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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/13/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 10/20/2024, 5/8/2026, and 5/26/2026 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the purifying mechanism must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 4, line 3, “a purifying mechanism configured to pump ozone into the sample capture chamber to sanitize the sample capture chamber”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 2-9 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.
Claims 2-9 all recite the limitation "The apparatus of claim 1" in line 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination on the merits, all instances of “The apparatus of claim 1” will be interpreted as The unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 1.
Claim limitation “a camera and image processing unit…configured to capture and process an image to identify the given location” in claim 2 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear if the camera and image processing unit is intended to be a single element or not. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a purifying mechanism configured to pump ozone into the sample capture chamber to sanitize the sample capture chamber” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the claim language ([0027] in the specification filed 12/14/2023) and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of how the claimed invention can pump ozone into the sample chamber. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination on the merits, the purifying mechanism will be interpreted as any structure capable of completing the function of pumping ozone into the sample capture chamber.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “a plurality of sub-chambers configured to…analyze the collected sample and one or more additional samples in a pipelined manner”. This appears to be inconsistent with the specification and renders the claim indefinite (MPEP § 2173.03). The specification alludes that sub-chambers themselves do not perform the analyzing of the collected sample, but collects and holds the samples for analysis ([0060] in the specification filed 12/14/2023). For examination on the merits, it will be interpreted that the plurality of sub-chambers holds samples for analysis as this interpretation appears consistent with the specification. Examiner suggests amending the claim in a manner to reflect the function of the plurality of sub-chambers defined in the specification. E.g., a plurality of sub-chambers configured to collect for quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of pumping ozone into the sample capture chamber to sanitize the sample capture chamber. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer et al. (US 2006/0011776 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Maurer, presented in IDS dated 10/20/2024) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2022/0381758 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Thomas, see PTO-892) and Priye et al., Lab-on-a-Drone: Toward Pinpoint Deployment of Smartphone-Enabled Nucleic Acid-Based Diagnostics for Mobile Health Care (hereinafter referred to as Priye, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Maurer discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (abstract, “unmanned aerial vehicle”) comprising: a sample capture chamber ([0031] and Fig. 2, interrogation cell 118) configured to collect a sample from a given location ([0033], “Particulates (e.g., biological agents, etc.)…are extracted and retained…within interrogation cell 118.”); and
an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) processor (abstract, UAV includes a sensing system; [0014], sensing system includes circuitry).
The limitation “configured to record results of an analysis, the results comprising an identification of the given location” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed processor and does not differentiate the claimed processor from the prior art processor because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The processor taught by Maurer would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because it can record and assign a location to collected samples ([0023], [0063]-[0065], and [0067]-[0073]).
Maurer does not disclose an environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (eDNA) analyzer configured to extract environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (eDNA) from the collected sample and to perform a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis on the extracted environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (eDNA), but does disclose that the collected samples are available for analysis via PCR ([0023]).
However, Thomas teaches it is known in the art of environmental sampling to incorporate an environmental DNA (eDNA) collector with drones, i.e., UAVs (Fig. 4, cartridge sampler with drone; [0013], cartridge sampler is used to collect target molecules from a sample; abstract implicitly discloses that the sample can be from air, “gaseous…environments”; [0022], “target molecule(s) are environmental DNA”). The UAV of Thomas transports eDNA for subsequent analysis using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ([0022]).
Furthermore, Priye teaches it is known in the art of portable biochemical analysis platforms to perform qPCR on a consumer-class quadcopter drones (abstract; p. 4652, col. 1, “ultraportable, rapid, and quantitatively accurate PCR-based nucleic acid analysis”; Fig. 2 shows quantitation via fluorescence). Priye discloses a lab-on-a-drone comprising a qPCR device capable of performing quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis (Fig. 1C shows qPCR device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UAV of Maurer to incorporate the eDNA collector of Thomas because it would impart the capability of extracting eDNA from the collected sample, as shown in the drone of Thomas. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UAV of Maurer to incorporate the qPCR device of Priye because it would impart the capability of performing a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis on the extracted environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (eDNA), as shown in the drone of Priye.
The eDNA collector and qPCR device discussed above meet the limitation of an environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (eDNA) analyzer absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results because the specification dated 12/14/2023 indicates the eDNA analyzer can be split into two devices, one device configured to extract eDNA from the collected sample and one device configured to perform a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis on the extracted eDNA ([0024] in the specification).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1
Thomas of the prior art combination teaches wherein a sample capture chamber can comprise an air intake valve ([0016] discloses a fluid inlet with a valve for collecting a sample; Fig. 1, fluid inlet 110 and valve 106). Thomas implicitly discloses that the valve controls flow into a sample capture chamber ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination sample capture chamber to further comprise an air intake valve as it would control the flow of air into the sample capture chamber, as taught by Thomas.
The limitation “configured to capture the sample from an atmosphere” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed air intake valve and does not differentiate the claimed air intake valve from the prior art air intake valve because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art air intake valve would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Maurer of the prior art combination discloses a pump to draw air into the interrogation cell, i.e., the sample capture chamber ([0043], “pump 240 is used to draw air through the interrogation cell”).
