DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment filed 9/11/2024 has been entered and made of record. The application has pending claim(s) 1-13.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0001]: The cross reference to related applications section should be included to also inform of any related applications, in this case that this application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/047529 12/23/2022.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 4; and claim 11 at line 5; and claim 12 at line 2; and claim 13 at line 4 respectively: “a UAV;” should be -- an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 velocity vector acquisition unit configured to acquire …; a downwash velocity acquisition unit configured to acquire …; and an extraction unit configured to extract …” as recited in claim 11; “an optical flow estimation processing unit configured to calculate …; and the gas monitoring device … configured to extract …” as recited in claim 12.
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 1-13 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.
Re Claim 1 at line 5: The claim limitation “a downwash velocity u of the UAV” renders the claim indefinite because the wording “a downwash velocity u of the UAV” is misleading and unclear in the sense that it does not relate to the velocity of the air in the downward direction in the vicinity of the UAV as it is understood in the art. Paragraph [0019] of the originally filed specification clarifies this point. Therefore the Examiner proposes to amend the preamble with this clarifying point by suggesting “A gas monitoring method comprising:” to be -- A gas monitoring method for monitoring gas using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) equipped with a plurality of propellers that flies above a ground surface, wherein the plurality of propellers generate a downwash flow flowing downward from the UAV which collides with the ground surface and turns in a horizontal direction, the method comprising: --.
Similar discussions are also addressed with regard to claims 11 and 13 respectively.
Claims 2-10 are dependent upon claim 1 respectively.
Claim 12 is dependent upon claim 11 respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. The claim is a “program causing a computer to execute:” wherein the claim is explicitly directed to a computer program per se with no embodying non-transitory computer readable medium. Since a computer program does not fall within the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner suggests “A gas monitoring program causing a computer to execute:” in line 1 of claim 13 to be -- A non-transitory storage device storing a gas monitoring program causing a computer to execute: --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-2 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 1 and similarly the device of independent claim 11 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim passes Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to “extracting a gas velocity vector having a magnitude within a range determined based on the downwash velocity u from the plurality of velocity vectors”.
The above limitations of “extracting a gas velocity vector having a magnitude within a range determined based on the downwash velocity u from the plurality of velocity vectors” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in independent claim 11 are the elements of “acquisition unit … acquisition unit … extraction unit …”. The independent claims also include the additional element of “acquiring a plurality of velocity vectors … acquiring a downwash velocity u of the UAV …”.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The step “acquiring a plurality of velocity vectors … acquiring a downwash velocity u of the UAV …” merely constitutes activity involving data gathering. Such extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Please see MPEP §2106.05(g).
The other additional elements “acquisition unit … acquisition unit … extraction unit …” amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the step of “acquiring a plurality of velocity vectors … acquiring a downwash velocity u of the UAV …” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not constitute significantly more than the claimed data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The other additional elements “acquisition unit … acquisition unit … extraction unit …” are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
As to independent claim 13, similar discussions are also addressed with regard to claim 11 respectively.
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1, 11, and 13 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2, 7-10, and 12:
Claims 2, 7-10, and 12 are dependent on corresponding independent claims 1 and 11 respectively and therefore include all the limitations of corresponding independent claims 1 and 11. Thus claims 2, 7-10, and 12 recite “Mental Processes”. Further, claims 2, 7-10, and 12 further describe:
Dependent claim 2 merely describes “wherein the at least one variable indicating … a flight height H … flight velocity v …”. However, these limitations due to their broad generality are merely observational covering the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 7 merely describes “an infrared camera provided with a filter that selectively transmits …” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a generic infrared camera as a tool to implement generic computer acquisition [data gathering] functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized acquisition system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more.
Dependent claim 8 merely describes “removing a noise component from the plurality of velocity vectors … the gas velocity vector is extracted from the plurality of velocity vectors from which the noise component has been removed” which are processes that due to their broad generality, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 9 merely describes “wherein a velocity vector of the plurality of velocity vectors is removed as the noise component from the plurality of velocity vectors … first threshold … second threshold …”. However, these limitations due to their broad generality are merely observational covering the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 10 merely describes “acquiring a plurality of pieces of image data …” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity [data gathering] and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more; and further merely describes “performing reframing processing …, and acquiring the plurality of velocity vectors by performing optical flow estimation processing on the plurality of pieces of image data subjected to the reframing processing” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a generic computer as a tool to implement generic computer features which perform generic computer functions [e.g. reframing and optical flow estimation processing] that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more.
Dependent claim 12 merely describes “a UAV equipped with an imaging device” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a generic UAV drone as a tool to implement generic computer features which perform generic computer functions [e.g. image acquisition] that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized UAV drone system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more; and further merely describes “an optical flow estimation processing configured to calculate a plurality of vectors by performing optical flow estimation processing … at a plurality of times …” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a generic computer as a tool to implement generic computer features which perform generic computer functions [e.g. optical flow processing on image data] that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more
Thus, claims 2, 7-10, and 12 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 3 (and its dependent claims 4-6 respectively):
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 respectively and therefore includes all the limitations of claim 1. Thus claim 3 recites “Mental Processes”. Claim 3 further recites additional elements:
“acquiring a wind velocity Wg at a ground surface, and calculating a corrected downwash velocity ug based on the downwash velocity u and the wind velocity Wg, the corrected downwash velocity ug being a downwash velocity in which the wind velocity Wg is considered, wherein in the extracting, a gas velocity vector having a magnitude within a range determined based on the corrected downwash velocity ug is extracted from the plurality of velocity vectors”.
The combination of the additional elements integrates the “Mental Processes” abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, as discussed in the paragraph [0051]-[0053] of the originally filed specification of the subject application, calculating a corrected downwash velocity ug based on the downwash velocity u and the wind velocity Wg [wherein the wind velocity Wg of the environment surrounding the UAV respectively is considered] improves the accuracy and thereby constitutes an improvement to the technical field of the gas monitoring. As such, the additional elements of claim 3 [in combination with all the limitations of claim 1] integrate the “Mental Processes” into a practical application. Therefore, claim 3 recites eligible subject matter.
Claims 4-6 are dependent on claim 3 respectively and therefore also recite eligible subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al ‘124 discloses detecting the flow direction and velocity of the gas in the air; Cheng et al (“Motion Estimation by Hybrid Optical Flow Technology for UAV Landing in an Unvisited Area” – Sensors 2019 – pages 1-13) discloses motion estimation by hybrid optical flow for UAV landing; Meffert ‘715 discloses the UAV detects and transmits data related to the gases; Ariyur ‘811 discloses prediction of dynamic ground effect forces for fixed wing aircraft wherein a downwash velocity at the airfoil is expressed as the sum of the downwash velocities from the lifting line and its image and is dependent on the height above the ground and the angle of attack of the airfoil is then expressed as a function of its downwash velocity, the geometry of the airfoil, and a series representation of its vorticity distribution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 4pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights