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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim includes an error as the claim does not refer back to a single claim previously set forth. 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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “detection unit,” “locating unit,” “locating sensor unit”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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 3 and 4 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 3 recites that the detection unit mentioned in claim 1 has a location sensor unit. Claim 1 recites “a locating unit” designed and suitable to locate a fire source. It is unclear whether the “locating unit” and the “locating sensor unit” are the same.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons set forth herein above.
Double Patenting
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/849,488 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raucher (US 2021/0283439 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Raucher teaches a dispatch system that includes an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (see abstract). The UAV (100) comprises a propulsion system (110) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs 0028 and 0029); a camera system (140) that captures a fire source (see paragraph 0034); a navigation unit (130) (see paragraph 0030); a location unit, which is the location sensor (120), is configured to locate a detected wildfire (see paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 2, Raucher teaches that the camera system (140) captures the images of emissions characteristic of wildfires (see at least paragraph 0011, 0016, 0017, and 0038).
Regarding claims 3, and 4, As represented herein above, the location sensor (120) is configured to locate a detected wildfire (see paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 5, Raucher teaches that the processor (150) coupled to the camera (140) (see at least paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Raucher teaches that the locating sensor (120) is coupled to the processor (150) (see Fig. 1; paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 7, Raucher teaches that the processor (150) coupled to the camera (140) (see at least paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 8, The UAV (100) includes a propulsion system (110) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs 0028 and 0029).
Regarding claim 9, Raucher teaches a dispatch system for managing a UAV or a fleet of UAVs (see paragraph 0011) by receiving the data captured by the camera and/or sensors of the UAV; The dispatch system dispatches a UAV to a specific location, such as a region at risk of wildfire (see at least paragraphs 0011, and 0013); starting the forest fire detection process to detect and/or locate the forest fire (see paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 10, Raucher teaches that the UAV starts the forest fire detection process when the forest wildfire is detected (see paragraphs 0038, and 0039).
Regarding claims 11, and 12, Raucher teaches the UAV (100) is deployed to a location where there is a risk of wildfire (see paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 13, as presented herein above, Raucher teaches the forest fire detection process by the UAV (see paragraphs 0038, and 0039).
Regarding claim 14, Raucher teaches that the UAV performs the forest fire detection process which includes locating a forest fire (see at least paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 15, Raucher teaches at least in paragraph 0013, that the forest fire is located by using the emission images of the region at risk of wildfires.
Regarding claim 16, in paragraph 0032, Raucher teaches that the navigation systems (130) of the UAV (100) navigates to a set of location and continually update the flight path according to a current location.
Regarding claim 17, Raucher teaches that the process of locating the forest wildfire (e.g., capturing images of environment, locating the area/region with high wildfire risk, etc.) is performed when the UAV navigates to a location with high wildfire risk (see at least paragraph 0030, 0033, and 0036).
Regarding claim 18, Raucher teaches “the locating process takes places multiple times” (see paragraph 0028).
Regarding claims 19-21, in paragraph 0090, Raucher teaches that the dispatch system (240) instructs the UAV (200) to return after the UAV (200) has completed a monitoring route or path. The UAV (200) is instructed to return the home base for recharging (see paragraph 0091).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US 6,364,026 B1 by Doshay which discloses a robotic fire protection system; US 2021/0286999 A1 by Raucher which discloses a wildfire surveillance UAV and fire surveillance system; US 2024/0319739 A1 by Morohoshi which discloses a mobile object control system and method of determining a designated area to search based on the area information and the weather information; WO-2022238946-A2 by O’Neill which discloses a drone lane condition surveillance.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Vivek D Koppikar, can be reached on (571) 272-5109.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667