DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement filed 10/18/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because some of the references listed under Non-Patent Literature Documents fail to identify a date or a complete date as required under 37 CFR 1.98 (b)(5). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
3. Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a semi-colon missing after the word “damaged” in line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 21, 27-28, 37-39, 41, 43, 46, 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hopkins et al. (US 8,346,578).
Re-claim 21. Hopkins disclose:
receiving, by one or more processors, a report of an event including a location of the asset (insurance company receives indication of an event -col. 3 L 63-65);
directing, by the one or more processors, a drone to the location in response to receiving the report (processing modules would be operated using overhead imagery of the property to determine damage, overhead images are obtained by drone at location of property-see col. 3 L63 to col. 4 L 10);
receiving, by the one or more processors, the drone data automatically collected by the drone at the location (the system overhead image module 212 receives overhead images collected by image sources such drones-see Col. 4 L 5-54; the aerial image source may be programmed to automatically operate-col. 15 L 56-58);
and determining, by the one or more processors and based on the drone data, whether the asset is damaged (col. 6 L 11-22),
wherein the drone data is selected from the group consisting of: visible image data-(col. 4 L 4-17).
Re-claim 27. Hopkins disclose wherein the asset is one or more of a vehicle, a home, real property, or other property, wherein the event comprises one or more of a hurricane, a tornado, a thunderstorm, a windstorm, an earthquake, a flood, fire, a theft, or a hailstorm, and wherein the damage comprises one or more of wind damage, water damage, fire damage, theft damage, hail damage, or earthquake damage. (col. 3 lines 55-67; col. 11 lines 33-48).
Re-claim 28. Hopkins disclose wherein determining whether the asset is damaged comprises determining whether the damage is caused by the event or another cause. (Receiving information describing property damage and determining a cause-Abstract).
Claim 37 has similar limitations found in claim 21 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 38 has similar limitations found in claim 27 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Re-claim 39: Hopkins disclose based at least in part on the drone data, determine, that the asset is damaged; and based at least in part on determining that the vehicle is damaged, generate an estimate of at least one of damage to the asset or injury to a person associated with the asset. (Fig. 7).
Re-claim 41: Hopkins discloses wherein the asset comprises a building and the non-visible image data comprises thermal imaging data (The structure may be examined using infrared imaging e.g., thermal imaging-see col. 15 L 14-31).
Re-claim 43. Hopkins discloses wherein the drone data comprises location data selected from the group consisting of: satellite navigation data. (satellite navigation data-col. 4 L 4-6).
Claim 46 has similar limitations found in claim 41 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 48 has similar limitations found in claim 43 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 42, 44-45, 47, 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins in view of Mauriello, Matthew; Jon E. Froehlich. “Towards Automated Thermal Profiling of Buildings at Scale Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and 3D-Reconstruction;” Sep 13-17, 2014.
Re-claim 42: Hopkins fails to disclose wherein the thermal imaging data comprises thermal imaging of an aerial view of the building. Mauriello however, teaches automated 3D thermal profiling of buildings using UAV.-see page 1 Abstract.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hopkins to include thermal imaging of an aerial view of a building as taught by Mauriello in order to detect issues with structure and other problems.
Re-claim 44. Hopkins fails to disclose wherein the asset comprises a building, and the step of determining, by the one or more processors and based on the drone data, whether the asset is damaged, further comprises the steps of: converting the image data to a 2D or a 3D model, and analyzing the model to determine if damage has occurred to the asset. Mauriello however, teaches determining based on drone data, whether a building is damaged by converting the image data to a 3D model and analyzing the model, wherein thermography used to detect cracks, insulation problems…and an automated 3D thermal profiling of building using UAV and 3D-reconstruction. -see Abstract and page 1 col. 1-2 and p. 2 col 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hopkins to include determining based on drone data, whether a building is damaged by converting the image data to a 3D model and analyzing the model, thermography used to detect cracks, insulation problems…and an automated 3D thermal profiling of building using UAV and 3D-reconstruction as taught by Mauriello in order to collect data on otherwise impossible or difficult areas such as rooftops, and use the information acquired and analyzed with 3D thermal profiling to address degradation effects due to weather events.
Re-claim 45. Hopkins fails to disclose wherein the analysis is performed at least in part via a cloud computing server. Mauriello however, teaches “The core components of the system consist of a UAV, a central image processing server…” -see p. 2 col. 2 Preliminary System Design.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the systems of methods for using unmanned aerial vehicles to detect damage of property of Hopkins the ability to perform analysis of property in part via a processing server as taught by Mauriello since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 47 has similar limitations found in claim 42 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 49 has similar limitations found in claim 44 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 50 has similar limitations found in claim 45 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Double Patenting
8. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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); 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 non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
9. Claims 21, 27, 37, 38, 39 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,963,968. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to using drone data to assess damage to property and generate insurance claims.
Regarding claims 21, 27, 37, 38, 39, the language in these claims can be found within claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 17-19 of U.S. Patent 10,963,968. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 17-19 of U.S. Patent 10,963,968 teaches limitations omitted from claims 21, 27, 37, 38, 39 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient)..
10. Claims 21, 27, 37, 38, 39 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-8, 14, 19-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,163,164. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to using drone data to assess damage to property and generate insurance claims.
Regarding claims 21, 27, 37, 38, 39, the language in these claims can be found within claims 1, 6-8, 14, 19-21 of U.S. Patent 10,163,164. Claims 1, 6-8, 14, 19-21 of U.S. Patent 10,163,164 teaches limitations omitted from claim 21, 27, 37, 38, 39 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
11. Claims 21, 27, 37, 38-39 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-9, 14, 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,704,738. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to using drone data to assess damage to property and generate insurance claims.
Regarding claims 21, 27, 37, 38-39, the language in this claim can be found within claims 1, 7-9, 14, 17-18 of U.S. Patent 11,704,738. Claims 1, 7-9, 14, 17-18 of U.S. Patent 11,704,738 teaches limitations omitted from claims 21, 27, 37, 38-39 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
12. Claims 21, 27, 37-39 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-9, 14, 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,177. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to using drone data to assess damage to property and generate insurance claims.
Regarding claims 21, 27, 37-39, the language in these claims can be found within claims 1, 7-9, 14, 18 of U.S. Patent 12,154,177. Claims 1, 7-9, 14, 18 of U.S. Patent 12,154,177 teaches limitations omitted from claims 21, 27, 37-39 of the instant application. It would have been obvious to omit the limitations because omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7 to 8 of the Remarks, Applicants argue that claims 21 and 37 now recited that drone data includes visible image data, non-visible image data, video data, audio data, and combinations thereof. And that the Hopkins reference fails to disclose each claim element and therefore does not anticipate the claim. The argument is not convincing.
The newly added claim limitation recites, “wherein the drone data is selected from the group consisting of: visible image data, non-visible image data, video data, audio data and combinations thereof.” As indicated in the rejection, Hopkins discloses drone data is visible image data in col. 4 L 4-17. The claim limitation is a Markush claim and therefore only one of the listed elements is required to be taught by the prior art. See MPEP § 2117(I) and § 2111.03(II).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 41-50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights