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 .
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 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (judicial exception) without significantly more.
As to Claim 6,
Step 1: This Claim is a process claim as it is directed towards a method of locating a ferromagnetic target, and therefore directed towards one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: This claim recites “correlating the magnetic field measurements with corresponding location information to produced geolocated magnetic field data; identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying a target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature; and determining the location of the ferromagnetic target from the location information associated with the target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature” on lines 8 to the end. Applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which these features are implemented, but under a broadest reasonable interpretation, these features are directed towards mathematical concepts, for example mathematical relationships and calculations. The correlating step is either a mathematical relationship between the magnetic field measurements and the location information, or a mathematical calculation that determines magnetic field data from the measurements and location data. The identifying steps, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, are either a mathematical relationship established between claimed data and signatures, or are mathematical calculations that identify by way of a determination of the magnetic anomaly data, signatures, and target well based on the geolocated magnetic field data and signature(s). Lastly, the determination step is, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical calculation that determines the location of the target by way of a mathematical equation. These features are all therefore directed towards an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing in the claim utilizes or implements the above abstract idea into any practical application. Nothing in the claim, for example, uses the determined location of the target in any meaningful manner or practical application.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the remaining features of the claim are conventional, and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The remaining claim features are “providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit, wherein the sensor module is a smartphone; launching the aerial detector device into the survey area; activating the magnetometer and GPS unit to obtain magnetic field measurements and location information” as recited on lines 3-7, and these features are identified as additional elements.
US 2017/0336203 to Barnes et al. (Barnes) discloses providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Figure 1),(Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note a smartphone which includes a magnetometer and GPS is mounted to a flying drone), wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Paragraph [0004]); launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Figures 1,4); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit to obtain magnetic field measurements and location information (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation).
Kim et al. (Kim) (Feasibility of employing a smartphone as the payload in a photogrammetric UAV system) discloses providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Figure 3B),(Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column), wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column); launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Figures 3B), (Abstract); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit to obtain magnetic field measurements and location information (Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column / note this is a property of the system by merely during the device on).
The additional elements therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they have been demonstrated to be conventional. Additionally, as explained in Step 2A, Prong Two, no element of the claim reasonably integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the above claim stands rejected for being directed to an abstract idea without claiming significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 7,
This claim only further defines the determination step of Claim 6, and is therefore also directed towards an abstract idea for the same reasons as noted in the above rejection of Claim 6.
As to Claim 8,
This claim recites “obtaining baseline magnetic field information for the survey area.” This phrase is reasonably directed to mere data gathering as the it merely recites the gathering of baseline information without reciting any additional features. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Only to the extent that it is held that the above phrase is not mere data gathering, then this phrase can also reasonably be considered a mathematical concept. Applicant does not reasonably define what the “obtaining” is in the claim, and under a broadest reasonably interpretation, such a phrase can reasonably be interpreted as a mathematical calculation. Such a phrase is a mathematical calculation because the obtaining is reasonably a device, such as a processing, that determines the above data from some other device.
Only to the extent that it is held that the above phrase is not mere data gathering or a mathematical concept, this phrase would therefore be an additional element. However, all of the above references cited as evidence with Claim 6 must perform this step. Any initial data obtained by the smart phone can be considered baseline magnetic field information. Furthermore, the only reasonably way that a smartphone can compute its orientation upon being turned on is to establish a baseline from which to reasonably identify what magnetic direction the phone is oriented with respect to. As such, the above references also reasonably establish that this claim feature is conventional, and thus not significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 9,
This claim only further defines one of the identifying steps of Claim 6, and is therefore also directed towards an abstract idea for the same reasons as noted in the above rejection of Claim 6.
As to Claim 10,
Step 1: This Claim is a process claim as it is directed towards a method of locating an orphaned well, and therefore directed towards one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: This claim recites “correlating the magnetic field measurements with corresponding location information to produced geolocated magnetic field data; identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying a well magnetic anomaly signature from the one or more magnetic anomaly signatures; and determining the location of the orphaned well from the location information associated with the well magnetic anomaly signature” on lines 1 to the end, as well as “obtaining baseline magnetic field information for the survey area”. Applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which these features are implemented, but under a broadest reasonable interpretation, these features are directed towards mathematical concepts, for example mathematical relationships and calculations. The correlating step is either a mathematical relationship between the magnetic field measurements and the location information, or a mathematical calculation that determines magnetic field data from the measurements and location data. The identifying steps, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, are either a mathematical relationship established between claimed data and signatures, or are mathematical calculations that identify by way of a determination of the magnetic anomaly data, signatures, and target well based on the geolocated magnetic field data and signature(s). Lastly, the determination step is, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical calculation that determines the location of the target by way of a mathematical equation. These features are all therefore directed towards an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing in the claim utilizes or implements the above abstract idea into any practical application. Nothing in the claim, for example, uses the determined location of the orphaned well in any meaningful manner or practical application.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the remaining features of the claim are conventional, and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The remaining claim features are “obtaining baseline magnetic field information for the survey area; providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit, wherein the sensor module is a smartphone; launching the aerial detector device into the survey area; activating the magnetometer and GPS unit; flying the aerial detector device through the survey area; obtaining magnetic field measurements and location information within the survey area” as recited on lines 3-9, and these features are identified as additional elements or mere data gathering.
US 2017/0336203 to Barnes et al. (Barnes) discloses obtaining baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (this can be the data obtained when first turning the device on or the first survey data obtained, and that the only reasonably way that a smartphone can compute its orientation upon being turned on is to establish a baseline from which to reasonably identify what magnetic direction the phone is oriented with respect to) (Figure 1),(Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043]), providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Figure 1),(Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043]), wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Figure 1),(Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043]); launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Figures 1,4); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation); flying the aerial detector device through the survey area (Figures 1,4); obtaining magnetic field measurements and location information within the survey area (Figures 1,4), (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation).
Kim et al. (Kim) (Feasibility of employing a smartphone as the payload in a photogrammetric UAV system) discloses obtaining baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (this can be the data obtained when first turning the device on or the first survey data obtained, and that the only reasonably way that a smartphone can compute its orientation upon being turned on is to establish a baseline from which to reasonably identify what magnetic direction the phone is oriented with respect to) (Figure 3B),(Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column), providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Figure 3B),(Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column), wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Figure 3B),(Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column), launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Figures 1,4); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation); flying the aerial detector device through the survey area (Figure 3B, (Abstract)); obtaining magnetic field measurements and location information within the survey area (Figure 3B),(Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column),(Abstract).
The additional elements therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they have been demonstrated to be conventional. Additionally, as explained in Step 2A, Prong Two, no element of the claim reasonably integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the above claim stands rejected for being directed to an abstract idea without claiming significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitations of “obtaining baseline magnetic field information for the survey area” and “obtaining magnetic field measurements and location information within the survey area” are reasonably directed to mere data gathering, because they are solely directed to obtaining data that is later used and necessary for any of the correlating, identify, and determination steps. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Only to the extent that it is held that the above phrase is not mere data gathering, then this phrase can also reasonably be considered a mathematical concept. Applicant does not reasonably define what the “obtaining” is in the claim, and under a broadest reasonably interpretation, such a phrase can reasonably be interpreted as a mathematical calculation. Such a phrase is a mathematical calculation because the obtaining is reasonably a device, such as a processing, that determines the above data from some other device.
As to Claims 11 and 12,
These claims only further define one of the identifying steps of Claim 10, and is therefore also directed towards an abstract idea for the same reasons as noted in the above rejection of Claim 10.
As to Claim 13,
This claim recites an additional element of the step of providing the aerial detector device that includes the sensor module with the magnetometer and the global positioning system (GPS) unit, further comprises the steps of: placing the smartphone into a sensor module; connecting one or more straps to the sensor module; and connecting the one or more straps to a UAV.
However, both Barnes and Kim both disclose the step of providing the aerial detector device that includes the sensor module with the magnetometer and the global positioning system (GPS) unit, further comprises the steps of: placing the smartphone into a sensor module (see the above rejection of Claim 10, where placing the smartphone into a sensor module is being interpreted to be met by reciting that the sensor module is the smartphone (see the below 112(b),(d) rejection of this claim feature)).
Connor (US 2022/0005191) discloses connecting one or more straps to the sensor module; and connecting the one or more straps to a UAV (Paragraph [0294]),(Figure 41 / note the mobile phone is attached to the drone by way of a strap).
Liu (CN 107505954 A) discloses connecting one or more straps to the sensor module; and connecting the one or more straps to a UAV (Paragraph [0014] / this comes from the provided English machine translation).
As such, the above features have been demonstrated to be conventional, and these additional elements therefore do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 14,
This claim recites the additional element of “the step of connecting the one or more straps to the UAV further comprises connecting the one or more straps to a consumer-grade drone.” However, Barnes, Kim, Connor, and Liu all reasonably that the drone is consumer-grade, as all disclose drones that are reasonably available to the public. As such, the above features have been demonstrated to be conventional, and these additional elements therefore do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claims 15-17,
These claims does not reasonably recite any additional elements, as all of these features inside only recite the heights that the drone is flown. All disclosed drones from the above references are reasonably capable of being flown at these heights, and no new structural features are being recited. As such, these features do not reasonably recite any feature that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, even to the extent that the features recite were treated as additional elements, these elements would be conventional as the above drones from the above noted prior art can be flown at these heights, rendering these features as conventional. Additionally, see Claim 1 of Nikulin et al. (Nikulin) (US 2021/0372793). As such, the above features have been demonstrated to be conventional, and these additional elements therefore do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claims 18 and 19,
These claims do not recite any additional elements, as all feature are directed towards whether the drone is controlled manually or automatically. All disclosed drones from the above references are reasonably capable of being controlled manually or automatically, and no new structural features are being recited. As such, these features do not reasonably recite any feature that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, see paragraphs [0118] and [0120] of Nikulin et al. (Nikulin) (US 2021/0372793). Furthermore, as explained in MPEP 2144.04(III), “The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art,” and thus such a feature has been held to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.. As such, the above features have been demonstrated to be conventional, and these additional elements therefore do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 20,
This claim recites “the step of generating an aggregated magnetic field intensity map before the step of identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data,” but such a feature is an abstract idea. The generation of a map is implemented, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, by calculations to determine various digital data for the purpose of being displayed. As such, this feature is directed towards mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships or calculations, and is therefore abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 6 and 10,
The phrase “correlating the magnetic field measurements with corresponding location information to produced geolocated magnetic field data; identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying a target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature; and determining the location of the ferromagnetic target from the location information associated with the target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature” on lines 6 to the end of Claim 6 and the phrase “correlating the magnetic field measurements with corresponding location information to produced geolocated magnetic field data; identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying a well magnetic anomaly signature from the one or more magnetic anomaly signatures; and determining the location of the orphaned well from the location information associated with the well magnetic anomaly signature” on lines 8 to the end of Claim 10 lack proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any of the above steps are implemented. For example, the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the disclosed remote computer correlates any of the measurements with corresponding location information to produce geolocated magnetic field data. The original disclosure is further completely silent as to the manner in which any remote computer identifies a geolocated magnetic anomaly. Applicant does disclose in paragraph [0033] that the typical anomalous magnetic field of an orphan well varies between 18 and 0.4, these paragraphs reference these numbers to question marks “??” in the paragraph, and do not reasonably provide any units of measure to thereby allow these values to be properly identified. Even to the extent that units of measure were provided, the original disclosure still does not reasonably explain what the system is doing with any value obtained in reference to the above paragraph [0033] to identify a magnetic anomaly. This is further significant because applicant subsequently claims another identifying step of identifying one or more magnetic analogy signatures from the above data. After obtaining this geolocated magnetic field data, using it to identify whether it falls within the above range of 18 to 0.4 would at most be one identification step. Applicant does not reasonably disclose two identification steps or what they would reasonable include in light of the disclosure. Further, applicant then claims a third identification step of identifying a well magnetic anomaly signature. However, similar to the above, any referencing of the obtained magnetic data to the above 18 to 0.4 range would at most include one identification step to identify whether any of the data falls within that range. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which three identification steps are implemented or what each step would reasonably include. While the above explanation included referencing the obtained to the above range of 18 to 0.4, the Examiner respectfully notes that this was merely for explanation, as the original disclosure does not actually disclose this, as the original disclosure is silent as to the manner in which the above range is utilized.
Lastly, applicant claims determining the location of the orphaned well from the location information associated with the well magnetic anomaly signature, but the original disclosure is silent as to the manner in which this determination is made. The comparing or referencing of any obtained magnetic data to the above range in the above example explanation would reasonably include the above determination. That stated, as also noted above, applicant does not reasonably disclose this as applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the range of values are utilized. That stated, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant implements each of the correlating , identifying, and determining steps as claimed, either individually or collectively as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which these features are implemented to establish possession of the above claim feature. The same issue exists in Claim 6, but where this claim recites the determination of a location of a ferromagnetic target instead of an orphaned well.
As to Claims 7-9 and 11-20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 3 and 6-20 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.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “the unmanned aerial vehicle is a recreational drone” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably explain what would and would not constitute a recreational drone versus any other type of drone. The metes and bounds of this phrase are unclear because it is unclear what would and would not reasonably constitute a recreational drone. While a military drone may reasonably be excluded, it is unclear whether any non-military drone would be considered recreational, or if other specific attributes are necessary in order to be considered recreational. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that any drone available to the public can be considered recreational.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “activating the magnetometer and GPS unit to obtain magnetic field measurements and location information” on lines 6-7 is indefinite. Claim 6 is a method of use claim, and thus directed to the manner in which the magnetometer and GPS unit are actively used. However, the phrase “to obtain” is an intended use of the magnetometer and GPS, and does not actively require these components to perform the claimed function. The mere activating of these elements does not necessarily require them to obtain the measurements and information as claimed, and it is therefore unclear whether these components are or are not required to obtain the information and measurements of the claim, or if they must only be capable of obtaining this information. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that this information and measurements are required in the claim.
The phrase “identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data, identifying a target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature” on lines 10-13 is indefinite.
1) The difference and relationship between each of the above identifying steps is unclear. As best understood, each identification step is performing the same function in that each is identifying an anomaly. The original disclosure does not reasonably differentiate between each distinct identification step, making it unclear what scope is and is not included within each identification step.
2) The difference and relationship between the target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature and the one or more magnetic anomaly signatures is unclear. As best understood, the target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature would be one of the early identified signatures, but these features are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data; identifying a well magnetic anomaly signature from the one or more magnetic anomaly signatures” on lines 12-16 to the end is indefinite.
1) The difference and relationship between each of the above identifying steps is unclear. As best understood, each identification step is performing the same function in that each is identifying an anomaly. The original disclosure does not reasonably differentiate between each distinct identification step, making it unclear what scope is and is not included within each identification step.
2) The difference and relationship between the identifying a well magnetic anomaly signature and the one or more magnetic anomaly signatures is unclear. As best understood, the well magnetic anomaly signature would be one of the early identified signatures, and thus this signature has already been identified. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “placing the smartphone into a sensor module” on lines 4 is indefinite. In Claim 10, applicant recites “providing an aerial detector device (UAV) that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit, wherein the sensor module is a smartphone” on lines 4-6. As such, Claim 10 has already recited a sensor module, and in fact that the sensor module is a smartphone. The above claim phrase in Claim 13 is therefore indefinite, because as best understood, the sensor module recited in this claim is the same sensor module already recited in Claim 10. Reciting this sensor module is therefore unclear, because the difference and relationship between the sensor module of Claim 10 and the sensor module of Claim 13 is unclear. Furthermore, the above claim phrase is further indefinite because Claim 10 expressly requires that the sensor module is the smartphone. A smartphone cannot be placed into the very thing that it is, and thus a smartphone cannot reasonably be placed into a sensor module, when the sensor module is a smartphone as required in Claim 10. This phrase is therefore indefinite, because the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that meeting the limitation of the sensor module is a smartphone from Claim 10 meets the above claim limitation.
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “the step of connecting the one or more straps to the UAV further comprises connecting the one or more straps to a consumer-grade drone” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably explain what would and would not constitute a consumer-grade drone versus any other type of drone. The metes and bounds of this phrase are unclear because it is unclear what would and would not reasonably constitute a consumer-grade drone. While a military drone may reasonably be excluded, it is unclear whether any non-military drone would be considered consumer-grade, or if other specific attributes are necessary in order to be considered consumer-grade. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that any drone available to the public can be considered consumer-grade.
As to Claims 15-17,
The phrase “connecting the step of flying the aerial detector device through the survey area comprises” on lines 1-2 of each of these claims is indefinite. No step of “connecting” was previously recited, and this phrase does not reasonably connect or otherwise relate any two structural features or steps. As such, it is unclear what applicant means by using the term “connecting in the above phrase.
As to Claim 20,
The phrase “the step of generating an aggregated magnetic field intensity map before the step of identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data” on lines 1-3 is indefinite. No step of generating was previously recited, but the above phrase refers to one, rendering this claim indefinite because it is unclear what step of generating this phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 7-9 and 11-20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “placing the smartphone into a sensor module” on lines 4 fails to include all of the limitations from Claim 10. In Claim 10, applicant recites “providing an aerial detector device (UAV) that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit, wherein the sensor module is a smartphone” on lines 4-6. As such, Claim 10 has already recited a sensor module, and in fact that the sensor module is a smartphone. Claim 13 removes the requirement that the sensor module is the smartphone by separating the two elements and stating that one is placed into the other. This recitations fails to include the requirement from Claim 10 that the sensor module is a smartphone, where such a recitation precludes the ability to place one element into the other as claimed, because the sensor module is itself the smartphone.
As to Claims 14-17,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of Claim 13 and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (Kim) (Feasibility of employing a smartphone as the payload in a photogrammetric UAV system).
As to Claim 1,
Kim discloses An aerial detector device configured to locate ferromagnetic objects in a survey area, the aerial detector device comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Abstract); a sensor housing (balsa framework) suspended from the unmanned aerial vehicle (Figure 5c,d), (Page 6, last three lines of left column and lines 1-4 of right column); and a sensor module (smartphone) inside the sensor housing (Figure 5c,d), (Abstract), wherein the sensor module comprises: a magnetometer; and a GPS unit (Page 3, Full paragraph in right column).
(Note: The preamble is not accorded any patentable weight because it does not reasonably breathe life into the claim. No feature of the claim reasonably relies upon or requires this preamble, and changing the preamble to instead be “A device comprising” would not change any aspect of the claim. That stated, Kim discloses a drone mounted with a smartphone similar to that of applicant, and where the smartphone has the same functionality as that disclosed by applicant. The smartphone has a camera and magnetometer, and is reasonably capable of making magnetic field measurements to locate ferromagnetic objects as claimed. As such, even if the preamble were accorded patentable weight, the prior art would still reasonably disclose this feature.)
As to Claim 2,
Kim discloses the sensor module is a smartphone (Page 3, Full paragraph in right column).
As to Claim 3,
Kim discloses the unmanned aerial vehicle is a recreational drone (Abstract), (Figure 5c).
As to Claim 4,
Kim discloses the smartphone further comprises a camera (Page 3, Full paragraph in right column).
As to Claim 5,
Kim discloses the sensor housing comprises a window to permit the camera to take photographs from inside the sensor housing (Figure 5c,d), (Abstract / note the entire purpose of the reference is to mount smartphones to take pictures over an area. As such, the sensor housing must include an opening that can be considered the claimed window in order to permit the camera to take the claimed photographs.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 6-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikulin et al. (Nikulin) (US 2021/0372793) in view of Barnes et al. (Barnes) (US 2017/0336203)
As to Claim 6,
Nikulin discloses A method for locating a ferromagnetic target within a survey area, the method comprising the steps of: providing an aerial detector device (UAV) that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer (MFAM) and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Paragraphs [0118],[0182],[0186]), launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Paragraphs [0182]-[0183]); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit to obtain magnetic field measurements and location information (Paragraphs [0182],[0186] / note these components must be activated in order to operate, and must obtain the information as claimed during the survey); correlating the magnetic field measurements with corresponding location information to produced geolocated magnetic field data (Paragraphs [0183],[0189] / note the data is reasonably geolocated), identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data (Paragraph [0189] / note the data was used to identify peak amplitudes that correlate to potential wells, which is considered an anomaly); identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data (Paragraph [0189] / note the data was used to identify peak amplitudes that correlate to potential wells, which is considered an anomaly, and the actual relationship to the potential wells is considered the claimed signatures); identifying a target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature (Paragraph [0195]); and determining the location of the ferromagnetic target from the location information associated with the target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature (Paragraphs [0189],[0195] / note the data is geolocated, and thus the identification of the well also reasonably includes the location of the well).
Nikulin does not disclose wherein the sensor module is a smartphone.
Barnes discloses wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nikulin to include wherein the sensor module is a smartphone as taught by Barnes in order to reduce the cost of the device by allowing for the use of non-specialized devices to be used that are of low cost, and to advantageously allow for device to be used that can be programmed to obtain large amounts of data from various integrated sensors and cameras and be able to wirelessly provide this data over a cellphone network in real-time, thus allowing for quick and real-time identification of ferromagnetic objects.
As to Claim 7,
Nikulin discloses the ferromagnetic target is an orphaned well (Paragraph [0095]).
As to Claim 8,
Nikulin discloses a step of obtaining baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (Paragraph [0189] / note the data from base station is considered the baseline as this data was used to correct the raw data).
As to Claim 9,
Nikulin discloses the step of identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data comprises removing from the geolocated magnetic field data the baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (Paragraph [0189] / note the data from base station is considered the baseline as this data was used to correct the raw data).
As to Claim 10,
Nikulin discloses A method for locating an orphaned well within a survey area, the method comprising the steps of: obtaining baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (Paragraph [0189] / note the data from base station is considered the baseline as this data was used to correct the raw data); providing an aerial detector device (UAV) that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Paragraphs [0118],[0182],[0186]), launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Paragraphs [0182]-[0183]); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit (Paragraphs [0182],[0186] / note these components must be activated in order to operate, and must obtain the information as claimed during the survey); flying the aerial detector device through the survey area (Paragraphs [0182],[0186] / note the UAV must be flown through the survey area in order to survey the area as disclosed); obtaining magnetic field measurements and location information within the survey area (Paragraphs [0182],[0186] / note collected magnetic datasets); correlating the magnetic field measurements with corresponding location information to produced geolocated magnetic field data (Paragraphs [0183],[0189] / note the data is reasonably geolocated), identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data (Paragraph [0189] / note the data was used to identify peak amplitudes that correlate to potential wells, which is considered an anomaly); identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data (Paragraph [0189] / note the data was used to identify peak amplitudes that correlate to potential wells, which is considered an anomaly, and the actual relationship to the potential wells is considered the claimed signatures); identifying a well magnetic anomaly signature from the one or more magnetic anomaly signatures (Paragraph [0195]); and determining the location of the orphaned well from the location information associated with the well magnetic anomaly signature (Paragraphs [0189],[0195] / note the data is geolocated, and thus the identification of the well also reasonably includes the location of the well).
Nikulin does not disclose wherein the sensor module is a smartphone.
Barnes discloses wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nikulin to include wherein the sensor module is a smartphone as taught by Barnes in order to reduce the cost of the device by allowing for the use of non-specialized devices to be used that are of low cost, and to advantageously allow for device to be used that can be programmed to obtain large amounts of data from various integrated sensors and cameras and be able to wirelessly provide this data over a cellphone network in real-time, thus allowing for quick and real-time identification of ferromagnetic objects.
As to Claim 11,
Nikulin discloses the step of identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data comprises removing from the geolocated magnetic field data the baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (Paragraph [0189]).
As to Claim 12,
Nikulin discloses the step of identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data comprises discarding magnetic field measurements that fall below a threshold intensity (Paragraph [0182],[0189] / note this is a property of the system as Nikulin recognizes that values must exceed background levels in order to identify a well, and thus any values not reasonably exceeding the background levels will be ignored/discarded).
As to Claim 18,
Nikulin discloses the step of flying the aerial detector device through the survey area comprises manually controlling the aerial detector device as it flies through the survey area (Paragraph [0118] / note remote pilot-in command).
As to Claim 19,
Nikulin discloses the step of flying the aerial detector device through the survey area comprises programming the aerial detector device to follow a predetermined flight path through the survey area (Paragraph [0120] / note automated flight control signal).
As to Claim 20,
Nikulin discloses the step of generating an aggregated magnetic field intensity map before the step of identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data (Paragraph [0150] / note the map must be generated first because it is used to show the locations of the abandoned wells).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikulin et al. (Nikulin) (US 2021/0372793) in view of Barnes et al. (Barnes) (US 2017/0336203) as applied to Claim 10 and in further view of Connor (US 2022/0005191).
As to Claim 13,
Nikulin in view of Barnes discloses the step of providing the aerial detector device that includes the sensor module with the magnetometer and the global positioning system (GPS) unit, further comprises the steps of: placing the smartphone into a sensor module (see the above rejection of Claim 1).
Nikulin in view of Barnes does not disclose the step of providing the aerial detector device that includes the sensor module with the magnetome