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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 04/22/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 7, 9-10, 15-16, 18 and 20 have been amended, claim 2 has been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-12, filed 04/22/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the interview, the amendment does integrate some, but not all, of the allowable language from the parent case. The switching included changing which portion of the rig was being controlled, not simply the view of control. This may be framed as when the cabin view is selected the cabin is being controlled and when the cab view is selected the truck is being controlled. Prior art does have the motion of a vehicle being remotely controlled from different camera perspectives of the vehicle as claimed. The consideration of the amended claims in view of the parent claims show significant overlap that renders the instant claims patentably indistinct.
With respect to the claim objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the title objection, the amendment to the specification has rendered the objection moot. Therefore, the objection to the title is withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Further consideration of the prior art of record determined that, as currently presented, the previously applied prior art does appear to disclose the control of a rig from a perspective of the cabin and a perspective of the cab, as amended in claim 1. Due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed. New application of prior art addresses the amended language, as mapped below. Therefore, the amended claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and have been updated in the final office action below.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. The terms “deicing/anti-icing rig” and “rig” seem to be used interchangeably and the antecedence does not follow a consistent line of dependency.
Claims 4, 8, 13-14, and 18 recite the limitation "the multiple views" which previously relied on claims 1, 10, and 16, that introduction no longer exists in the amended claims. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 ends with “the.” The incomplete sentence makes it unclear what the claim is meant to further limit.
Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 10, and 16 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10, 12-13, and 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 9-11, 15, 19-20 of parent patent Walsh (US 12,084,204 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because all elements and steps presented in the claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10, 12-13, and 16-19 of the instant application are included in claims 1-5, 9-11, 15, 19-20 of the patented document.
Although the control of the parent application is not claimed, the cab and control cabin views presented on one or more displays at the remote operator deicing/anti-icing station is claimed within the control of the parent application, as is the switching of views and control elements claimed in the dependent claims of the instant application. The rejection was not previously given due to the lack of transmission of control commands and the focus into displaying the multiple views, which was interpreted as simultaneous viewing not disclosed by the patented document. Reintroduction of the multiple views and selection of each view that changes the elements being controlled would likely overcome the double patenting rejection.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued patents noted above additionally recite limitations not included in the instant application thus rendering the scope of the independent claims of this application broader than the corresponding issued patents. In other words, the entire scope of the references claims falls within the scope of the examined claims (see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). To put it differently, the species or sub-genus in U.S. Patent No. US 12,084,204 B2 anticipates the claimed genus in the instant application and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US 2023/0219698 A1), hereinafter Campbell, in view of Otani et al. (US 2021/0381197 A1), hereinafter Otani.
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 16, Campbell discloses a remote operator deicing/anti-icing station located in a remote location from a deicing/anti-icing rig, comprising: (see at least [0114] “the system allows individuals to view de-icing facilities from a remote or off-site location. In conjunction with the system of the disclosure, the DDF can be viewed and controlled from the remote or off-site location.”)
a remote operator user interface, located outside of a deicing/anti-icing rig, (see at least [0118] “an overlay of aircraft incursion zones on the operator display; safety systems that notify operators, such as those controlling a de-icing vehicle remotely”)
the rig including a truck and a deicing/anti-icing control cabin(see at least Fig. 20 (truck with cabin), [0098] “information from de-icing truck operations such as spray times for de-icing fluid and anti-icing fluid.”)
a computing device having a memory; and a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory (see at least [0083] “the method may be executed via instructions stored on a computer-readable medium such as by a processor or the CPU 102.”)
to: present views from one or more cameras mounted in or on the rig to one or more displays located at the remote operator deicing/anti-icing, (see at least [0115] “As schematically shown in FIG. 12 , information or data from the cameras may be stitched together to create a panoramic view… providing an operator or user of the system with a multi-perspective view [of] their operation on a bay-by-bay basis.”)
Campbell discloses a monitoring system for deicing an aircraft using multiple images displayed to an operator in a remote location for control, but does not explicitly disclose the images being from the perspective of an operator of the rig and the components to remotely control it from the presented views include the cabin of the rig and cab of the truck.
However, Otani teaches presenting different views, including a view allowing control of the rig from a perspective of an operator in. (see at least Fig. 10, [[0077-0078] “Specifically, the image generating section 53 is configured to cause the monitor 21 to display at least one of the work image V1… can separately put these different images V3 to V5 on display or non-display as necessary… also separately switch respective display positions of the different images V3 to V5 on the monitor 21 (i.e., can swap the display positions with each other).” [0095] “Therefore, the operator is able to carry out the fine operation while taking into account not only the work image V1… but also the different images V3 to V5 acquired by the different viewpoint cameras 12 to 15.”)
As both pertain to remotely controlling vehicles designed with a precision implement attached with a boom, 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 remote deicing operation of Campbell to include the first person remote control perspective from different viewpoints disclosed in Otani, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of work involving the fine operation without having to be present to visually check the position of the implement. This would be applied to a cabin view as opposed to a bucket view by remotely controlling the nozzle position using a remote video camera disposed in the position of the deicing cabin view, as supported by Numbers et al. (US 6,250,588 B1) [Fig. 3c, ¶ bridging col. 6-7].
With respect to claim 4, Campbell discloses a monitoring system for deicing an aircraft using multiple images displayed to an operator in a remote location for control, but does not explicitly disclose presented views are all available on one display.
However, Otani teaches the multiple views are presented on one display. (see at least [0035] “The monitor 21 can simultaneously display, in a plurality of divided screen areas, a plurality of images acquired by the plurality of cameras 11 to 15.”)
As both pertain to remotely controlling vehicles designed with a precision implement attached with a boom, 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 remote deicing operation of Campbell to include the first person remote control perspective disclosed in Otani, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of work involving the fine operation without having to be present to visually check the position of the implement, see Otani [0002-0003].
With respect to claim 5, Campbell discloses at least one of the displays presents operational information about the rig while another display presents the views from the one or more cameras (see at least Fig. 9C, [0106] “Multiple operations can be run from one central point location. FIG. 9 c provides a photograph of a de-icing coordinator viewing a display showing a pad-de-icing operation with FIG. 9 d being a schematic screen shot the de-icing coordinator may be looking at.”)
Campbell discloses a monitoring system for deicing an aircraft using multiple images displayed to an operator in a remote location for control, but does not explicitly disclose view of the de-icing operation being from the camera on the rig.
However, Otani teaches the views from the one or more cameras mounted in or on the rig. (see at least Fig. 10, [0077] “Specifically, the image generating section 53 is configured to cause the monitor 21 to display at least one of the work image V1… and at least one of a plurality of the different images acquired by the different viewpoint cameras 12 to 15.”)
As both pertain to remotely controlling vehicles designed with a precision implement attached with a boom, 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 remote deicing operation of Campbell to include the first person remote control perspective disclosed in Otani, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of work involving the fine operation without having to be present to visually check the position of the implement, see Otani [0002-0003].
With respect to claim 6, Campbell discloses content included on at least one display is a duplicate of or contains components of a corresponding display located in the control cabin. (see at least [0118] “The system may also include… a view of de-icing vehicle informatics such as alarms and fluid levels… that notify operators, such as those controlling a de-icing vehicle remotely” [0103] “This may be via an input to the de-icing operator module from the de-icing vehicle or the de-icing operator which is then transmitted to the coordinator module”)
With respect to claims 7 and 12, Campbell discloses the processor further includes executable instructions to receive inputs from the number of remote rig control components and communicate the inputs to the rig via a communication device. (see at least [0106] “The de-icing coordinator, via the co-ordinator module may remotely manage and command and control all de-icing/anti-icing operations”)
With respect to claim 9, Campbell discloses a monitoring system for deicing an aircraft using multiple images displayed to an operator in a remote location for control, but does not explicitly disclose the using controls with an identical layout to standard controls of the machine.
However, Otani teaches the station includes a number of remote rig control components for actuation by a remote operator, and a layout of the remote rig control components is identical to a layout of the deicing/anti-icing control cabin of the rig. (see at least Fig. 2, [0039-0042] “pair of remote operation levers 32 and 32 turns forward, backward, left, or right, when an operation is applied to the lever… pair of travelling pedals 33 and 33…”)
As both pertain to remotely controlling vehicles designed to with a precision implement attached with a boom, 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 remote deicing operation of Campbell to include the control layout consistent with a standard control setup disclosed in Otani, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a normal posture that the operator takes when carrying out normal work to allow the remote work to by an operator already trained in the fine operations of the vehicle, see Otani [0002-0003].
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Campbell discloses a monitoring system for deicing an aircraft using multiple images displayed to an operator in a remote location for control, but does not explicitly disclose view of the de-icing operation being from the camera on the rig.
However, Otani teaches the remote rig control components include physical and virtual controls such that the remote operator may actuate any of the remote rig control components to initiate a corresponding action at the rig. (see at least [0053] “The communication device 61 is configured to receive signals output from the plurality of cameras 11 to 15, the attachment posture detection device 43, and the like and transmit the signals to the communication device 62 (transmission and reception device) disposed in the remote place.”)
As both pertain to remotely controlling vehicles designed to with a precision implement attached with a boom, 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 remote deicing operation of Campbell to include the first person remote control perspective disclosed in Otani, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of work involving the fine operation without having to be present to visually check the position of the implement, see Otani [0002-0003].
With respect to claims 14 and 20, Campbell discloses a monitoring system for deicing an aircraft using multiple images displayed to an operator in a remote location for control, but does not explicitly disclose view of the de-icing operation being from the camera on the rig.
However, Otani teaches the multiple views are presented on one display such that a screen of the display is split to present the multiple views simultaneously. (see at least Fig. 10, [0077] “Specifically, the image generating section 53 is configured to cause the monitor 21 to display at least one of the work image V1… and at least one of a plurality of the different images acquired by the different viewpoint cameras 12 to 15.”)
As both pertain to remotely controlling vehicles designed to with a precision implement attached with a boom, 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 remote deicing operation of Campbell to include the first person remote control perspective disclosed in Otani, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of work involving the fine operation without having to be present to visually check the position of the implement, see Otani [0002-0003].
With respect to claim 17, Campbell discloses the method includes displaying sensor data received from one or more sensors on the deicing/anti-icing rig. (see at least [0128] “Using sensors installed in the de-icing vehicles, this module tracks the surfaces being treated, the fluid amounts and types being applied and the time duration.” [0118] “a view of de-icing vehicle informatics such as alarms and fluid levels”)
Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Otani, as applied to claims 1, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 205320209 U), hereinafter Zhang.
With respect to claim 3, Campbell discloses a monitoring system for deicing an aircraft using multiple images displayed to an operator in a remote location for control, but does not explicitly disclose a presented views include sides and rear of the cabin.
However, Zhang teaches the presented views include a view directly in front of the cabin, a view to right side of the cabin, a view to a left side of the cabin, or a view behind the cabin such that the presented views are displayed simultaneously. (see at least [0016] “The system employs front, rear, left, and right cameras positioned on the front, rear, left, and right side panels. This allows the display screen to show not only a panoramic view but also a single view from any direction simultaneously.”)
As both pertain to remotely controlling traditionally dual operation aerial lift vehicles, 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 panoramic stitched image output of Campbell to include the multidirectional image data disclosed in Zhang, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the operator the ability to clearly monitor the scene in real time from all angles and accurately read the position and distance of obstacles, see Zhang [0016].
With respect to claims 8, 13, and 18, Campbell discloses a monitoring system for deicing an aircraft using multiple images displayed to an operator in a remote location for control, but does not explicitly disclose the operator being able to select a single view of the provided views.
However, Zhang teaches the remote operator user interface allows a user to switch between the multiple presented views on the one or more displays. (see at least [0016] “This allows the display screen to show not only a panoramic view but also a single view from any direction simultaneously.”)
As both pertain to remotely controlling traditionally dual operation aerial lift vehicles, 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 panoramic stitched image output of Campbell to include the multidirectional image data disclosed in Zhang, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the operator the ability to clearly monitor the scene in real time from all angles and accurately read the position and distance of obstacles, see Zhang [0016].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights