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 Claims
Claims 1-53 are cancelled. Claims 54-93 are new. Therefore, claims 54-93 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Locating Device (Claim 58)
Control Unit (Claims 69-70, 92)
Position determination system (Claim 77)
Locating system (Claim 77)
The first control (Claim 90)
The second control (Claim 90)
Communication unit (Claim 92)
Energy unit (Claim 92)
Steering unit (Claim 92)
Navigation unit (Claim 92)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 54 is objected to for not conforming to per MPEP 608.01(m) specifically “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.” Additionally, Claim 54 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 54 does not use appropriate grammar and punctuation. The examiner recommends using commas or semicolons between claimed steps and correct indentations between each claimed step. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 71 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 71 recites the limitation " further data are sent'' in line 5 of claim 71. However, it is suggested to amend to - further data is sent-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 77 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 74 does not use appropriate grammar and punctuation. The examiner recommends using commas or semicolons between claimed elements and correct indentations between each claimed element. 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 as follows:
“A forest fire detection unit” in line 4 of claim 55. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “forest fire detection” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A mobile forest fire detection unit” in line 4 of claim 63. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “forest fire detection” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A forest fire detection unit” in line 4 of claim 70. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “forest fire detection” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“An extinguishing unit” in line 4 of claim 72. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language to extinguishing and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“The extinguishing unit” in line 4 of claim 74. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language to extinguishing and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A forest fire detection unit” in line 4 of claim 78. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “forest fire detection” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A position determination system” in line 3 of claim 77. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional “position determination” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A locating system” in line 6 of claim 77. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language locating and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A drive unit” in line 3 of claim 92. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “drive” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A steering unit” in line 4 of claim 92. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language for steering and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A communication unit” in line 4 of claim 92. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language for communicating and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “a forest fire detection unit” in line 4 of claim 55, in line 4 of claim 63, in line 4 of claim 70, and in line 4 of claim 78 because applicants originally filed claim 91 states “the forest fire detection unit is a drone and/or a robot” The examiner will interpret this limitation “a drone and/or robot”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “a mobile forest fire detection unit” in line 4 of claim 63, because Fig. 4 of the applicant’s specification states shows the mobile forest fire detection unit (300) as a vehicle. The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a vehicle”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “an extinguishing unit” in line 4 of claim 72, because lines 13-14 on page 10 of the applicant’s specification states “The extinguishing unit has an extinguishing agent reservoir filled with extinguishing agent.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “an extinguishing agent reservoir filled with extinguishing agent”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “the extinguishing unit” in line 4 of claim 74., because lines 13-14 on page 10 of the applicant’s specification states “The extinguishing unit has an extinguishing agent reservoir filled with extinguishing agent.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “an extinguishing agent reservoir filled with extinguishing agent”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “a drive unit” in line 3 of claim 92, because lines 25-26 on page 31 of the applicant’s specification states, “drive unit with a plurality of rotors driven by motors” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “with a plurality of rotors driven by motors”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “a locating system” in line 6 of claim 77. (Pg. 12 :Ln. 12-19; Pg. 15: Ln. 14 to Pg. 16: Ln. 2; Pg. 21: ln. 6 to Pg. 22: Ln. 1; Pg. 48: Ln. 21 to Pg. 49: Ln. 3).
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “a position determination system” in line 3 of claim 77 (Pg. 2: ln. 7; Pg. 10: Ln. 1-10; Pg. 14: ln. 6-15).
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “a steering unit” in line 4 of claim 92 (Pg. 16: Ln. 20-24; Pg. 22: Ln. 3-6; Pg. 43: Ln. 13-16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 77 and 92 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “a locating system” in line 6 of claim 77 (Pg. 12 :Ln. 12-19; Pg. 15: Ln. 14 to Pg. 16: Ln. 2; Pg. 21: ln. 6 to Pg. 22: Ln. 1; Pg. 48: Ln. 21 to Pg. 49: Ln. 3) but fails to describe any structure, and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Additionally, “a locating system” is not shown in the drawings of the applicant' s specification, and therefore does not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “a position determination system” in line 3 of claim 77 (Pg. 2: ln. 7; Pg. 10: Ln. 1-10; Pg. 14: ln. 6-15) but fails to describe any structure, and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Additionally, “a position determination system” is not shown in the drawings of the applicant' s specification, and therefore does not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “a steering unit” in line 4 of claim 92 (Pg. 16: Ln. 20-24; Pg. 22: Ln. 3-6; Pg. 43: Ln. 13-16) but fails to describe any structure, and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Additionally, “a steering unit” is not shown in the drawings of the applicant' s specification, and therefore does not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claim 54-93 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 54 recites the limitation “a method for detecting and/or locating a forest fire comprising the steps •first detection of a fire source with a first forest fire detection sensor •first locating of the fire source • positioning of a second forest fire detection sensor • second detection of a fire source • second locating of the fire source ” in lines 1-6 of claim 54, however it is unclear because applicant has attempted to claim the process without setting forth steps involved in the process. Additionally, Claim 54 recites the limitation “a fire source” two times (lines 2 and 5) and the limitation “the fire source” two times (line 3 and line 6) and it is unclear as to how the fire sources are related. Additionally, the steps of detecting a locating a fire source appear to state in the method steps, but the preamble states, “method for detecting and/or locating a forest fire” and it is not clear if the preamble is meant to further broadens the claim. This claim will be interpreted as “a method for detecting and locating a forest fire comprising the steps comprising the steps of:
first detecting a fire source with a first forest fire detection sensor;
first locating the fire source;
positioning a second forest fire detection sensor;
second detecting the fire source;
second locating the fire source.”
Claims 55-76 depend on claim 54, therefore claims 55-76 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the method for autonomously (emphasis) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54" in line 1 of claim 55. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner will interpret this limitation as the method for detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54
Similar rejection applies to claims 56-76.
Claim 55 recites the limitation “the fire source is located and/or fought with a forest fire detection unit” in line 4 of claim 55. Firstly, it is unclear if this is an additional location separate from the “first locating of the fire source” in line 3 of claim 54, and the “second locating of the fire source” in line 6 of claim 54 or if it is the first locating or second locating. Secondly the applicant has stated “For the purposes of this patent specification, fighting forest fires means detecting, locating, containing and/or extinguishing of a forest fire” in lines 9-10 of page 4 of the specification and it is not clear how the fire source can be located and/or located using the definition provided by the applicant. Additionally, it is not clear if the network modifies the gateway, the terminal, or both.
Similar rejection applies to claims 72-73
Claim 55 recites the limitation “The method for autonomously detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54 characterized in that the fire source is located and/or fought with a forest fire detection unit, wherein the first forest fire detection sensor is a stationary forest fire detection sensor, wherein the first forest fire detection sensor is part of a terminal and/or gateway of a network” (underline for emphasis) in lines 1-7 of claim 55 and it is not clear which limitations are required with the multiple and/or statements. Does the claim require “The method for autonomously detecting,” “The method for autonomously detecting and locating a forest fire according to claim 54 characterized in that the fire source is located,” “the method for autonomously detecting and locating a forest fire according to claim 54 characterized in that the fire source is located and fought with a forest fire detection unit, wherein the first forest fire detection sensor is a stationary forest fire detection sensor, wherein the first forest fire detection sensor is part of a terminal,” or something else.
Similar rejection applies to claims 56-76 and 92-93.
Claim 56 recites the limitation “the first forest fire detection sensor is part of a terminal and/or gateway, wherein the terminal is part of a network” in lines 4-5 of claim 56, and if only the gateway was selected as an alternative limitation the terminal would lack antecedent basis.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the forest fire detection sensor" in line 4 of claim 57. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the fire" in line 4 of claim 57. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 58 recites the limitation “the first locating is determined by reading the position of the first forest fire detection sensor from a memory and/or by triangulating the position of the locating device and/or the forest fire detection sensor” in lines 4-6 of claim 58. The terms “the locating device” and “the forest fire detection sensor” lack antecedent basis. This claim is further unclear because “the first locating” of claim 1 is referring to the location of the fire source and not the location of the first forest fire detection sensor.
Claim 59 recites the limitation “the first locating takes place taking into account the wind direction, the wind speed, the time of detection, propagation time of the signals” in lines 4-5 of claim 59. The terms “the wind speed,” “the time of detection,” “the wind direction,” and “the signals” lack antecedent basis. The limitation as a whole does not make sense and it is not clear if all, or some of recited elements that lack antecedent basis are required because there is no conjunction.
