DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. In addition, 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. 18/866,146, filed on November 15, 2024.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as filed on November 15, 2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In particular, the limitation “a placement rating” in sixth line of the claim, renders the claim indefinite, because the meaning of the coined term “a placement rating” recited in the sixth line of the claim is not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claim, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “a placement rating” actually is. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 1 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
The claim recites limitation term “a placement rating” in tenth line of each of the claim, but it not exactly clear whether the limitation term is referring to same placement rating recited in sixth line of claim 1, or to a different placement rating. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation term should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that clarifies exactly what the limitation term is referring to. In addition, any claims dependent on claim 1 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specifically, the claim is 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. In particular, the limitation "and/or" recited in the claim render the claim indefinite because it is unclear exactly what single limitation or combination of limitations, if any, are being claimed. Examiner recommends applicant amend the claim in a manner that clarifies the scope of limitations including combination of limitations, if any, are being claimed. For the purposes of furthering examination, Examiner is selecting the "or" interpretation for the claim.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitation “the following step” in second line of the claim, but the limitation is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim 9 given that the claim 9 use term “the following step” for a first time without previously reciting exact term in the claim 9 or in a claim from which the claim 9 depends, which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what following step is being referred to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specifically, the claim is 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. In particular, the limitation "and/or" recited in the claim render the claim indefinite because it is unclear exactly what single limitation or combination of limitations, if any, are being claimed. Examiner recommends applicant amend the claim in a manner that clarifies the scope of limitations including combination of limitations, if any, are being claimed. For the purposes of furthering examination, Examiner is selecting the "or" interpretation for the claim.
The claim recites limitation “the following steps” in fourth line of the claim, but the limitation is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim given that the claim use term “the following steps” for a first time without previously reciting exact term in the claim, which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what following steps are being referred to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue.
The claim recites limitation term “a placement rating” in eleventh line of each of the claim, but it not exactly clear whether the limitation term is referring to same placement rating recited in seventh line of claim 10, or to a different placement rating. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation term should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that clarifies exactly what the limitation term is referring to. In addition, any claim(s) dependent on claim 10 is objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitations “the following steps” in second thru third lines and tenth line of the claim 11, but the limitations are unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitations in the claim 11 given that the claim 11 use term “the following steps” for a first time without previously reciting exact term in the claim 11 or in a claim from which the claim 11 depends, which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what following steps are being referred to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue.
Specifically, the claim is 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. In particular, the limitation "and/or" recited in the claim render the claim indefinite because it is unclear exactly what single limitation or combination of limitations, if any, are being claimed. Examiner recommends applicant amend the claim in a manner that clarifies the scope of limitations including combination of limitations, if any, are being claimed. For the purposes of furthering examination, Examiner is selecting the "or" interpretation for the claim.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitation “the steps of” in second line of the claim, but the limitation is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim given that the claim use term “the steps of” for a first time without previously reciting exact term in the claim, which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what following steps are being referred to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue.
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitations “the steps” in first line of the claims, but the limitations are unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitations in the claim 15 and the claim 16 given that the claims use term “the steps of” for a first time without previously reciting exact term in the claims or in a claim from which the claims 15 and claim 16 depends, which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what step is being referred to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue.
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 4 is 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.
In particular, claim 4 recites limitation “the second trained data driven model” in second line of the claim, but the limitation is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim given that the claim uses term “the second trained data driven model” for a first time without previously reciting the term in the claim, or in a claim from which the claim 4 depends which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what second trained data driven model is being referred to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome applicable objection(s) indicated above because for each of the claims the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed. For example, in regard to claims 1 and 10 the prior art of record does not expressly teach combined concept of
processing each of the number of street images or each of the number of satellite images by a first trained data driven model, where the number of street images or the number of satellite images is fed as a digital input to the first trained data driven model and where the first trained data driven model provides a placement rating of the locations as a first digital output for further evaluation. In addition claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome applicable rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph, if any, and objection(s) indicated above, because for each of the claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15-16, in light of their dependency to their respective independent claims, the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and include the following:
Grob et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0214951 A1 (hereinafter Grob) teaches determining an optimized configuration for an asset array (e.g., multiple packages for multiple deliveries) based on features of both the assets and a loading area.
Silverstein et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0027845 A1 (hereinafter Silverstein) teaches a method to determine a preferred delivery location in which to place a delivery package.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3128. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights