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 .
Allowable subject matter
Dependent claim 26 is objected to as being depended on a rejected base claim but would be allowable if written in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to the applicant’s arguments
The independent claims are amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but GORNIK teaches “…the flight plan associating each inspection location of the one
or more inspection locations with a respective inspection altitude calculated before the UAV
descends to the inspection location based on a target ground sampling distance (GSD) for image
data to be obtained at the inspection location and configuration information of a camera of the (see FIG. 4a where the drone can be provided to take photos of the crops in the submillimeter distance for the imaging see paragraph 96-102)
UAV, the configuration information comprising at least a focal length and a sensor resolution of (see paragraph 110-111 and 118-119)
the camera; obtaining, using one or more sensors including the camera of the UAV, sensor information
image data describing the structure at the inspection location from the respective inspection
altitude, wherein the image data satisfies the target GSD” (see paragraph 98-114)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of GORNIK with the disclosure of Collins since GORKNIK teaches that a UAV can be a quadcopter that has a flight plan around the crops. The ground sampling distance and the focal length can be sufficient so the camera takes images of the crops in a sub-millimeter area of size. This can provide photos that are on the order of a portion of a leaf so the drone can provide decisions for the inspection to fumigate the crops and detect fungus. See paragraph 90-119 of GRONIK,
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 and 14-15 and 18 and 21-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Pub. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20090265193 A1 to Collins (hereinafter “Collins”) and in view of United States Patent No.: US8874283 B1 to Cavote (hereinafter “Cavote”) that was filed on 12-4-12, which is prior to the effective filing date of 12-31-15 and in further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No.: US 2014/0316614 A1 to Newman that was filed on 12-17-12 (hereinafter "Newman") and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190253673A1 to Gornik.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1 and 8 and 14, Collins discloses “1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), a flight plan comprising one or more inspection locations for a structure; (see paragraphs 55-58 and the abstract) (see paragraphs 93; 63-64)
PNG
media_image2.png
546
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cavote teaches “...navigating the UAV to ascend to a clearance altitude above the structure; (see Col. 5, lines 9 to 50 and Col. 1, line 30)
Collins discloses “...conducting an inspection of the structure according to the flight plan by, for each inspection location of the one or more inspection locations:” (see paragraph 47, 55) (see paragraph 47) (see paragraphs 54 to 57) (see paragraphs 93, and 63-64 and claim 15 where the entire roof may be reviewed for fraud by the flying robot)
PNG
media_image3.png
694
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Newman teaches “…navigating the UAV to a position above the inspection location, and at the position, navigating the UAV to descend to an inspection altitude above and specific to the inspection location; ; (see paragraph 62) (see blocks 322 where the altitude computer is connected to an accelerometer in paragraph 79 and may provide an output to the guidance unit 318; see altitude sensor in paragraph 62)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Collins with the disclosure of Newman in that Newman teaches that the UAV may be controlled to move above the roof and around the property and capture rich images in 1080p to provide a detailed quote of all of the issues of the home including the gardening in a low cost and productive manner that can be accomplished for a much cheaper and faster manner than a human. See paragraphs 60 to 62 of Newman.
Cavote teaches “...obtaining, using one or more sensors of the UAV, sensor information describing the structure at the inspection location from the inspection altitude; and(see Col. 5, lines 9 to 50 and Col. 1, line 30)”.
navigating the UAV to ascend to an altitude higher than the inspection altitude; and (see Col. 5, lines 9 to 50 and Col. 1, line 30)
navigating the UAV to a landing location. . (See FIG. 16, blocks 118-120).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Cavote with the disclosure of Collins since Cavote teaches that a UAV with a sensor to capture video data may be provided of a structure at multiple elevations to discern damage in a safe and reliable manner. The UAV may land at a number of locations to capture video data. See Col. 1, lines 60 to 67 and Col. 2, lines 25 to 47.
Section 2144.04(IV)(C) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure describes legal precedents relating to “Changes in [the] Sequence of Adding Ingredients” and cites to In re Burhans for the proposition that “the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.” In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Ascending, leveling off, or descending to an inspection location is a mere change in a sequence and has little patentable weight.
The independent claims are amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but GORNIK teaches “…the flight plan associating each inspection location of the one
or more inspection locations with a respective inspection altitude calculated before the UAV
descends to the inspection location based on a target ground sampling distance (GSD) for image
data to be obtained at the inspection location and configuration information of a camera of the (see FIG. 4a where the drone can be provided to take photos of the crops in the submillimeter distance for the imaging see paragraph 96-102)
UAV, the configuration information comprising at least a focal length and a sensor resolution of (see paragraph 110-111 and 118-119)
the camera; obtaining, using one or more sensors including the camera of the UAV, sensor information
image data describing the structure at the inspection location from the respective inspection
altitude, wherein the image data satisfies the target GSD” (see paragraph 98-114)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of GORNIK with the disclosure of Collins since GORKNIK teaches that a UAV can be a quadcopter that has a flight plan around the crops. The ground sampling distance and the focal length can be sufficient so the camera takes images of the crops in a sub-millimeter area of size. This can provide photos that are on the order of a portion of a leaf so the drone can provide decisions for the inspection to fumigate the crops and detect fungus. See paragraph 90-119 of GRONIK,
In regard to claim 2 and 9 and 15, Cavote teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more inspection locations
include a first inspection location and a second inspection location, first image data obtained from
a first inspection altitude associated with the first inspection location and second image data
obtained from a second inspection altitude associated with the second inspection location include
different levels of detail based on the first inspection altitude and the second inspection altitude (See Col. 5, lines 33-50 and Col. 8, lines 11-30 where the stabilization function corrects the position of the UAV to keep the device stable in the horizontal and vertical position). (see Col. 2, line 65 to Col. 3, line 40); (See FIG. 16, blocks 118-120). (see Col. 5, lines 9 to 50 and Col. 1, line 30.
Claims 3-4 and 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Pub. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20090265193 A1 to Collins (hereinafter “Collins”) and in view of United States Patent No.: US8874283 B1 to Cavote (hereinafter “Cavote”) that was filed on 12-4-12, which is prior to the effective filing date of 12-31-15 and in further in view of United States Pub. Patent Application No.: US 20120271461 A1 to Spata and Gornik.
In regard to claim 3 and 16, Spata teaches “..3. The method of claim 1, wherein navigating the UAV to the position above the inspection location, and at the position, navigating the UAV to descend to the inspection altitude above the inspection location comprises:
causing the UAV to vertically descend over the inspection location to maintain the inspection location as a focus of the one or more cameras of the UAV. (See paragraphs 21-22 and 39 to 43).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Spata with the disclosure of Collins since Spata teaches that a UAV with an ultrasonic sensor or proximity sensor to capture video data may be provided. The UAV may also be able to detect new objects after an initial pass of the structure using the ultrasonic sensor for collision avoidance or object detection for inspection purposes. See paragraphs 39 to 43.
In regard to claim 4 and 12, Collins is silent as to but Spata teaches “4. The method of claim 1, wherein the altitude higher than the respective inspection altitude is the clearance altitude, and wherein the clearance altitude represents a safe distance limited by a geofence boundary associated with the structure” . . (See paragraphs 21-22 and 39 to 43).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Spata with the disclosure of Collins since Spata teaches that a UAV with an ultrasonic sensor or proximity sensor to capture video data may be provided. The UAV may also be able to detect new objects after an initial pass of the structure using the ultrasonic sensor for collision avoidance or object detection for inspection purposes. See paragraphs 39 to 43.
Claims 5-6 and 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Pub. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20090265193 A1 to Collins (hereinafter “Collins”) and in view of United States Patent No.: US8874283 B1 to Cavote (hereinafter “Cavote”) that was filed on 12-4-12, which is prior to the effective filing date of 12-31-15 and in further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No.: US 2014/0316614 A1 to Newman that was filed on 12-17-12 (hereinafter "Newman") and in further view of United States Patent Application No.: US20220148445A1 to Bauer that was filed in ’14 and in view of GORNIK.
PNG
media_image4.png
390
484
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5 and 13 and 19, Bauer teaches “...5. wherein the flight plan is determined based
on output of an initial scan of the structure performed using the UAV (See paragraph 31 where the uav can determine an initial scan and record the cracks and then do an in depth scan and claims 1-7)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of BAUER with the disclosure of Collins since BAUER teaches that a UAV can do a preliminary scan of cracks. Then it can do a more detailed second scan based on the preliminary scan. This can provide a feature rich inspection purpose that can save time rather than doing a feature rich intensive scan of the whole structure. See paragraphs 30-31.
Bauer teaches “...6. The method of claim 1, wherein control of the UAV by a user device in communication with the UAV is limited during the inspection. (see paragraph 52 where the user can control the uav for the survey or alternatively select a complete autonomous survey for the waypoint inspection and photos of the problematic areas of the roof)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of BAUER with the disclosure of Collins since BAUER teaches that a UAV can do a preliminary scan of cracks. Then it can do a more detailed second scan based on the preliminary scan. This can provide a feature rich inspection purpose that can save time rather than doing a feature rich intensive scan of the whole structure. See paragraphs 30-31.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Pub. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20090265193 A1 to Collins (hereinafter “Collins”) and in view of United States Patent No.: US8874283 B1 to Cavote (hereinafter “Cavote”) that was filed on 12-4-12, which is prior to the effective filing date of 12-31-15 and in further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No.: US 2014/0316614 A1 to Newman that was filed on 12-17-12 (hereinafter "Newman") and in view of Gornik,
In regard to claim 7 and 20, Collins discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the structure includes a rooftop and
at least one inspection location of the one or more inspection locations corresponds to a damaged
area or a potentially damaged area of the rooftop of the structure. (see paragraphs 93, and 63-64 and claim 15 where the entire roof may be reviewed for fraud by the flying robot)”.
See motivation statement above.
Claims 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Pub. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20090265193 A1 to Collins (hereinafter “Collins”) and in view of United States Patent No.: US8874283 B1 to Cavote (hereinafter “Cavote”) that was filed on 12-4-12, which is prior to the effective filing date of 12-31-15 and in further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No.: US 2014/0316614 A1 to Newman that was filed on 12-17-12 (hereinafter "Newman") and in view of NPL, Bevacqua, “Mixed-Initiative Planning and Execution for Multiple Drones in Search and Rescue Missions”, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, DIETI, Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II via Claudio 21, 80125, Napoli, Italy, ICAPS. 2015 (http://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/2f37/c1b58ed2819ad88e8bb774bc9916c3172106.pdf) (hereinafter “Bevacqua”)
Bevacqua teaches 10. The system of claim 8, wherein the flight plan is a second flight plan, wherein the device is a user device, and wherein the system further comprises: a cloud system configured to determine a first flight plan for the UAV to scan the structure, wherein the user device is configured to determine the second flight plan based on output of the scan”. (see page 320 where areas 1-9 are to be searched and the drones do the high priority area 1, 9 and then do the lower priority areas later on see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment by 1. Defining a search area 2. Define the subareas for assignment of the search area, 3. Assign the search patterns, 4. Define a sequence of searching and 5. Execute the pattern and providing a cost function for searching an enlarging the search) (see FIG. 7 page 315 where the drones are controlled for searching by an operator where the operator may provide re-planning activities for the drones, see second column at page 315) (see FIG. 6 where the search for a hiker by drones provides 1. Searching area 1 first which is high priority and then searching areas 2-5 with a second drone since that is a lower priority page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). see page 319 and table 1 where the two or more drones may include a changeable exploration method and a changeable path)”. (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of COLLINS with the teachings of Bevacqua since Bevacqua teaches that a human user may move the trajectory of the drone during a search to areas 1 and 9 in FIG. 6 (as they may see a clue in these areas ) as they may see a hiker clue but then a second UAV or re-planning drone search operation can be provided 2-8 and the search for the missing area can take place. See page 315-319, second column of Bevacqua
Bevacqua teaches “...11. The system of claim 8, wherein the device is a device of a cloud system”. (see page 320 where areas 1-9 are to be searched and the drones do the high priority area 1, 9 and then do the lower priority areas later on see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment by 1. Defining a search area 2. Define the subareas for assignment of the search area, 3. Assign the search patterns, 4. Define a sequence of searching and 5. Execute the pattern and providing a cost function for searching an enlarging the search) (see FIG. 7 page 315 where the drones are controlled for searching by an operator where the operator may provide re-planning activities for the drones, see second column at page 315) (see FIG. 6 where the search for a hiker by drones provides 1. Searching area 1 first which is high priority and then searching areas 2-5 with a second drone since that is a lower priority page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). see page 319 and table 1 where the two or more drones may include a changeable exploration method and a changeable path)”. (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of COLLINS with the teachings of Bevacqua since Bevacqua teaches that a human user may move the trajectory of the drone during a search to areas 1 and 9 in FIG. 6 (as they may see a clue in these areas ) as they may see a hiker clue but then a second UAV or re-planning drone search operation can be provided 2-8 and the search for the missing area can take place. See page 315-319, second column of Bevacqua
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of COLLINS with the teachings of Bevacqua since Bevacqua teaches that a human user may move the trajectory of the drone during a search to areas 1 and 9 in FIG. 6 (as they may see a clue in these areas ) as they may see a hiker clue but then a second UAV or re-planning drone search operation can be provided 2-8 and the search for the missing area can take place. See page 315-319, second column of Bevacqua
Bevacqua teaches The non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 14, wherein
the altitude higher than the second inspection altitude is the clearance altitude, and wherein the
clearance altitude represents a safe distance limited by a geofence boundary associated with the
structure. (see FIG. 6 and 7 where the drone can ascend and then in Fig. 8 focus on a region and page 320 where areas 1-9 are to be searched and the drones do the high priority area 1, 9 and then do the lower priority areas later on see page 316 and FIG. 1 where the drones may search the environment by 1. Defining a search area 2. Define the subareas for assignment of the search area, 3. Assign the search patterns, 4. Define a sequence of searching and 5. Execute the pattern and providing a cost function for searching an enlarging the search) ”. (see FIG. 6 where the search for a hiker by drones provides 1. Searching area 1 first which is high priority and then searching areas 2-5 with a second drone since that is a lower priority page 316 where the drones may perform different sector, parallel, creeping or expanding searches) (See pages 315-318 and FIG. 1 and 4 where the first drone is provided a search path to area a and then c and then a second drone is provided a second search path for the first area a then b). see page 319 and table 1 where the two or more drones may include a changeable exploration method and a changeable path)”. (See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316). See FIG. 1, where the two drones may explore in the similar four different areas in different zig zag patterns at page 316 and use the search strategies as shown in the first column of page 316).
PNG
media_image5.png
313
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of COLLINS with the teachings of Bevacqua since Bevacqua teaches that a human user may move the trajectory of the drone during a search to areas 1 and 9 in FIG. 6 (as they may see a clue in these areas ) as they may see a hiker clue but then a second UAV or re-planning drone search operation can be provided 2-8 and the search for the missing area can take place. See page 315-319, second column of Bevacqua
Cavote teaches “...18. The non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise:
navigating the UAV to a landing location responsive to the inspection of the structure”. (See FIG. 16, blocks 118-120).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Cavote with the disclosure of Collins since Cavote teaches that a UAV with a sensor to capture video data may be provided of a structure at multiple elevations to discern damage in a safe and reliable manner. The UAV may land at a number of locations to capture video data. See Col. 1, lines 60 to 67 and Col. 2, lines 25 to 47.
