DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 09/22/2024. Claims 1-25 are pending and examined below.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) ‐ (d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 2022/106521.9, filed on 03/21/2022. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 2022/133171.7, filed on 12/13/2022. PCT/EP2023/057230 was filled on 03/21/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-25 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and claim 16 separates limitations by bullets. Examiner recommend to remove bullets to avoid confusion.
Claims 2-15 and 17-25 recite some claim languages as bolded. Examiner recommend to remove bolded language and recites as normal to avoid confusion.
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:
“Terminal” in claim 3
“Forest fire detection agent” in claim 15
“First terminal” and “Second terminal” in claim 16
[0007] of PGPub of submitted specification describes terminal include a sensor and sent information to forest detection system. [0029] of PGPub of submitted specification describes drone as second terminal. First terminal has sensor and fixed on a tree or infrastructure, per [0200] of PGPub of submitted specification. [0019] of PGPub of submitted specification describes fire detection agent is dropped by the fire detection agent onto the fire source. Foam or water can be extinguishing agent per [0135] and [0168] of PGPub of submitted specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, which recites “the forest fire detection process” there is lack of antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite since there is no forest fire detection process mentioned previously on claim 1. It is not clear if the method for detecting is referred by forest fire detection process or not.
Dependent claim(s) 2-15 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent (claim 1’s) deficiencies.
Regarding claim 5, which recites “the result of an analysis” there is lack of antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite since there is no result of an analysis mentioned previously.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The subject matter of claim 18 is included in claim 16. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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) 1-13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0283439 (“Raucher”).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Raucher discloses a method for detecting and/or locating a forest fire using a forest fire detection station (see at least fig 2 and fig 3, where wildfire detection system is shown. Wildfire is interpreted as forest fire and dispatch system 240 is interpreted as forest fire detection station), comprising the steps
receiving information (see at least fig 3, block 310 receiving information. See also [0060]),
generating a control command (see at least fig 3, block 380. See also [0077], where “The UAV interface 380 may also determine instructions for UAVs”)
sending the control command and/or information (see at least [0077], where “transmit the instructions to the UAVs.”)
carrying out the forest fire detection process (see at least fig 3, block 340 and [0094], where “The fire detection engine 340 may detect a wildfire based on data received”).
Regarding claim 2, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that receiving information occurs on a server unit (see at least fig 3 and [0038], where “The dispatch system 240 is a computer system that assists users in responding to wildfires.”; computer system is interpreted as server unit).
Regarding claim 3, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that the information is sent from a terminal (see at least fig 2, where UAV is sending information to dispatch system. See also [0046]. UAV is interpreted as terminal).
Regarding claim 4, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that sending information occurs over a network (see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that the information contains the result of an analysis (see at least fig 3 and [0036-37]).
Regarding claim 6, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that the analysis is carried out from measurement data of a sensor (see at least fig 1, fig 3 and [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that the measurement data is recorded on the terminal (see at least fig 1 and fig 3, where UAV/terminal is sending measure data. See also [0041], where “When the UAV 100 is out of range of cell towers in the network, a memory on the UAV 100 (not shown in FIG. 1) temporarily stores data for transmission to the dispatch system.”).
Regarding claim 8, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that the analysis takes place on the terminal or the server unit (see at least fig 3 and [0036-37]).
Regarding claim 9, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that the control command or information for generating a control command is generated from the information (see at least fig 4, block 420).
Regarding claim 10, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that the control command or the information for generating a control command is sent (see at least fig 4, where uav is dispatched so control command is sent).
Regarding claim 11, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that the sending of the control command or the information for generating a control command occurs from the server unit to the forest fire detection device (see at least fig 2, where dispatch system, 240 is connected to fire dispatch center, 250. See also fig 3, where fire is detected by dispatch system, 240).
Regarding claim 12, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that sending takes place over a network (see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that the forest fire detection process comprises a first positioning of a forest fire detection unit (see at least [0067], where “The real-time data engine 330 may extract or identify a telecommunicator position, location information, a caller phone number, caller name, and other available information from data messages.”; see also [0013], where UAV is positioned on a potential wildfire location).
Regarding claim 15, Raucher further discloses a method characterized in that the forest fire detection process comprises the ejection of a forest fire detection agent (see at least fig 4, where UAV is dispatched to a potential wildfire location and determine wildfire event. Dispatch resources to fire response strategy. See also [0083]).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0283439 (“Raucher”), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 2021/0335123 (“Trundle”).
Regarding claim 14, Raucher further discloses a method comprises locating the fire source and/or the forest fire detection process (see at least fig 4, block 440, where location of wildfire is verified).
Raucher does not disclose the following limitation:
changing the position of the fire detection unit.
However, Trundle discloses a system wherein changing the position of the fire detection unit (see at least [0081], [0084] and [0085]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Raucher to incorporate the teachings of Trundle by including the above feature for increasing detection accuracy by changing the position.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0335123 (“Trundle”), and further in view of US 2021/0283439 (“Raucher”).
Regarding claim 16, Trundle discloses a (see at least [0075], where “The emergency event notifications may include information indicating the emergency type that is associated with the emergency event notification. The emergency type may include an emergency event identifier that the monitor control unit 314a, 316a, monitoring application server 330, or monitoring station server 230a can map to a particular emergency event such as, for example, smoke, fire, power outage, water leak, flooding, or the like.”; see also fig 3) having
a network device (see at least fig 3, where 340 network)
a server unit (see at least fig 3, where 330 server)
a gateway (see at least fig 7 and [0153], where “the monitoring application server 760 may be a central alarm station for a security service provider, a campus security server in a school or school/university police department, or security gateway for a particular residential neighborhood.”; Also, can also be identified with the monitor control units 314a, 316a)
a first terminal, wherein the first terminal has a sensor unit (see at least fig 3, where 312-316 are first terminals and include sensors; see also [0073-74])
a second terminal, wherein the second terminal has a (see at least fig 3, where 351-354 are second terminals. See also [0097], [0081] and [0085]).
Trundle does not disclose the following limitations:
a forest fire detection system; and
terminal has a forest fire detection element.
However, Raucher further discloses a forest fire detection system (see at least fig 2); and
terminal has a forest fire detection element (see at least fig 3 and [0046]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trundle to incorporate the teachings of Raucher by including the above feature for increasing safety and reducing losses by determining forest fire.
Regarding claim 18, Trundle further discloses a system characterized in that the first terminal has a sensor unit and/or the second terminal has a forest fire detection unit (see at least fig 3, where 312-316 are first terminals and include sensors ).
Regarding claim 19, Trundle further discloses a system characterized in that the first terminal is arranged in a fixed location (see at least fig 3, where 312, 314, 316 are fixed. See also [0074]).
Regarding claim 20, Trundle further discloses a system characterized in that the first terminal has a sensor for forest fire detection, a communication device, an energy storage and/or an energy conversion device (see at least [0074] and [0082], where 312, 314 and 316 comprises a navigation device, a drive and an energy storage). The rejection relied on Raucher for detection of forest fire.
Regarding claim 21, Trundle further discloses a system characterized in that the second terminal is movable (see at least fig 3, 351-353 are moveable).
Regarding claim 22, Trundle further discloses a system characterized in that the second terminal has a sensor for forest fire detection, a navigation device, a drive and/or an energy storage (see at least [0130]). The rejection relied on Raucher for detection of forest fire.
Regarding claim 23, Trundle further discloses a system characterized in that the sensor of the first terminal is different from the sensor of the second terminal (see at least [0074], [0082] and [0085]).
Regarding claim 24, Trundle further discloses a system characterized in that the network has a central server (see at least [0153]).
Regarding claim 25, Trundle further discloses a system characterized in that the network has multiple gateways, wherein the gateways are mesh gateways and/or border gateways (see at least [0146], where “The local network may be a mesh network constructed based on the devices connected to the mesh network.”; see also [0153]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0335123 (“Trundle”), and in view of US 2021/0283439 (“Raucher”), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2021/0349066 (“Chilla”).
Regarding claim 17, Trundle in view of Raucher further discloses a system characterized in that the network , see citation above.
Trundle in view of Raucher does not disclose the following limitation:
network is a LoRaWAN.
However, Chilla discloses a system wherein network is a LoRaWAN (see at least [0024], where “Low Power Long Range Wide Area Network (LoRaWAN)”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trundle in view of Raucher to incorporate the teachings of Chilla by including the above feature for increasing cost-effectiveness while securing end-to-end encrypted communication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657