The limitation “configured to pump ozone into the sample capture chamber to sanitize the sample capture chamber” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed purifying mechanism and does not differentiate the claimed purifying mechanism from the prior art pump because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). Maurer’s pump would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I). I.e., Maurer’s pump can pump air into the interrogation cell, and thus, can pump ozone into the sample capture chamber absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results.
The claimed purifying mechanism is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f) section above). The corresponding prior art element performs the function specified in the claim, is not precluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, and is/are an equivalent of the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation. Examiner finds that the prior art element is equivalent to the limitations of note because of at least one of the following reasons:
The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
In particular, the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Therefore, the prior art pump is prima facie equivalent to the claimed purifying mechanism (MPEP § 2183).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Thomas of the prior art combination teaches wherein a sample capture chamber further comprises a plurality of sub-chambers (Fig. 1, cartridge sampler 100 has slots 104, i.e., a plurality of sub-chambers). Thomas discloses that the slots are used to collect multiple samples ([0014] discloses time series sampling and detection of multiple target species).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination sample capture chamber to further comprise a plurality of sub-chambers because such a modification would allow time series sampling and detection of multiple target species, as taught by Thomas.
The limitation “configured to collect and analyze the collected sample and one or more additional samples in a pipelined manner” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed plurality of sub-chambers and does not differentiate the claimed plurality of sub-chambers from the prior art plurality of sub-chambers because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). Nonetheless, Thomas teaches that the slots are capable of collecting the collected sample and one or more additional samples in a pipelined manner for qPCR analysis ([0014]-[0016], [0022]).
Note: this claim contains limitations or language that has been interpreted according to Examiner’s understanding, see Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112 section above.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
The claim is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (eDNA) analyzer and does not differentiate the claimed eDNA analyzer from the prior art eDNA analyzer because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II).
Nonetheless, Priye of the prior art combination teaches that the qPCR device is capable of detecting a target deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequence based on a result of the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis (p. 4656, col. 2, “Sensitivity and quantification were evaluated by replicating a 237 bp target sequence from a λ-phage DNA template”). Therefore, the prior art environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (eDNA) analyzer is capable of achieving the intended use of detecting a target deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequence based on a result of the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Maurer of the prior art combination discloses a sample storage chamber (Fig. 4, sample-collecting region 472-1).
The limitation “configured to store the sample in the sample capture chamber for future analysis” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed sample storage chamber and does not differentiate the claimed sample storage chamber from the prior art sample storage chamber because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art sample storage chamber would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Maurer of the prior art combination discloses a sensor unit ([0073], “location-determining device (e.g., GPS, etc.)”).
The prior art combination does not expressly teach the sensor unit coupled to the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) processor.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination UAV such that the sensor unit is coupled to the UAV processor as such a modification would amount to mere rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI).
The limitation “configured to determine a current location of the apparatus” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed sensor unit and does not differentiate the claimed sensor unit from the prior art sensor unit because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art combination sensor unit would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer, Thomas, and Priye as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pottorf et al. (US 2014/0256055 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Pottorf, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
The prior art combination is silent to a camera and image processing unit.
However, Pottorf in the art of environmental sampling via unmanned vehicles teaches it is known in the art to use a camera and image processing unit configured to capture and process an image ([0081], “various cameras that are configured to obtain images…to a processor, which is configured to…process the images”). Pottorf teaches that the camera and image processing unit is used on an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination UAV to further comprise a camera and image processing unit configured to capture and process an image, as Pottorf teaches the same modification for the comparable AUV. Such a modification would predictably improve the prior art combination UAV and provide means for obtaining images and processing the images.
The prior art combination is silent to the camera and image processing unit coupled to the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) processor.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UAV such that the camera and image processing unit is coupled to the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) processor as such a modification would amount to mere rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). Coupling the camera and image processing unit to the UAV processor would predictably simplify the design of electrical components.
The limitation “configured to capture and process an image to identify the given location” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed camera and image processing unit and does not differentiate the claimed camera and image processing unit from the prior art camera and image processing unit because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). Nonetheless, the prior art camera and image processing unit would be capable of completing the claimed intended use as discussed above.
The limitation “to identify the given location” appears to be a limitation contingent on the processing of an image and has been given appropriate patentable weight (MPEP § 2111.04 II). No further prior art rejections are required as all structure necessary to meet the claim is taught and/or anticipated by the prior art of record.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer, Thomas, and Priye as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (WO 2022/147604 A1) (see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
The prior art combination is silent to the environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (eDNA) analyzer comprising one or more enzyme containers, each enzyme container configured to hold a corresponding enzyme for replicating specific fragments of a given target species.
However, Liu in the art of portable automatic qPCR detection and analysis devices teaches it is known in the art for the device to use an enzyme container (claim 4, fifth chamber) to store an enzyme (claims 4 and 5) for a qPCR device, i.e., an eDNA analyzer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination eDNA analyzer to comprise one or more enzyme container for the purpose of storing an enzyme for use during the qPCR process.
The limitation “configured to hold a corresponding enzyme for replicating specific fragments of a given target species” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed enzyme container and does not differentiate the claimed enzyme container from the prior art enzyme container because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art enzyme container would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Taylor et al. (US 2018/0362184 A1) discloses a modular interface for an aerial drone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN J CARREON whose telephone number is (571)272-6818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/A.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights