefiniteness issues described above all consideration of the merits of the claims in view of prior art is as best understood.
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 1-13 and 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a method for improving a fire spread model output produced by a fire
spread modeling software program comprising the steps of: using the location coordinates as inputs for the fire spread modeling software program
when producing the first spread model output appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of obtaining location coordinates for a high-risk-lightning strike are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? there are no more additional elements.
Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible.
Claim 8, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a method for improving a fire spread model output produced by a fire
spread modeling software program comprising the steps of: determining that a high-risk-lightning strike has occurred and geographical location
coordinates for the high-risk-lightning strike by a high-risk-lightning detection system; using the location coordinates as inputs for the fire spread modeling software program when producing the first spread model output appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of electronically forwarding the location coordinates for the high-risk-lightning strike by the detection system to an electronic device or computer system running the fire spread modeling software program are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? there are no more additional elements. Step 2B: No. claim 8 not eligible.
Claim 2 related to determining that a high-risk-lightning strike has occurred and geographical location coordinates for the high-risk-lightning strike by a high-risk-lightning detection system, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 2 not eligible.
Claim 3 related to the step of electronically forwarding the location coordinates for the high-risk-lightning strike by the detection system to an electronic device or computer system running the fire spread modeling software program, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 3 not eligible.
Claim 4 related to the step of verifying or confirming that a fire ignition has occurred at the geographical location coordinates, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 4 not eligible.
Claim 5 related to automatically instructing or commanding a drone or
unmanned aircraft vehicle to fly or travel to a geographical location represented by the geographical location coordinates, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 5 not eligible.
Claim 6 related to the step of receiving real time images or video by the detection system sent by the drone or unmanned aircraft vehicle while hovering above the geographical location, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 6 not eligible.
Claim 7 related to the real time images include infrared images showing an infrared spectrum to allow for any hotspot at the geographical location to be seen even with tree coverage at the geographical location, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 7 not eligible.
Claim 9 related to the step of verifying or confirming that a fire ignition has occurred at the geographical location coordinates, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 9 not eligible.
Claim 10 related to the step of verifying or confirming comprises automatically instructing or commanding a drone or unmanned aircraft vehicle to fly or travel to a geographical location represented by the geographical location coordinates, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 10 not eligible.
Claim 11 related to the step of receiving real time images or video by the detection system sent by the drone or unmanned aircraft vehicle while hovering above the geographical location, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 11 not eligible.
Claim 12 related to wherein the real time images include infrared images showing an infrared spectrum to allow for any hotspot at the geographical location to be seen even with tree coverage at the geographical location, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 12 not eligible.
Claim 13 related to electronically forwarding location coordinates for the digital shapefile of the hot spot by the detection system to the electronic device or computer system running the fire spread modeling software program; and
using the location coordinates for the digital shapefile as inputs for the fire spread modeling software program when producing the fire spread model output or an updated fire spread model output, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 13 not eligible.
Claim 23 related to the steps of mapping the location coordinates using a geographic information system having a dashboard, and displaying the high-risk-lightning strike on the dashboard, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 23 not eligible.
Claim 24 related to the step of displaying on the dashboard one or more other parameters for an area where the displayed high-risk-lightning strike occurred, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 24 not eligible.
Claim 25 related to the one or more other parameters comprises vegetation for the area, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 25 not eligible.
Claim 26 related to the step of displaying on the dashboard a date and time that the displayed high-risk-lightning strike occurred, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 26 not eligible.
Claim 27 related to comprising the step of identifying on the dashboard a location for the displayed high-risk-lightning strike by a small number of words as opposed to location coordinates, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 27 not eligible.
Claim 28 related to the small number of words is three words, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 28 not eligible.
Claim 29 related to using the location coordinates as inputs for the fire spread modeling software program comprises using the location coordinates as a seed location of a fire start when producing the fire spread model output, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 29 not eligible.
Claim 30 related to determining that the high-risk-lightning strike has occurred comprises calculating one or more current characteristics of a detected lightning strike, the one or more current characteristics comprising a current duration and a charge transfer, and determining that the detected lightning strike is a long-continuing-current lightning strike based at least in part on the one or more current characteristics, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 30 not eligible.
Claim 31 related to determining the geographical location coordinates for the high-risk-lightning strike comprises performing three-dimensional lightning mapping using a time-of-arrival technique based , its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 31 not eligible.
Double Patenting
4. 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. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-13 and 23-31 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1-22 a related Application 17/857,155 now US Patent 12,352,920. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims in the current application are encompassed in the previous application. The latter pending application encompasses the same process as the pending application and is a different version of the previous application because of rearrangement of the claims language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 2, 3, 4, 9, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Davidson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20160163186 A1, Date Published: 2016-06-09).
Regarding claim 1:
Davidson described a method for improving a fire spread model output produced by a fire spread modeling software program comprising the steps of (0177, improvement of arc fault signatures):
obtaining location coordinates for a high-risk-lightning strike (0060, pre-lighting strike information 230 may all contribute to an assessment of the risk level, 0103, sensor location); and b. using the location coordinates as inputs for the fire spread modeling software program when producing the first spread model output (0054, predicting timing of transfer or spread of fire).
Regarding claim 8:
Davidson described a method for improving a fire spread model output produced by a fire spread modeling software program comprising the steps of (0177, improvement of arc fault signatures):
a. determining that a high-risk-lightning strike has occurred and geographical location coordinates for the high-risk-lightning strike by a high-risk-lightning detection system (0060, pre-lighting strike information 230 may all contribute to an assessment of the risk level, 0103, sensor location, 0044, use computer algorithms);
b. electronically forwarding the location coordinates for the high-risk-lightning strike by the detection system to an electronic device or computer system running the fire spread modeling software program (fig. 2B, 220-221, 0044, use computer algorithms); and
C. using the location coordinates as inputs for the fire spread modeling software program when producing the first spread model output (0054, predicting timing of transfer or spread of fire).
Regarding claim 2, Davidson further described determining that a high-risk-lightning strike has occurred and geographical location coordinates for the high-risk-lightning strike by a high-risk-lightning detection system (0054, mapping individual risks for a particular region of a structure or risks across adjacent structures for the purpose of improving risk assessments, 0060, pre-lighting strike information 230 may all contribute to an assessment of the risk level, 0103, sensor location, 0044, use computer algorithms).
Regarding claim 3, Davidson further described the step of electronically forwarding the location coordinates for the high-risk-
lightning strike by the detection system to an electronic device or computer system running the fire spread modeling software program ((fig. 2B, 220-221, fig. 4 program, trigger).
Regarding claim 4, Davidson further described the step of verifying or confirming that a fire ignition has occurred at the geographical
location coordinates (table 5B, confirmation).
Regarding claim 9, Davidson further described the step of verifying or confirming that a fire ignition has occurred at the geographical
location coordinates (0177, depending on any location).
Regarding claim 23, Davidson further described mapping the location coordinates using a geographic information system having a dashboard, and displaying the high-risk-lightning strike on the dashboard (0103, maps including sensor location, 0126, dashboard).
.
Regarding claim 24, Davidson further described displaying on the dashboard one or more other parameters for an area where the displayed high-risk-lightning strike occurred (fig. 7B, 7D, display).
Regarding claim 25, Davidson further described vegetation for the area (0177, depending on any location).
Regarding claim 26, Davidson further described displaying on the dashboard a date and time that the displayed high-risk-lightning strike occurred (fig. 7B, 7D, display).
Regarding claim 27, Davidson further described identifying on the dashboard a location for the displayed high-risk-lightning strike by a small number of words as opposed to location coordinates (0177, depending on any location).
Regarding claim 28, Davidson further described the small number of words is three words (table 9, Pre lightning strike)
Regarding claim 29, Davidson further described using the location coordinates as a seed location of a fire start when producing the fire spread
model output (0177, depending on any location).
Regarding claim 30, Davidson further described current characteristics of a detected lightning strike, the one or more current characteristics
comprising a current duration and a charge transfer, and determining that the detected lightning strike is a long-continuing-current lightning strike based at least in part on the one or more current characteristics (055, voltage, current, power consumption, current overloading).
Regarding claim 31, Davidson further described performing three-dimensional lightning mapping using a time-of-arrival technique based (voltage, current power, 0061, a particular time windows)
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.
Claim(s) 5,10, 6, 11, 7, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20160163186 A1, Date Published: 2016-06-09) in view of Pedersen (US 5832187 A, Date Published: 1998-11-03)
Davidson and Pedersen are relevant art because both deal with lighting strike problem.
Regarding claim 5, 10, Davidson further described automatically (table 5c, Event/No Event Automated), a geographical location represented by the geographical location coordinates (0053, allocation).
Davidson did not describe instructing or commanding a drone or unmanned aircraft vehicle to fly or travel to.
Pedersen instructing or commanding a drone or unmanned aircraft vehicle to fly (page 3, pilotless drone) or travel to.
For the advantage improved fire fighting systems (page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Davidson for the advantage improved fire fighting systems.
Regarding claim 6, 11, Davidson further described the step of receiving real time images (0121, real time, 0114, graph database) or video by the detection system sent by the drone or unmanned aircraft vehicle while hovering above the geographical location.
Regarding claim 7, 12, Davidson further described the real time images include infrared images showing an infrared spectrum to allow for any hotspot
at the geographical location to be seen even with tree coverage at the geographical location (0177, depending on any location).
Regarding claim 13, Davidson further described electronically forwarding location coordinates for the digital shapefile of the hot spot by the detection system to the electronic device or computer system running the fire spread modeling software program; and using the location coordinates for the digital shapefile as inputs for the fire spread modeling software program when producing the fire spread model output or an updated fire spread model
Output (0098, use library input model).
Contact information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272- 1000.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights