DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-Final office action is in response to the CON application filled on 11/25/2024. Claims 1-20 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
Continuation of application No. 17/550,619, filed on Dec. 14, 2021 , now Pat. No. 12,190,275, which is a continuation of application No. 17/099,364, filed on Nov. 16, 2020, now Pat. No. 11 ,222,300. Provisional application No. 62/935,974, filed on Nov. 15, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, “roof accesory” should be “roofing accessory” since claim previously mention roofing accessory. Claim 12 is objected likewise.
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:
“Computing module” in claim 1 and 12
“Landing member” in claim 3 and 14
Per submitted specification, computing module includes processor and memory, see at least [0006] of PGPub of submitted specification. Per submitted specification, landing member is a landing structure/zone, see at least [0082] 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) 1-20 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 (and similarly claim 12), which recites “frame comprises at least one compartment that…is disposed between the at least one roofing accessory component and the structure” is not clear. The claim initially recites frame is part of the roofing accessory. Then the claim recites frame comprises a compartment. The compartment is between roofing accesory component and the structure. From the recited claim language and submitted specification, it is not clear how the compartment is between the roofing accessory component and the structure. Figure 1 of submitted drawing shows a compartment, 21 for computing module which is part of roofing accessory not in between the roofing accesory and the structure.
Dependent claim(s) 2-11 and 13-20 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
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) 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0198801 (“Carthew”).
Regarding Claim 12 (and similarly claim 1), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Carthew discloses an integrated roofing accessory (see at least fig 2A, where a roofing accessory integrated into a roof of a home) comprising:
at least one roofing accesory component for installation on a roof of a structure (see at least fig 2A, where 106 is a roofing accessory integrated into a roof of a home); and
wherein the at least one roofing accesory component comprises at least one of:
a roofing cap,
a laminate roofing accessory, a roofing sheet,
a ridge cap,
a ridge vent,
a roofing frame (see at least fig 2B, where 106 is attached with roof via 135. Roofing frame is interpreted as a frame that is part of the roof or attached to the roof), or
a roofing shingle;
at least one frame defined at least partially by the at least one roof accessory component (see at least fig 2B, where 135 is part of roof accessor, 106);
wherein the at least one frame comprises at least one compartment that, when the integrated roofing accessory is installed on the roof, is disposed between the at least one roofing accessory component and the structure (see at least fig 2B, where 106 is installed on the roof. The house is interpreted as structure. 138 is between roofing accessory and the structure);
wherein the at least one frame holds at least one antenna and at least one computing module (see at least fig 2A, where 132 is antenna, 126 is a processor and 128 is memory. see also [0028]);
wherein the computing module is configured to communicate, via the at least one antenna, with at least one unmanned vehicle (see at least [0028], where “The package receiving station 106 and the UAV 102 communicate to confirm the package receiving station is located at the address of the package being delivered, and once confirmation is successful, the package receiving station 106 uses GPS antenna 132, the processors 126, and the memory 128 to receive GPS signals and compute a GPS correction signal…The UAV 102 positions itself over the package receiving platform 134 using GPS coordinates, and in some embodiments, computer vision processing. In embodiments using a computer vision processes”; see also [0017], [0022] and [0031]).
Regarding Claim 9, see citation on above on claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13 (and similarly claim 2), Carthew further discloses a system wherein at least one unmanned vehicle navigation instruction is configured to instruct the at least one unmanned vehicle to navigate to a landing location associated with the structure (see at least [0028]).
Regarding Claim 14 (and similarly claim 3), Carthew further discloses a system wherein the landing locations comprises a landing member in proximity to the structure (see at least fig 2B, where 134 is the package receiving platform. Package receiving platform is interpreted as landing location).
Regarding Claim 15 (and similarly claim 4), Carthew further discloses a system wherein the at least one antenna is embedded within a surface of the integrated roofing accessory (see at least fig 2A and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 18 (and similarly claim 7), Carthew further discloses a system wherein the at least one frame, comprising the at least one roofing accessory component, has a planar shape and is configured to be installed on a face of the roof (see at least fig 2A, where 106 is installed on a face of the roof).
Regarding Claim 20 (and similarly claim 10), Carthew further discloses a system wherein the at least one indicator is one of:
at least one radio frequency identification (RFID) tag,
at least one Near Field Communication (NFC) tag,
at least one barcode,
at least one Quick Response (QR) code (see at least [0017] and [0028),
at least one location identification marking, at least one electronic display device, or
any combination thereof.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0198801 (“Carthew”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2018/0237137 (“Tovey”), and further in view of US 10,049,589 (“Boyd”).
Regarding Claim 11, Carthew further discloses a system wherein receive, via the at least one antenna, at least one electronic response communication from the at least one unmanned vehicle in response to the at least one electronic communication (see at least [0042], where position correction is done by processor via antenna by connecting with the drone).
Carthew does not disclose the following limitations:
configured to cause the at least one unmanned vehicle to report, via the at least one electronic response communication, a parcel identifier associated with a parcel being carried by the at least one unmanned vehicle; and
track a location of the parcel based at least in part on a structure location associated with the structure and the at least one electronic communication with the at least one unmanned vehicle.
However, Tovey discloses a system wherein the at least one electronic communication is configured to cause the at least one unmanned vehicle to report, via the at least one electronic response communication, a parcel identifier associated with a parcel being carried by the at least one unmanned vehicle (see at least [0042], where “In response to verifying the identity of the physical object and the physical object is present at the location, the UAV 200 can provide an identifier to the user that the UAV 200 has guided the user to the correct physical object.”; UAV is identifying an object. So, UAV is identifying a parcel).
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 Carthew to incorporate the teachings of Tovey by including the above feature for avoiding any confusion and improving efficiency by verifying parcel before delivery.
Carthew in view of Tovey does not disclose the following limitation:
track a location of the parcel based at least in part on a structure location associated with the structure and the at least one electronic communication with the at least one unmanned vehicle.
However, Boyd discloses a system wherein track a location of the parcel based at least in part on a structure location associated with the structure and the at least one electronic communication with the at least one unmanned vehicle (see at least col 10, lines 42-46, where “The user or customer profile may identify potential landing zones in an associated delivery location 312, objects detected in certain landing zones such as tree 316, and nature and number of images, movies, or video streams captured by user 302 utilizing a user device.”).
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 Carthew in view of Tovey to incorporate the teachings of Boyd by including the above feature for avoiding lost or damaged parcel by monitoring the delivery location.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0198801 (“Carthew”), as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and in view of US 2021/0352502 (“Ginis”).
Regarding Claim 16 (and similarly claim 5), Carthew discloses a system wherein the computing module is configured to transmit, via the at least one antenna, at least one network communication with at least one , see citation above. Carthew does not disclose additional integrated roofing accessory to form a computer network.
However, Ginis discloses a system wherein a computer network is formed between various accessories, see at least fig 6.
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 Carthew to incorporate the teachings of Ginis by including the above feature for avoiding any confusion and improving efficiency by forming a network between plural accessories.
Regarding Claim 17 (and similarly claim 6), Ginis further discloses a system wherein the computer network comprises a distributed datacenter (see at least fig 6).
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0198801 (“Carthew”), as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and in view of US 7165363 (“Headrick”).
Regarding Claim 19 (and similarly claim 8), Carthew does not disclose claim 19. However, Headrick discloses a system wherein the at least one frame, comprising the at least one roofing accessory component, has a non-planar shape and is configured to be installed on a ridge of the roof (see at least fig 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Carthew with Headrick in order to substitute its planar shape for increasing the usages by adding non-planar shape for Carthew’s as a matter of design choice.
Non-Statutory 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 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 nonstatutory 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 §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14-16 and 20 is/are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10-12, 14, 15, 18 and 20 of US patent No. 12,190,275 (US Application No. 17/550,619).
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented. Table below shows the claim matching between the application and issued patent:
Application No.
claims
claims
claims
claims
claims
claims
claims
claims
18/958,753
1/12
10/20
9
4/15
5/16
18
19
3/14
12,190,275
1/11
2/12
1/11
4/14
5/15
9
10/18
20
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 is/are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 7, 12-14 and 26-28 of US patent No. 11,222,300 (US Application No. 17/099,364).
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented. Table below shows the claim matching between the application and issued patent:
Application No.
claims
claims
claims
claims
claims
18/958,753
1/12
4/15
5/16
7/18
8/19
11,222,300
1/14/28
6/21
7
12/26
13/27
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 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 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.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657