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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on September 12, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 12, 2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. The Forms PTO-1449 are signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving aerial image data representing a ground surface of a physical region;
determining, based on the image data, one or more damage locations on the ground surface;
determining a ground-based route from a location associated with a response vehicle on the ground surface of the physical region, to a target location, wherein determining the ground-based route is based on the one or more damage locations;
generating a representation of the physical region including a graphical depiction of the ground-based route; and
providing the representation to a rendering device.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers gathering and analyzing data, and providing a resultant rending of the analysis. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
Regarding the additional limitations, there is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. There are no additional elements that apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claims 9-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101 for at least the same reasons of claims 1-8.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of co-pending Application No. 18/139,836 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,092,468). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/step would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
It is well settled that the omission of an element/limitation and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Present application 18/883,241
U.S. Patent No. 12,092,468 (Application No. 18/139,836)
Claim 1:
receiving aerial image data representing a ground surface of a physical region;
determining, based on the image data, one or more damage locations on the ground surface;
determining a ground-based route from a location associated with a response vehicle on the ground surface of the physical region, to a target location, wherein determining the ground-based route is based on the one or more damage locations;
generating a representation of the physical region including a graphical depiction of the ground-based route; and
providing the representation to a rendering device.
Claim 1:
receiving image data captured by an imaging vehicle, the image data representing a ground surface of a physical region;
determining a target location on the ground surface of the physical region;
determining, based at least in part on the image data, one or more damage locations on the ground surface of the physical region;
determining a ground-based route from a location associated with a response vehicle on the ground surface of the physical region, to the target location, wherein determining the ground- based route is based at least in part on the one or more damage locations;
generating a virtual representation of the physical region, based at least in part on the image data, including a graphical overly depicting the ground-based route; and
providing the virtual representation to a rendering device associated with the response vehicle.
Claim 2
wherein receiving the aerial image data comprises: determining an image capture characteristic of an imaging vehicle, based on the physical region and one or more capabilities of the imaging vehicle;
transmitting, to the imaging vehicle, a control command identifying the image capture characteristic; and
receiving the aerial image data from the imaging vehicle.
Claim 2
wherein receiving the image data comprises: determining an image capture characteristic of the imaging vehicle, based at least in part on the physical region and one or more capabilities of the imaging vehicle; and
transmitting, to the imaging vehicle, a control command identifying the image capture characteristic.
Claim 1
receiving image data captured by an imaging vehicle, the image data representing a ground surface of a physical region;
Claim 3
wherein the imaging vehicle is an aerial imaging drone, and wherein the image capture characteristic comprises at least one of an image resolution, an image angle, an altitude from which the image data is captured, or a travel path of the aerial imaging drone.
Claim 3
wherein the imaging vehicle is an aerial imaging drone, and wherein the image capture characteristic comprises at least one of an image resolution, an image angle, an altitude from which the image data is captured, or a travel path of the aerial imaging drone.
Claim 4
identifying, based on the image data, a physical location proximate to a first damage location; and determining the target location based on the physical location.
Claim 4
wherein determining the target location comprises: identifying, based at least in part on the image data, a physical location proximate to a first damage location.
Claim 5
wherein generating the ground-based route comprises:
determining, based on the image data, that a physical roadway in the physical region is non-traversable;
determining a first route from the location associated with the response vehicle to the target location, wherein the first route includes the non-traversable physical roadway;
determining a second route from the location associated with the response vehicle to the target location, wherein the second route does not include the non-traversable physical roadway; and
selecting the second route to be indicated in the representation.
Claim 5
wherein determining the ground- based route comprises:
determining, based at least in part on the image data, that a physical roadway in the physical region is non-traversable;
determining a first route from the location associated with the response vehicle to the target location, wherein the first route includes the non-traversable physical roadway;
determining a second route from the location associated with the response vehicle to the target location, wherein the second route does not include the non-traversable physical roadway; and
selecting the second route to be indicated in the graphical overlay.
Claim 6
determining an off-road capability of the response vehicle; and
determining, based on the off-road capability of the response vehicle, that an off-road portion of the ground-based route is traversable by the response vehicle. .
Claim 6
determining an off-road capability of the response vehicle; and
determining, based at least in part on the off-road capability of the response vehicle, that an off-road portion of the ground-based route is traversable by the response vehicle.
Claim 7
wherein determining the one or more damage locations comprises: extracting metadata from the image data, the metadata including at least timestamp data and location data associated with the image data;
determining a first subset of the image data captured prior to damage occurring at the one or more damage locations within the physical region, based on the timestamp data;
generating a first model of the physical region, based on the first subset of the image data;
determining a second subset of the image data captured subsequent to damage occurring at the one or more damage locations within the physical region, based on the timestamp data; and
generating a second model of the physical region, based on the second subset of the image data.
Claim 7
extracting metadata from the image data, the metadata including at least timestamp data and location data associated with the image data;
determining a first subset of the image data captured prior to damage occurring at the one or more damage locations within the physical region, based at least in part on the timestamp data;
generating a first model of the physical region, based at least in part on the first subset of the image data;
determining a second subset of the image data captured subsequent to damage occurring at the one or more damage locations within the physical region, based at least in part on the timestamp data; and
generating a second model of the physical region, based at least in part on the second subset of the image data.
Claim 8
executing a machine learning model, based on the image data, to determine the target location;
determining the response vehicle based on a distance from a current location of the response vehicle to the target location; and
transmitting a signal identifying the target location to the response vehicle.
Claim 8
executing a machine learning model, based at least in part on the image data, to determine the target location;
determining the response vehicle based on a distance from a current location of the response vehicle to the target location; and
transmitting a signal identifying the target location to the response vehicle.
Claims 9-25 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1-8 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-3965. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661