Claim 60 recites the limitation “the positioning of the first forest fire detection sensor takes place by positioning a forest fire detection sensor closer to the located fire source than the first forest fire detection sensor at the time of the first detection, wherein the forest fire detection sensor that performed the second detection is a second forest fire detection sensor” however claim 54 already recites “a second forest fire detection sensor” and it is unclear as to how many fire detection sensors are present in the invention. The term “the located fire source” lacks antecedent basis. The claim as whole does not make sense because there is no time relating to the actions recited.
Claim 63 recites the limitation "a mobile forest fire detection unit" in line 4 of claim 63. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 67 recites the limitation "the position of the second forest fire detection sensor" in lines 4-5 of claim 67. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 68 recites the limitation "the measured values" in lines 4-5 of claim 68. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 71 recites the limitation "the result of the second locating" in line 5 of claim 68. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 73 recites the limitation “The method for autonomously detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54, characterized in that the fire source is fought and/or extinguished by ejecting extinguishing agent, wherein the ejection is carried out several times, wherein the extinguishing agent is distributed after ejection in directions different from the ejection direction.” In lines 1-7 of claim 73. However, it is unclear if the applicant is positively reciting the method steps of “ejecting the fire extinguishing agent” and “ejecting the fire extinguishing agent multiple times” because the claim appears to be drawn to functional limitations of a structure and not a method. Additionally, it is not clear as to what part of the system is ejecting the extinguishing agent. Additionally, “the ejection direction” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, the term “several times” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “several” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 75 recites the limitation “The method for autonomously detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54, characterized in that the steps of positioning a second forest fire detection sensor for detecting forest fires, second detecting of a fire source and second locating of the fire source are carried out several times.” In lines 1-6 of claim 75. It is unclear if the applicant is refereeing to “the second detection of a fire source” in line 5 of claim 54 or another step. It is further unclear if there is another “second forest fire detection sensor” or if this is the same “ a second forest fire detection sensor” recited in line 4 of claim 54.
Similar rejection applies to claim 76.
Claim 77 recites the limitation “A forest fire detection system comprising
a first forest fire detection sensor for detecting forest fires
a position determination system suitable for this purpose and intended to determine the position of the stationary sensor
a second forest fire detection sensor
a locating system which is suitable for this purpose and intended to determine the position of the fire source, in lines 1-7 of claim 77.
Firstly, it is unclear as to what “this purpose” is and further this limitation lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, it is not clear if the limitation “suitable for” is intended to be a functional limitation or if this is an intended use limitation. Additionally, the terms “the stationary sensor” and “the fire source” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 78-93 depend on claim 54, therefore claims 78-93 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 78 recites the limitation “The forest fire detection system according to claim 77 characterized in that the forest fire detection system comprises a network with a terminal, gateway, server and forest fire detection unit” in lines 1-4 of claim 78 and the terms “gateway,” “server,” and “forest fire detection unit” are missing articles (a/the) and it is unclear if these are positively recited elements.
Claim 79 recites the limitation “the forest fire detection sensor is arranged stationary” in line 3 of claim 79 and the limitation “arranged stationary” is grammatically and it is therefore not clear as to what the manner or arranging is.
Claim 81 recites the limitation "the weather data" in line 3 of claim 81. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 81 recites the limitation “the weather data can be recorded” in line 3 of claim 81. It is not clear if the term “can be” is a required or optional limitation.
Similar rejection applies to claims 82 and 93.
Claim 83 recites the limitation “the position determination system of the forest fire detection system has stored the positions of stationary elements” in lines 3-4 of claim 83, however the applicant is citing method steps to an apparatus claim and therefore it is unclear as to if the limitation is a method of using an apparatus.
Similar rejection applies to claim 88.
Claim 83 recites the limitation " the positions of stationary elements." In lines 3-4 of claim 83. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Similar rejection applies to claim 84.
Claim 86 recites the limitation "the forest fire detection unit" in line 3 of claim 86. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Similar rejection applies to claims 90-93.
Claim 88 recites the limitation “The forest fire detection system according to claim 77, characterized in that the locating system is suitable and intended to determine the position of the fire source, wherein the locating system is suitable and intended to determine the position of the fire source relative to the position of the locating system, wherein the locating system uses a triangulation method to determine the position” in lines 1-7 of claim 88. The limitations “the fire source” and the “the position of the locating system” lack antecedent basis. Additionally, it is unclear as to what “the position” in line 7 of claim 88 is referring to.
Claim 91 recites the limitation “the forest fire detection unit is designed as a motorized vehicle,” in line 3 of claim 91. It is not clear if the limitation “designed as” is a functional, structural, or intended use limitation.
Claim 92 recites the limitation "the first sensor" in line 3 of claim 92. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 92 recites the limitation “
wherein the time-of-flight measurement based sensors are radar, ultrasonic and/or LIDAR sensors” however it is unclear how the recited sensors relate to “time-of-flight measurement”. Additionally, the limitation “the time-of-flight measurement based sensors” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim limitation “a locating system” in line 6 of claim 77” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for “a locating system” was found in the applicants specification (Pg. 12 :Ln. 12-19; Pg. 15: Ln. 14 to Pg. 16: Ln. 2; Pg. 21: ln. 6 to Pg. 22: Ln. 1; Pg. 48: Ln. 21 to Pg. 49: Ln. 3). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “a position determination system” in line 3 of claim 77 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for “a position determination system” was found in the applicants specification (Pg. 2: ln. 7; Pg. 10: Ln. 1-10; Pg. 14: ln. 6-15). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “a steering unit” in line 4 of claim 92” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for “a steering unit” was found in the applicants specification (Pg. 16: Ln. 20-24; Pg. 22: Ln. 3-6; Pg. 43: Ln. 13-16). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 54-71, 73, 75-91, and 93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins (WO 2021/174291).
Regarding claim 54, Collins discloses a method for detecting and/or locating a forest fire (Para. 0008), comprising the steps
first detection of a fire source with a first forest fire detection sensor (Multiple sensors attached to the sensing unit (Fig. 5, 501) including described in Para. 00149-00151 including visual sensors 517.; Para. 00145-00153)
first locating of the fire source (Para. 0152)
positioning of a second forest fire detection sensor (Fig. 2A, 307; The second forest fire detection sensor are the sensors located on a drone {Fig. 4, 315A} as which comprises the electronic device {Fig. 2A-2B, all structural features} described in Para. 00139 and 00178.)
second detection of a fire source (Para. 000276-00278)
second locating of the fire source (Para. 000276-00278)
Regarding claim 55, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the characterized in that the fire source is located
wherein the first forest fire detection sensor is a stationary forest fire detection sensor (The first forest fire detection sensor is part of a stationary sensing unit. Para. 00145-00153; The sensing unit is stationary.), wherein the first forest fire detection sensor is part of a terminal (Fig. 5, 505)
Regarding claim 56, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the that the first forest fire detection sensor is part of a terminal (The first forest fire detection sensor is part of a stationary sensing unit which is part of the terminal {Fig. 5, 505}; Para. 00145-00153)
Regarding claim 57, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the first forest fire detection sensor detects the fire by detecting and analyzing
Regarding claim 58, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the first locating is determined by reading the position of the first forest fire detection sensor from a memory (Para. 0152)
Regarding claim 59, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the first locating takes place taking into account the wind direction, the wind speed, the time of detection, propagation time of the signals (Para. 00151, 00274-00283).
Regarding claim 60, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the positioning of the first forest fire detection sensor takes place by positioning a forest fire detection sensor closer to the located fire source than the first forest fire detection sensor at the time of the first detection,
wherein the forest fire detection sensor that performed the second detection is a second forest fire detection sensor (Para. 00276-00278; The second forest fire detection sensor is located on the drone that is sent to inspect the location of the fire source closer than the first forest fire detection sensor that is part of the stationary sensing unit.).
Regarding claim 61, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the second forest fire detection sensor is positioned automatically (Para. 00276-00278).
Regarding claim 62, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the second forest fire detection sensor is positioned autonomously (Para. 00276-00278).
Regarding claim 63, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the second forest fire detection sensor is part of a mobile forest fire detection unit (Para. 00142).
Regarding claim 64, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the second detection of a fire source is carried out with the second forest fire detection sensor (Para. 00276-00278).
Regarding claim 65, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the second detection of the fire source carried out using a method which is different from the first detection (Para. 00145-0153; 00276-00278).
Regarding claim 66, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the second detection uses an imaging method (Para. 00142, 00278).
Regarding claim 67, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the second locating of the fire source is determined using the position of the second forest fire detection sensor (Para. 00278).
Regarding claim 68, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the second locating of the fire source is carried out with a control unit (Para. 00136; Drone communication channel) coupled to the second forest fire detection sensor (Para. 00136, 00276-00278).
Regarding claim 69, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the second locating of the fire source is carried out with a control unit (Fig. 4, 411 & Fig. 2A, 2002; Para. 00136-00139) coupled to the second forest fire detection sensor (Para. 00136, 00276-00278).
Regarding claim 70, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the control unit (Fig. 4, 411 & Fig. 2A, 2002; Para. 00136-00139) is part of a forest fire detection unit (Fig. 4, 315A; Para. 00139 and 00178).
Regarding claim 71, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the result of the second locating is sent to a network server (Para. 00143),
wherein in addition to the result of the second locating, further data are sent to the network server (Para. 00143, emergency variables).
Regarding claim 73, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the fire source is fought and/or extinguished by ejecting extinguishing agent (Para. 00145 – “fire-retardant material”).
wherein the ejection is carried out several times (Para. 0039; The examiner is interpreting several as “more than one” as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.),
wherein the extinguishing agent is distributed after ejection in directions different from the ejection direction (Para. 00406, 00443).
Regarding claim 75, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the steps of positioning a second forest fire detection sensor for detecting forest fires, second detecting of a fire source and second locating of the fire source are carried out several times (Para. 00501-00502, 00506; ; The examiner is interpreting several as “more than one” as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.).
Regarding claim 76, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the steps of positioning a second forest fire detection sensor for detecting forest fires, the second detecting of a fire source, and the second locating of the fire source are carried out in parallel with multiple forest fire detection units (Drones; Para. 00144, 00342).
Regarding claim 77, Collins discloses a forest fire detection system comprising
a first forest fire detection sensor (Multiple sensors attached to the sensing unit (Fig. 5, 501) including described in Para. 00149-00151 including visual sensors 517.) for detecting forest fires
a position determination system (Fig. 5, 511; GPS sensor; Para. 00150-00152) suitable for this purpose and intended to determine the position of the stationary sensor (The first forest fire detection sensor is part of a stationary sensing unit 501.).
a second forest fire detection sensor (Fig. 2A, 307; The second forest fire detection sensor are the sensors located on a drone {Fig. 4, 315A} as which comprises the electronic device {Fig. 2A-2B, all structural features} described in Para. 00139 and 00178.)
a locating system (Para. 00142- “location sensor”) which is suitable for this purpose and intended to determine the position of the fire source.
Regarding claim 78, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the forest fire detection system comprises a network (Fig. 3, 305) with a terminal (Fig. 5, 505), gateway (Fig. 1A, 1302-1303), server (Fig. 1A, 100) and forest fire detection unit (Fig. 3, 315A).
Regarding claim 79, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the first forest fire detection sensor is arranged stationary (The first forest fire detection sensor is part of a stationary sensing unit. Para. 00145-00153; The sensing unit is stationary.).
Regarding claim 80, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the first forest fire detection sensor is part of a terminal (The first forest fire detection sensor is part of a stationary sensing unit which is part of the terminal {Fig. 5, 505}; Para. 00145-00153)
Regarding claim 81, The forest fire detection system according to claim 77 characterized in that the weather data (Claim 3 – “Environmental data”) can be recorded
Regarding claim 82, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the position of a fire source can be determined by the control of the forest fire detection system (Claim 1; Para. 00152; Additionally, the prior art device discloses all of the required structural components and the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114-II.).
Regarding claim 83, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the position determination system of the forest fire detection system has stored the positions of stationary elements (Para. 00150-00152; Additionally, the prior art device discloses all of the required structural components and the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114-II.).
Regarding claim 84, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the position determination system has determined the positions of stationary elements (Para. 00150-00152; Additionally, the prior art device discloses all of the required structural components and the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114-II.).
Regarding claim 85, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 82.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the second forest fire detection sensor is movable (The second forest fire detection sensor are the sensors located on a drone {Fig. 4, 315A} which is movable.; Additionally, the prior art device discloses all of the required structural components and the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114-II.).
Regarding claim 86, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the second forest fire detection sensor is part of the forest fire detection unit (The second forest fire detection sensor are the sensors located on a drone {Fig. 4, 315A} which is a forest fire detection unit.).
Regarding claim 87, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the second forest fire detection sensor has an image-capturing forest fire detection sensor (Para. 00142; visual sensor).
Regarding claim 88, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the locating system is suitable and intended to determine the position of the fire source (Para. 00155-00156),
wherein the locating system is suitable and intended to determine the position of the fire source relative to the position of the locating system (Para. 00155-00156),
wherein the locating system uses a triangulation method to determine the position (Para. 00276-00278; Additionally, the prior art device discloses all of the required structural components and the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114-II.).
Regarding claim 89, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the first control (Fig. 1A, 1305) is part of the central server of a network (Fig. 1A, 100).
Regarding claim 90, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the second control (Fig. 2A, 2005) is part of the forest fire detection unit (Fig. 4, 315A; The forest fire detection unit comprises the electronic device {Fig. 2A-2B, all structural features} described in Para. 00139).
Regarding claim 91, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that
the forest fire detection unit (Fig. 4, 315A) is designed as a motorized vehicle,
wherein the forest fire detection unit is a drone and
Regarding claim 93, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that
the forest fire detection system has a forest fire detection station (Fig. 5, 513-514, 516),
wherein the forest fire detection unit can be coupled to the forest fire detection station (Fig. 5, 315),
wherein .
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.
Claim(s) 72 and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins.
Regarding claim 72, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that the fire source is fought using a fire-retardant release system (Para. 00145; Claim 56.) in the current embodiment.
Collins does not disclose wherein the fire-retardant release system is an extinguishing unit (as defined by the 112(f) interpretation).
Although this embodiment discloses a fire-retardant release system coupled to the second forest fire detection sensor in paragraph 00145 to fight fire, Collin does not explicitly disclose a reservoir/agent reservoir as the corresponding structure to applicant’s limitation of “an extinguishing unit”.
However, in another embodiment Collins teaches an extinguishing unit (Fig. 19A, 1907), which is an agent reservoir equivalent to applicant’s disclosed corresponding structure for claim limitation “an extinguishing unit.”
Therefore, the examiner finds, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of an extinguishing unit taught by Collins by the known method of coupling to the fire-retardant release system disclosed by Collins to store extinguishing agent to suppress/fight a fire which yields the predictable result of providing the extinguishing unit with a fire extinguishing agent to fight a fire.
Regarding claim 74, Collins discloses the method for autonomously (See 112(b) above) detecting and/or locating a forest fire according to claim 54.
Collins further discloses the method characterized in that a fire-retardant release system (Para. 00145; Claim 56.) is part of a forest fire detection unit (Fig. 4, 315A; The forest fire detection unit/drone carries the second forest fire detection sensor and the fire-retardant release system.; Para. 00145; ) in the current embodiment.
Collins does not disclose wherein the fire-retardant release system is an extinguishing unit (as defined by the 112(f) interpretation).
Although this embodiment discloses a fire-retardant release system coupled to the second forest fire detection sensor and in paragraph 00145 to fight fire, Collin does not explicitly disclose a reservoir/agent reservoir as the corresponding structure to applicant’s limitation of “an extinguishing unit”.
However, in another embodiment Collins teaches an extinguishing unit (Fig. 19A, 1907), which is an agent reservoir equivalent to applicant’s disclosed corresponding structure for claim limitation “an extinguishing unit.”
Therefore, the examiner finds, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of an extinguishing unit taught by Collins by the known method of coupling to the fire-retardant release system disclosed by Collins to store extinguishing agent to suppress/fight a fire which yields the predictable result of providing the extinguishing unit with a fire extinguishing agent to fight a fire.
Claim(s) 92 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Knab (12,006,038).
Regarding claim 92, Collins discloses the forest fire detection system according to claim 77.
Collins further discloses the forest fire detection system characterized in that the forest fire detection unit (Fig. 4, 315A) comprises the first sensor (Fig. 2A, 307),
wherein the navigation unit has navigation sensors for detecting objects in the environment,
wherein the navigation sensors are cameras (Visual sensor ;Para. 0095, 00151)
Collins does not teach wherein the time-of-flight measurement based sensors are radar, ultrasonic and/or LIDAR sensors.
However, Knab teaches a prior art comparable forest fire detection unit (Fig. 2, all structural features) comprising wherein the time-of-flight measurement based sensor is an ultrasonic sensor (Col. 7: Ln. 29-33).
Therefore, the examiner finds it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the time-of-flight measurement based sensor is an ultrasonic sensor as taught by Knab into the forest fire detection unit disclosed by Colins to allow the forest fire detection unit to fly close to potential obstacles (trees, rocks etc.) even in bad weather conditions (Knab – Col. 7: Ln. 29-33), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 September 28, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