GORKNIK teaches “….21. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration information of the camera further
comprises one or more of sensor size, lens aperture, field of view, zoom level, or image resolution”. (See paragraph 96).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of GORNIK with the disclosure of Collins since GORKNIK teaches that a UAV can be a quadcopter that has a flight plan around the crops. The ground sampling distance and the focal length can be sufficient so the camera takes images of the crops in a sub-millimeter area of size. This can provide photos that are on the order of a portion of a leaf so the drone can provide decisions for the inspection to fumigate the crops and detect fungus. See paragraph 90-119 of GRONIK,
GORNIK teaches “….22. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the respective inspection altitude is calculated according to a relationship between the target GSD, the focal length of the camera, the sensor resolution of the camera, and a sensor size of the camera”. (see paragraph 110 and 202)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of GORNIK with the disclosure of Collins since GORKNIK teaches that a UAV can be a quadcopter that has a flight plan around the crops. The ground sampling distance and the focal length can be sufficient so the camera takes images of the crops in a sub-millimeter area of size. This can provide photos that are on the order of a portion of a leaf so the drone can provide decisions for the inspection to fumigate the crops and detect fungus. See paragraph 90-119 of GRONIK,
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Pub. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20090265193 A1 to Collins (hereinafter “Collins”) and in view of United States Patent No.: US8874283 B1 to Cavote (hereinafter “Cavote”) that was filed on 12-4-12, which is prior to the effective filing date of 12-31-15 and in further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No.: US 2014/0316614 A1 to Newman that was filed on 12-17-12 (hereinafter "Newman") and in further view of United States Patent Application No.: US20220148445A1 to Bauer that was filed in ’14 and in view of GORNIK.
GORNIK teaches “…23. (New) The method of claim 5, wherein the initial scan is performed using a first camera
having a wide-angle lens, and wherein obtaining the image data describing the structure at the
inspection location is performed using a second camera having a longer focal length than the first
camera”. (see paragraph 110-122 and 149 where a second lens can be a wide angle lens with a second foal length)
GORNIK teaches “….24. (New) The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more inspection locations are
automatically identified by applying a visual classifier to sensor information obtained during the
initial scan. (see paragraph 20-27)
GORNIK teaches “….25. (New) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that an image captured during the inspection fails to satisfy an image quality
threshold; and
causing the U AV to retake the image at a waypoint associated with the inspection location. (See paragraph 110-113 where a high resolution or a lower and faster resolution can be made with a lower quality only to return to a sub-millimeter photograph)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under obviousness double patenting in view of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: 12,039,875 that recites a method, comprising: storing, based on an initial unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flight about a structure, a flight plan including multiple inspection locations for the structure and, for each inspection location of the multiple inspection locations, a height above the inspection location at which to inspect the structure, wherein the height is different for each of the multiple inspection locations, wherein the initial UAV flight corresponds to an initial scan of the structure performed using the UAV and the flight plan is determined in response to the initial scan; receiving, by a UAV, the flight plan for an inspection of the structure; navigating the UAV to ascend to a clearance altitude above the structure, wherein the clearance altitude represents a safe distance limited by a geofence boundary associated with the structure; conducting the inspection of the structure according to the flight plan by, for each inspection location of the multiple inspection locations: navigating the UAV to a position above the inspection location, and at the position, navigating the UAV to descend to an inspection altitude based on the height for the inspection location; obtaining, using one or more sensors of the UAV, sensor information describing the structure at the inspection location from the inspection altitude; and navigating the UAV to ascend to the clearance as altitude higher than the inspection altitude; and navigating the UAV to a landing location
The claims are obvious variants of each other and provides a combination of the same steps.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights