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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the application filed on 6/3/2024.
Claims 1-20 were previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 claims at issue 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 11 of the claimed invention are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/206,889). Both claims 1 and 11 of the instant application and claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/206,889) are directed to a method and a system of directing an unmanned aerial vehicle for inspecting a property. Thus, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 of the instant application. However, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 also contains additional limitations not found in claims 1 and 11 of the instant application, such as the limitations “determining, by the one or more processors, a geofence boundary based on an area corresponding to a property boundary”. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 are directed to a species of claims 1 and 11 of the instant application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 so that the property would be inspected more efficiently.
Claims 1 and 11 of the claimed invention are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,334,953 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 16/838,372). Both claims 1 and 11 of the instant application and claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,334,953 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 16/838,372) are directed to a method and a system of directing an unmanned aerial vehicle for inspecting a property. Thus, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,334,953 teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 of the instant application. However, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,334,953 also contains additional limitations not found in claims 1 and 11 of the instant application, such as the limitations “…displaying, via a user interface, one or more images depicting a view of the location; determining, by the one or more processors, a geofence boundary based on an area corresponding to a property boundary, wherein the geofence boundary represents a geospatial boundary in which to limit flight of the UAV; selecting, by the one or more processors, a path for traversing the geofence boundary having waypoints, each waypoint indicating a location for the UAV to obtain drone data; directing, by the one or more processors, the UAV around the property using the waypoints of the determined navigation route; and in response to the UAV reaching each of the waypoints” and “at each waypoint on the navigating route”. Accordingly, claims 1, 2 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,334,953 are directed to a species of claims 1, 2 and 11 of the instant application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claims 1, 2 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,334,953 so that the property would be inspected more efficiently.
Claims 1 and 11 of the claimed invention are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,191 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 17/723,900). Both claims 1 and 11 of the instant application and claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,191 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 17/723,900) are directed to a method and a system of directing an unmanned aerial vehicle for inspecting a property. Thus, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,191 teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 of the instant application. However, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,191 also contains additional limitations not found in claims 1 and 11 of the instant application, such as the limitations “…determining, by the one or more processors, a geofence boundary based on an area corresponding to a property boundary, wherein the geofence boundary represents a geospatial boundary in which to limit flight of the UAV; directing, by the one or more processors, the UAV around the property using the determined navigation route”. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,191 are directed to a species of claims 1 and 11 of the instant application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,191 so that the property would be inspected more efficiently.
Claims 1 and 11 of the claimed invention are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/206,889). Both claims 1 and 11 of the instant application and claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/206,889) are directed to a method and a system of directing an unmanned aerial vehicle for inspecting a property. Thus, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 of the instant application. However, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 also contains additional limitations not found in claims 1 and 11 of the instant application, such as the limitations “…determining, by the one or more processors, a geofence boundary based on an area corresponding to a property boundary”. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 are directed to a species of claims 1 and 11 of the instant application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,221 so that the property would be inspected more efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights