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
Claims 7-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/17/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention group I (claims 1-6) is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are addressed below.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 11/24/2023 and 6/20/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0166152 and KR10-2024-0080395 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55. In the case of a design application, the certified copy must be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g) together with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g)(1), that includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application. If the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323.
An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign applications KR10-2023-0166152 and KR10-2024-0080395 has failed on 4/24/2025.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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: “a control unit that receives the image from the camera module, recognizes at least one of a wildfire shape, smoke shape, and object included in the image, detects, identifies, or tracks a pre-learned target, controls a moving direction of the wildfire extinguishing device to correspond to the target, and determines a terminal altitude based on altitude detection data obtained from the distance measurement sensor” in claim 1 line 7-14, which uses a generic placeholder “unit” that is coupled with functional language “control”, “receive the image.., recognizes…,detects, identifies, or tracks a pre-learned target, controls a moving direction…, determines a terminal altitude…” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Paragraph 41 indicates “The control unit 140 may be configured as a single-board or multi-board processor”.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “recognizes at least one of a wildfire shape, smoke shape, and object included in the image”. Claim language reciting “at least one of A or B” is understood to requires A or B (one of the two components listed) while claim language reciting “at least one of A and B” is understood to requires A and B (one of each component). It is unclear if this claim limitation requires the control unit to recognize at least one of each listed components (one wildfire shape and smoke shape and object) OR one of the listed components (one wildfire shape or smoke shape or object). The claim is addressed as best understood by the examiner to encompass the former and narrower interpretation until further clarification.
The remainder of the claims listed in the rejection title is/are rejected for being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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 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 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 20090205845) in view of Fendell (US 9977963).
(Note 1: cross-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of explicit teaching in the primary reference; the limitation is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman discloses an air-to-ground guided wildfire extinguishing device (fig. 1) comprising:
a camera module (sensors and/or 34; par. 34, 39) that captures an image including a fire scene (par. 34: “The UAV may also include sensors for determining conditions relating to the fire, such as heat sensors, infrared sensors and the like… optical equipment and cameras” emphasis included);
a distance measurement sensor that measures a distance from a ground (par. 34: “pilot-static systems for speed and altitude determination” emphasis included);
a control unit (data processor/computer processor 108; par. 35) that receives the image from the camera module (par. 35: “Infrared imaging information and maps may also be acquired, either directly from the UAV…”), pattern recognition from video pictures, laser detectors, optical equipment and cameras”, there is no explicit mention of specific wildfire shape, smoke shape and object recognition), detects, identifies, or tracks a pre-learned target (par. 34: “The sensors may participate in navigating and controlling the UAV to track to a fire area, or a preloaded mission plan might be used exclusively”, emphasis included), controls a moving direction of the wildfire extinguishing device to correspond to the target (par. 35: “mission plan data will define the flight trajectory”), and determines a terminal altitude based on altitude detection data obtained from the distance measurement sensor (par. 34: “pilot-static systems for speed and altitude determination”, emphasis included); and
a fire extinguishing material tank (par. 32: “the UAV includes a large fluid storage compartment to contain water or other forms of fire extinguishing or fire retardant material… or may comprise multiple storage compartments”, emphasis included) that is configured to spray a fire extinguishing material on the fire scene based on a signal received from the control unit (par. 28 and par. 42).
Fendell discloses a system to improve tracking and growth prediction of wildfires having a UAV 102 (fig. 4) to take infrared images of the area 112 via a camera 106 wherein the captured visual images are used for determining shape of the wildfire and its smoke plume and vegetation (object) to input into a computer based fire growth models (col. 8, ln 59-col. 9, ln 4). The data is relayed to the fire management authorities to monitor and manage wildfires effectively (col. 1, ln 39-41; col. 2, ln 20-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Fendell to provide the control unit recognizes at least one of a wildfire shape, smoke shape, and object included in the image. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating monitoring and management of wildfires effectively (See col. 1, ln 39-41; col. 2, ln 20-25).
Regarding claim 2, Hoffman, as modified above, discloses the air-to-ground guided wildfire extinguishing device of claim 1, further comprising:
a communication unit (par. 37: “two-way radio, internet protocol communications, other wireless exchanges”; par. 34: “embedded radio transmitters/trackers”) that performs multiplex communication with at least one other wildfire extinguishing device (par. 33-34: “transport aircraft 12, or ground-based system such as the illustrated fire truck 22”) through radio frequency (RF) communication to share relative positions and targets (par. 37: “The computerized system preferably can receive communicated command, control and intelligence information regarding the situation and management of a fire event and adjust the parameters of the UAV flight appropriately in light of such command and control information. For example, the UAV flight control system may either use the information, or be controlled, to adjust its actions to maintain a precise flight path in the presence of wind disturbances, fire flare-ups, or other factors. Thus, all necessary data is imported into the data processor and eventually used to control the UAV”; see also par. 35-36).
Claims 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 20090205845) in view of Fendell (US 9977963), further in view of Lee (US20230209215).
Regarding claims 3-4, Hoffman, as modified above, discloses the air-to-ground guided wildfire extinguishing device of claim 1. Hoffman further discloses in paragraph 34: “The sensors or other processors to locate a target may include, but are not limited to infrared detectors, light contrast detectors or pattern recognition from video pictures, laser detectors, optical equipment and cameras, embedded radio transmitters/trackers, and the like. The sensors may participate in navigating and controlling the UAV to track to a fire area, or a preloaded mission plan might be used exclusively” (emphasis included to convey the intention of target detection and/or tracking from image processing and intuitive guidance control; see also par. 35: “It is anticipated that the data processor will receive at least three categories of data input to process…command information received from authorities directing the campaign against the fire, in the form of commands from authorities managing operations 112 is input into the data processor 108.”) but is silent regarding the control unit detects a target using a deep learning filter (claim 3), wherein the deep learning filter is a Nona filter (claim 4).
However, Lee discloses a relevant device and method associated with image processing, wherein the device with a processor 120 (par. 23) recognizes an object from camera capture and determines a region of interest (ROI; par. 69-70) by the processor (AP 120) perform machine learning, such as deep learning (par. 27) and utilization of various filter, including a color filter array (CFA, par. 24) that is said to include a “nona pattern” (par. 25) for improved image quality (par. 39: “the image quality improvement block 226 increases the image quality of the target region by using machine learning or deep learning.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Lee to provide the control unit detecting a target through intuitive guidance control using a deep learning filter (claim 3), wherein the deep learning filter is a Nona filter. Doing so would reduce image processing time while improving image quality of the target region (par. 46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of the prior arts teaches various features of the claimed invention, as presented above, but fail to teach or suggest, in combination with other limitations of claim 3-5: “wherein the deep learning filter calculates a total value by multiplying an object value in a detected image, a confidence index value of an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and an image pixel square, and guides toward the target of an area where a largest total value is calculated”.
Claim 6, depending from claim 5, is therefore also allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
