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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 March 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 7, 8 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claims 7 and 8, it cannot be determined with certainty how to interpret the two limitations between the comma. Examiner is not certain if the comma should be interpreted as an “and” or an “or”. To expedite prosecution, the comma is being interpreted as an “or”.
The terms “far away” and “closer” in claim 15 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degrees, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Meeteren, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0350713) in view of Crawford (U.S. Patent No. 10,315,528).
Van Meeteren discloses an environmental inspection drone server, which is installed on an environmental inspection drone, includes: an input unit for inputting external information into the server (see Fig. 2, #202); an output unit for outputting information inside the server to the outside (see Fig. 3, #318); a communication unit for communicating internal and external information of the server (see Fig. 3, #318); a storage unit for storing information generated from the server (see Fig. 3, #340); a sensor unit for detecting information inside and outside the server (see para. 0021); a control unit for controlling all operations of the server (see Fig. 3, #312); and a memory unit for executing various programs and storing data accompanying them (see Fig. 3, #340), wherein: the memory unit includes a position measurement unit for measuring the location of the environmental inspection drone (see para. 0022), an inspection area setting unit for setting an inspection area of the environmental inspection drone (see para. 0044), an inspection movement path setting unit for setting an inspection movement path of the environmental inspection drone (see paras. 0082, 0035), an inspection movement path storage unit for storing the inspection movement path set by the inspection movement path setting unit (see Fig. 3, #340), an air environment inspection unit for inspecting the air environment (see para. 0101), and an abnormality occurrence inspection unit for inspecting whether an abnormality occurs during an environmental inspection (see paras. 0038, 0057, 0059). Van Meeteren does not explicitly disclose a water quality environment inspection unit.
A teaching from Crawford discloses a water quality environment inspection unit for inspecting the water quality environment (see col. 11:42-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Van Meeteren to include the teachings of Crawford based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve the ability to equip a UAV with data collection instruments and sensors that provide the capability to collect a large quantity of data over a large data collection area or physically dangerous data without human intervention (see col. 1:35-37).
With reference to claim 2, Van Meeteren further discloses wherein the air environment inspection unit adjusts the interval between inspection points to be narrower or wider as set by the inspection movement path setting unit (see para. 0075).
Pertaining to claim 3, Van Meeteren further discloses wherein the air environment inspection unit narrows the interval between the preset inspection points by adding an additional inspection point between adjacent inspection points as set by the inspection movement path setting unit (see para. 0075).
Regarding claim 4, Van Meeteren further teaches wherein the air environment inspection unit widens the interval between the preset inspection points by allowing the environmental inspection drone to skip a specific inspection point without conducting an inspection and move directly to the next inspection point, as set by the inspection movement path setting unit (see para. 0076, diverging or eliminating overlap equivalent to skipping).
Referring to claim 5, Van Meeteren does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Van Meeteren teaches capturing data of an area and changing the distances between the points (see paras. 0074-0075). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the distances between points based on the air data based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve systems, apparatus, methods, and articles of manufacture for automatically, quickly, and accurately ascertaining safety levels and/or estimated amounts of damage at a location by utilizing one or more autonomous vehicles to capture data of the location and utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic modules to analyze the captured data, e.g., to produce a 3-D map or model of the location (see para. 0018).
With regards to claim 6, Van Meeteren further teaches wherein the air environment inspection unit adjusts the inspection time interval between the (n)th inspection and the (n+1)th inspection (see paras. 0032, 0097, 0101).
Pertaining to claim 11, it is rejected based on the reasoning and citations outlined above in claim 1 for the substantially similar elements and limitations. Additionally, Van Meeteren discloses wherein: the abnormality occurrence inspection unit determines that an anomaly has occurred if the value detected by the sensor unit exceeds a preset threshold (see para. 0100) and, secures and analyzes a video at the abnormality occurrence time, which is captured by the camera sensor included in the sensor unit and stored in the storage unit (see paras. 0056, 0102, 0130). Van Meeteren discloses that the data can record data prior to and after the abnormality time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include data of before and after the abnormality determination based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve systems, apparatus, methods, and articles of manufacture for automatically, quickly, and accurately ascertaining safety levels and/or estimated amounts of damage at a location by utilizing one or more autonomous vehicles to capture data of the location and utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic modules to analyze the captured data, e.g., to produce a 3-D map or model of the location (see para. 0018).
With reference to claim 12, Van Meeteren does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Van Meeteren teaches that the video can be extended for further analysis (see para. 0102).
Pertaining to claim 13, it is rejected based on the reasoning and citations outlined above in claim 1 for the substantially similar elements and limitations. Additionally, Van Meeteren discloses wherein: the abnormality occurrence inspection unit determines the occurrence of an abnormality by comparing the current image captured by the camera sensor included in the sensor unit with the past image stored in the storage unit (see para. 0038).
For claim 14, Van Meeteren further teaches wherein the abnormality occurrence inspection unit determines the occurrence of an abnormality by finely segmenting both the past image and the current image and comparing each segmented portion individually (see para. 0038). The finely segmenting the image is obvious in light of the AI image analysis module.
Referring to claim 15, Van Meeteren does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to increase segmentation when at greater distances and decrease when close because it is known the level of detail needed to determine an abnormality at a known distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include increase segmentation at certain distances based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve systems, apparatus, methods, and articles of manufacture for automatically, quickly, and accurately ascertaining safety levels and/or estimated amounts of damage at a location by utilizing one or more autonomous vehicles to capture data of the location and utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic modules to analyze the captured data, e.g., to produce a 3-D map or model of the location (see para. 0018).
Referring to claim 17, Van Meeteren discloses detecting differences between the detected images (see para. 0038). Detecting segment ratio differences is functionally equivalent to detecting image ratio differences. The segmenting ratio is obvious in light of the AI image analysis module.
For claim 18, it is rejected based on the reasoning and citations outlined above in claim 1 for the substantially similar elements and limitations. Additionally, Van Meeteren discloses wherein: when the environmental inspection drone arrives at the inspection point, the position measurement unit obtains the location of the inspection point at which it has arrived, and compares the obtained location with the previously stored reference point location to determine whether it has arrived at the correct inspection point. (see paras. 0056-0059). Van Meeteren does not explicitly disclose using GPS signals.
However, GPS is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Official Notice is taken in that GPS location is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compare its current location with previously stored location to determine precise location based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve systems, apparatus, methods, and articles of manufacture for automatically, quickly, and accurately ascertaining safety levels and/or estimated amounts of damage at a location by utilizing one or more autonomous vehicles to capture data of the location and utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic modules to analyze the captured data, e.g., to produce a 3-D map or model of the location (see para. 0018).
Referring to claims 19 and 20, comparing a desired location/altitude with the current location/altitude of a UAV to obtain a precise location/altitude is a well known technique to obtain positioning in three dimensions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compare its current location/altitude with previously stored location/altitude to determine precise location/altitude based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve systems, apparatus, methods, and articles of manufacture for automatically, quickly, and accurately ascertaining safety levels and/or estimated amounts of damage at a location by utilizing one or more autonomous vehicles to capture data of the location and utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic modules to analyze the captured data, e.g., to produce a 3-D map or model of the location (see para. 0018).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Meeteren, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0350713) and Crawford (U.S. Patent No. 10,315,528) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scott, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0091026).
For claims 7 and 10, Van Meeteren does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from Scott discloses monitoring an atmospheric data value and wind speed that does not exceed a reference value, and then increases inspection time as needed (see para. 0240). Scott discloses the opposite of the claimed limitation; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious that if the data did exceed the reference value, the inspection time would be reduced because this is the inverse of the teaching of Scott and would have been obvious at the effective date of filing based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve air quality measurements are used to identify sources of chemicals at a localized level by accounting for local conditions using data such as ambient condition data and user-provided data about the local environment (see para. 0012).
With reference to claim 8, Scott further teaches if the atmospheric data value measured by the air sensor included in the sensor unit is below a preset reference value, determines that the air pollution is not severe and increases the inspection time interval accordingly (see para. 0240). Van Meeteren teaches the first limitation of the claim.
Pertaining to claim 9, Scott further discloses if the data value measured by the sensor unit at a specific inspection point meets or exceeds a preset pollution level threshold, exceeds a preset temperature threshold, falls below a preset wind speed threshold, falls below a preset precipitation threshold, or exceeds a preset atmospheric pressure threshold, extends the inspection time at the specific inspection point (see para. 0240). Van Meeteren teaches the first limitation of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights