DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 02/09/2024 and 07/03/2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,387,456 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue are fully encompassed by the patented claims. Claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the patented claims disclose accessing geospatial imagery and extracted landcover feature data: Claim 1 discloses accessing geospatial imagery, extracting landcover feature data and subdividing into a grid of image tiles. Similarly, patented claim 1 discloses accessing geospatial imagery and landcover feature data extracted by a ML model divided into a grid of image tiles. Further, claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the patented claims disclose confidence data per tile and using it to decide what gets reviewed: Claim 1 discloses accessing confidence data and determining a set of image tiles based on an evaluation of the confidence data. Similarly, patented claim 1 discloses determining confidence data within each image tile. In addition, claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the patented claims disclose assigning human reviewers to low-confidence tiles, review via a platform and receiving corrections: Claim 1 discloses assigning a review technician through a review platform and receiving revised landcover feature data. Similarly, patented claim 1 discloses generating and assigning tasks to review low confidence tiles, provide functionality and make and receive corrections.
Claim 2 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 9 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 2 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claim 9 of the patented claim.
Claim 3 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 8 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 3 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claim 8 of the patented claim.
Claim 4 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 6 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 4 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claims 1 and 6 of the patented claims.
Claim 5 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 2 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 5 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claim 2 of the patented claim.
Claim 6 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 2 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 6 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claim 2 of the patented claim.
Claim 7 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 7 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claim 4 of the patented claim.
Claim 8 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 3 and 4 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 8 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claims 3 and 4 of the patented claims.
Claim 9 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 9 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claim 4 of the patented claim.
Claim 10 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 3 and 4 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 10 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claims 3 and 4 of the patented claim.
Claim 11 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3 and 4 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 11 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claims 1, 3 and 4 of the patented claims.
Claim 12 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 3 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 12 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claims 1 and 3 of the patented claims.
Claim 13 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 5 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 13 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claim 5 of the patented claim.
Claim 14 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 9 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 14 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claim 9 of the patented claim.
Claim 15 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 9 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 15 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claim 9 of the patented claim.
Claim 16 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 7, 10 and 11 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 16 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claims 1, 7, 10 and 11 of the patented claims.
Claim 17 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 2 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 17 is fully met by or would have been an obvious variant of claim 2 of the patented claim.
Claim 18 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 18 is fully met by, and/or would have been an obvious variant of claim 4 of the patented claim.
Claim 19 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 19 is fully met by, and/or would have been an obvious variant of claim 4 of the patented claim.
Claim 20 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 9 of the patented claims because the subject matter of claim 20 is fully met by, and/or would have been an obvious variant of claim 9 of the patented claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665