DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 12/11/2025.
In the amendment Claims 1-19 remain pending. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Withdrawn Rejections
5. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-19 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
6. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-19 with cited reference of Starr (U.S. Pub 2021/0173414) have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Specification
7. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
8. The abstract remains objected to because it recites implied phrases such as “The present disclosure concerns…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “A method …” (process). Claim 10 is directed to “An apparatus…” (machine). Claim 19 is directed to “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…” (composition of matter). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Furthermore, Independent claims 10 and 19 recites similar subject matter and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1. A method for detecting and positioning an inspection target, comprising:
obtaining a target inspection sub-region of a target inspection device in a target inspection process, and spotting a first inspection target in the target inspection sub-region and a first geographical position of the first inspection target, wherein the target inspection process is a process in which a plurality of inspection devices perform inspection tasks in inspection regions, the target inspection device is an inspection device in the plurality of inspection devices, the target inspection sub-region is a sub-region inspected by the target inspection device, and the target inspection sub-region is one of the inspection regions [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering via generic sensors];
determining whether a second geographical position located in the target inspection sub-region exists in the inspection target set [mental process];
deleting a second inspection target and a geographical position of the second inspection target in an inspection target set, wherein the inspection target set comprises all inspection targets spotted by the plurality of inspection devices in the target inspection process and geographical positions of all the inspection targets, and the second inspection target is an inspection target that is in the inspection target set and that is located in the target inspection sub-region [mental process];
adding the first inspection target and the first geographical position to the inspection target set [mental process]; and
displaying all inspection targets in the inspection target set at geographical positions corresponding to all the inspection targets in an inspection map [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Claim 1 recites deleting and adding targets and positions from a set, however managing by removing and adding items on a list (set) is a mental process that can be accomplished via pen/paper. For example, if a user observes that previous record exists and a new inspection is being done at a subregion the user can delete a record and add the most updated version of the inspection. Furthermore, determining if a second geographical position exists is performing a comparison/search operation to determine whether a position satisfies a set-membership condition which involves the mental process of comparing and classifying. These limitations fall under a mental process has it involves human observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining a target inspection sub-region” & “detecting a first inspection target”. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic sensors to collect and detect a target inspection sub-region.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims 1, 10 and 19 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “displaying all inspection targets”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for displaying collected information. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 2 and 11, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe obtaining a target inspection sub-region from the inspection device which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic sensors to perform data collection of image data. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 3 and 12, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe displaying inspection sub-regions in different colors which amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for displaying the collected inspection sub-regions. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 13-14, do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe determine if geographical position exists or not in an image which falls under a mental process that involves evaluation of the collected image data. These limitations fall under a mental process has it involves human observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 6-8 and 15-17, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe mathematical transformation of coordinates using conversion formulas including obtaining coordinates and determining enclosed regions which falls under a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 9 and 18, do describe significantly more than an abstract idea has they involve addition detail regarding attitude and position capture and conversion calculation based on pose with coordinate system transformation which is directed to improvement in positioning an inspection target using the image and sensor data.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been considered but are moot regarding the withdrawn 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. However, arguments to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea have been addressed below:
Applicant Argues: “Accordingly, the claim is directed to an improvement to existing detecting and positing technology, and the claim integrates the abstract idea recited in all the steps into a practical application of inspection and positioning technology. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.” (see pg. 20)
“As such, the claims defines using the drones with antennas that are capable of receiving signals indicating the geographical position in the inspection target, thereby going beyond merely reciting the method and machine at a high level of generality.” “…the additional element recites a specific manner of spotting and detecting the inspected target including coordinates that may indicate to the detecting device the geographical position for the detection.” “The above results in an improvement of spotting and detecting the inspected target, and therefore the subject matter of the claims as a while integrates an abstract idea into a practical application”. (see pg. 22)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees: Nowhere has applicant identified any specific claim element that improves underlying detection or positioning technology. The claim instead recites a series of data management steps: obtaining, spotting, performing, deleting, adding and displaying results on a map. These steps describe what is done with data (collect, compare, delete, add and display) but says nothing about how the detection or positioning hardware itself is improved. For example, it lacks an improvement to new sensor architecture, signal processing technique, positioning algorithm or any technical improvement to the inspection device itself. Thus, including inspecting or positioning does not constitute a practical application.
Characterizing the claim as an “improvement to detecting and positioning technology” at a high level of generality, without identifying specific technical improvement in the claim, does not satisfy the practical application inquiry. Furthermore, the method can be performed by a human inspector with a map and a clipboard by recording spotted targets, checking whether a prior entry exists for the same area, crossing it out, writing in the new one and updating a display. Thus, a claim that is reduced to such mental or manual steps does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application simply because it is performed in the context of inspection devices.
The claim does not recite the specific hardware (drones, antennas, signal reception) on which applicant relies upon. In addition, even if such hardware were recited, the use of conventional GPS-equipped UAV’s performing their conventional function does not integrate the abstract data management steps into a practical application.
Reciting that geographical coordinates are used to identify a target’s position does not constitute a specific technical improvement to detection or spotting technology. The coordinates are data values and their use in the claimed method does not reflect an improvement to any underlying technology.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
3/17/2026