DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references on page 1, line 5, page 8, lines 9-11, and page 9, lines 10-12, in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawing sheet should be numbered 1/1 in the middle of the top of the sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(t).
The view number (i.e., “Fig. 1”) should be removed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because, in lines 1, 2 and 8, it contains the implied phrases “The present invention finds its application…”, “the identified solution pertains to…” and “The invention indicates…”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, line 4, the abbreviation “n.” should read “no.”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 1, line 12, “managing outbreaks or fires” should read “managing outbreaks of fires”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 1, line 14, “detection of the beginnings of fire” should read “detection of the beginning of a fire”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 1, line 17, “at least of contain its evolution” should read “at least or containing its evolution”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 2, line 15, “arsonable fires” should read “arsonous fires”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 4, line 12, “they are at stage of proposal” should read “they are at a stage of proposal”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 4, lines 14-15, “allows to obtain a high observation point” should read “allows obtaining a high observation point”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 5, line 16, “which constitute and equipment” should read “which constitute equipment”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 13, lines 15-16, “positioned at safe height” should read “positioned at a safe height”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 13, line 24, “allows to evaluate” should read “allows evaluating”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 14, line 6, “allows to foresee” should read “allows foreseeing”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Page 17, lines 21 and 26, contain embedded hyperlinks and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlinks and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
On page 20, line 6, “this kind of simulations” should read “this kind of simulation”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Page 20, line 15, contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
On page 21, line 29, “spectral analyzes” should read “spectral analyses”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 23, line 4, “These are analyzes” should read “These are analyses”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 23, line 8, “up to analyzes” should read “up to analyses”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 26, line 21, “drone 130, which have to fly” should read “drone 130, which has to fly”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 29, lines 6-7, “provide them with a help” should read “provide them with help”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, the word System should not be capitalized. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 1, lines 1-2, the meaning of the phrase “A System … which presents the following prerogatives” is unclear because a prerogative is a right, power, or privilege belonging to a person, group, or office. The Examiner recommends the phrase should read “A system … comprising” and line 3 should then read “said mission drone (130) which is associated with an information sheet”. Additionally, in lines 22-23, “and said system for determining safe flight trajectories for a mission drone (130) is characterized by the fact that also comprises” should read “and said system further comprises”.
Claim 1 should be limited to a single colon, because using multiple colons in a single sentence is grammatically incorrect which makes it confusing to determine the hierarchical relationships between limitations.
In claim 1, line 5, “the maximum resistance time of the drone” should read “a maximum resistance time of the drone” to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the maximum resistance time in the claim.
In claim 1, line 5, “resistance time of the drone itself at various temperatures” should read “resistance time of the drone at various temperatures” because the word “itself” is redundant in the claim.
In claim 1, line 6, “that is how long said drone can operate correctly” should read “wherein the maximum resistance time of the drone is how long said drone can operate correctly” to clearly link the maximum resistance time with its definition in the claim.
In claim 1, lines 8-9, “the minimum and maximum flight speeds according to the payload with which it is equipped” should read “minimum and maximum flight speeds according to a payload with which the drone is equipped” to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the flight speeds, payload, and drone in the claim.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, “the flight range, i.e., the energy or fuel consumption according to the payload with which it is equipped” should read “a flight range, wherein the flight range is energy or fuel consumption according to the payload with which the drone is equipped” to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the flight range, energy, and drone in the claim, and to clearly link the flight range with its definition in the claim.
In claim 1, line 14, “at least a second radio station” should read “at least one radio station” because there is no first radio station recited in the claim.
In claim 1, lines 17 and 19 should not be separated. Blank line 18 and the line break preceding line 19 should be removed. These appear to be typographical errors.
In claim 1, lines 19-20, the meaning of the limitation “while it is in flight, and albeit in an approximate way, whether the flight path it is making is compliant, or not, with said at least one memorized flight path” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggests the limitation “while the drone is in flight, whether the flight path of the drone approximately complies with said at least one memorized flight path” would be clearer.
In claim 1, line 29, the phrase “in computer format” should be removed because it does not impose any specific format or structure on the environmental model, which must inherently be formatted for a computer in order to be executed by computing means to simulation the evolution of temperatures.
In claim 1, line 31, the meaning of the phrase “being said environmental model characterized in that” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggests the phrase “said environmental model characterized in that” would be clearer.
In claim 1, line 32, “the temperature values of all the points” should read “temperature values of all points” to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the temperature values and the points in the claim.
In claim 1, line 34, “it is configured for simulating” should read “the environmental model is configured for simulating” to make it clear which element of the system is configured for simulating the evolution of temperatures.
In claim 1, line 36, “”said simulations are performed” should read “said simulations of the evolution of temperatures” to make the relationship between the simulations and the environmental model clear.
In claim 1, lines 36-37, “executed by means of said computing means” should read “executed by said computing means”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 1, the word “and” should be added to the end of line 43. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claims 2-10, line 2, “trajectories for a mission drone” should read “trajectories for the mission drone” to make it clear that the dependent claims are directed to the same mission drone recited in claim 1, line 2.
In claim 2, line 3, the phrase “being equipped with” should read “equipped with”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 2, line 3, “heat-resistant coat” should read “heat-resistant coating”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 4, line 4, “equipped for maintain” should read “equipped to maintain”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 5, lines 2-3, “said second at least one radio station” should read “said at least one radio station” because there is no first radio station recited in claims 1 or 5.
In claim 5, line 3, “said heat-resistant drone” should read “said mission drone” to make it clear the claim is directed to the mission drone recited in claim 1, line 2.
In claim 10, line 4, “it is made” should read “the environmental model is made” to make it clear which element of the claim the limitation is directed to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 3, the limitation “said mission drone … is associated with an information sheet” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the information sheet is included in the system. Although the claim recites the mission drone is associated with an information sheet, the claims do not specify how the association is implemented, and neither independent claim 1 nor its dependent claims explicitly rely upon the maximum resistance time, minimum and maximum flight speeds, and flight range specified in the information the information sheet. Further, Applicant discloses, on page 11, lines 18-21, that drones designed to operate in high temperature environments are normally supplied with specific technical data sheets indicating their heat resistance limits. Applicant further discloses, on page 7, line 28 to page 8, line 14, that drones associated with information sheets specifying their maximum resistance time at various temperatures, minimum and maximum flight speeds, and flight range are substantially known art. Therefore, it does not appear that Applicant relies upon the information sheet to provide patentable weight. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the information sheet, and the specifications therein, are not included in the scope of the claimed system for determining safe flight trajectories.
Regarding claim 1, line 10, the limitation “flight range, i.e., the energy or fuel consumption” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a flight range is defined as an energy or fuel consumption. Page 6, lines 35-36, disclose each drone has a certain flight range as a function of the flight speed and the load carried, however, there does not appear to be disclosure of how the flight range relates to the energy or fuel consumption. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the information sheet merely specifies the flight range according to the payload with which the mission drone is equipped.
Regarding claim 1, line 16, the limitation “memorizing at least one flight path” renders the claim indefinite because the relationship is unclear between the flight path(s) and the safe flight trajectories determined in lines 1-2. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the memorized flight path(s) are the safe flight trajectories determined by the system.
Regarding claim 1, line 27, the limitation “determine said safe flight routes” renders the claim indefinite because the relationship is unclear between the safe flight routes and the safe flight trajectories determined in lines 1-2. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the safe flight routes are the safe flight trajectories determined by the system.
Regarding claim 1, lines 34-35, in the limitation “in the near future”, the term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is unclear how the evolution of temperatures is simulated. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the environmental model merely simulates the future evolution of temperatures.
Regarding claim 1, lines 36-37, the limitation “said simulations are performed through a simulation program, executed by means of said computing means” renders the claim indefinite because the relationship is unclear between the environmental model and the simulation program. Lines 29-35 disclose the environmental model is configured for simulating the evolution of temperatures, however, lines 36-37 disclose the simulations are performed through a simulation program. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the simulation program uses the environmental model while performing the simulation of the evolution of temperatures.
Regarding claim 3, lines 4-5, the limitation “values calculated by means of simulations carried out with said environmental model” render the claim indefinite because the relationship is unclear between the simulations carried out with said environmental model and the simulations performed through a simulation program in claim 1, line 36. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claims 1 and 3 are directed to the same simulations.
Regarding claim 10, line 4, the limitation “it is made in ‘WRF-Fire’ technology” contains the trademark/trade name WRF. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a wildland fire model and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the environmental model is made using an appropriate modeling technology.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 3, 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 2022-0147175) in view of Hoffman (US 2009/0205845), Wu (CN 114534134) and Pedersen et al. (US 6,556,981), hereinafter Pedersen.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a system for determining safe flight trajectories for a mission drone (Park; para. 1: The present invention relates to a control system and a control method for a drone squadron, and more specifically, to a system and method for implementing appropriate control for a drone squadron performing firefighting missions at a fire scene.), which presents the following prerogatives:
said mission drone is associated with an information sheet, and said information sheet specifies:
the maximum resistance time of the drone itself at various temperatures, that is how long said drone can operate correctly when it is operating at high temperatures,
the minimum and maximum flight speeds according to the payload with which it is equipped,
the flight range, i.e., the energy or fuel consumption according to the payload with which it is equipped (as discussed above, the information sheet and the information therein does not appear to be within the scope of the claimed system);
and said mission drone also includes:
bidirectional radio communication means between said mission
drone and at least a second radio station (Park; para. 31: each drone … includes a communication unit; para. 35: the communication unit … plays the role of transmitting and receiving data or control signals, etc., to and from the control server unit);
and said system for determining safe flight trajectories for a mission drone is characterized by the fact that it also comprises:
a second observation drone (Park; para. 44: first drone device (11) is intended to collect field information necessary for controlling each of the multiple second drone devices (12), and can approach the fire scene (1) to acquire data around the fire scene (1) and perform reconnaissance) equipped with temperature sensors (Park; para. 42: first drone device (11) may have a sensor module (300) for acquiring surrounding data; para. 47: sensor module (300) of the present invention is equipped with a weather sensor that acquires weather information data at the location of the drone squadron (10). For example, the weather sensor may include … a temperature sensor), a camera (Park; para. 13: the first drone device may be equipped with a camera module to acquire image data captured by the camera module) and sensors for the acquisition of speed and direction of wind (Park; para. 47: the above weather information … may include one or more data among wind volume, wind direction),
computing means also designed to determine said safe flight routes for said mission drone (Park; para. 28: control server unit (20) receives real-time information by receiving surrounding data signals regarding the fire scene (1) for one drone device (10'), and controls the progress of the firefighting mission by transmitting a control command generation signal to control the performance of the firefighting mission for other drone devices; para. 40: first drone device (11) serves as a reference for the flight direction or altitude, etc., and the second drone device (12) flies in dependence on the direction or altitude, etc., of the flight path formed by the first drone device),
an environmental model that represents, in computer format, the physical environment (Park; para. 57: When the drone squadron (10) approaches the fire area, the first drone device (11) approaches the fire area and obtains data information around the fire scene (1). This may involve acquiring real-time video image information, particularly regarding areas that are difficult for agents to access. The first drone device (11) transmits the acquired data information to the control server unit (20) as a data signal.) that contains the flight paths determined for said mission drone (Park; para. 59: The second drone device (12) selects and receives a necessary control command generation signal from the control server unit (20) according to the mission mode recognized by a separate input or a mounted mission execution module (400). According to the received signal, the second drone device (12) performs each firefighting mission.), being characterized in that:
the points of said represented physical environment are updated substantially in real time (Park; para. 57: When the drone squadron (10) approaches the fire area, the first drone device (11) approaches the fire area and obtains data information around the fire scene (1). This may involve acquiring real-time video image information, particularly regarding areas that are difficult for agents to access. The first drone device (11) transmits the acquired data information to the control server unit (20) as a data signal.).
Park does not explicitly disclose the observation drone’s camera is a thermal imaging camera.
Pedersen, in the same field of endeavor (drone fire detection), discloses an observation drone equipped with a video and a thermal imaging camera (Pedersen; col. 6, ll. 10-15: in place of … surveillance satellite 10, other surveillance craft 11 such … drone aircraft … are configured to carry conventional video or infrared imaging equipment to monitor the selected geographic regions; Pedersen; col. 10, ll. 45-50: FIG. 5 is a block diagram of a representative imaging and control system 100 for fire surveillance satellite 10 shown in FIG. 1 (or surveillance craft 11 of FIG. 1A). The imaging and control system 100 of FIG. 5 includes multiple video 102 and infrared 103 scanning devices that capture images for processing and transmission to the fire control headquarters 20.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the observation drone of Park to include an infrared thermal camera, as disclosed by Pedersen, to yield the predictable result of enabling the observation drone to clearly monitor a fire through smoke and haze.
Park, as modified, does not explicitly disclose said environmental model is characterized in that:
it is configured for simulating the evolution of temperatures in the near future in the event of a fire that develops in said physical environment, said simulations are performed through a simulation program, executed by means of said computing means, and configured to process some input data including at least:
temperature data, also detected by said thermal imaging camera with which said second observation drone is equipped, and which is positioned at safe height with respect to a possible fire,
data about speed and direction of wind, detected by special sensors with which said second observation drone is equipped, and
data describing the vegetation which is present in said environment represented by said environmental model, in which said data descriptive of the vegetation comprise a parameter which expresses the combustibility of the described vegetation.
Pedersen further discloses an environmental model (Pedersen; col. 16, ll. 3-6: The control processor 208, image processor 205 and database computer 209 analyze the contents of images of the monitored areas to fully characterize any fires.) is characterized in that:
presence of fires of all points of a represented physical environment (Pedersen; col. 10, ll. 33-42: FIG. 4 illustrates an electronic display defining a fire map using the sector and zone partitioning scheme of FIG. 3, and further showing two fires F3 and F2. As shown in FIG. 4, the fires F3 and F2 are separate and distinct from each other, and their overall contours and relative positions are electronically and individually indicated on the fire map. The individual sub-areas Aij, where fires are present, are easily and specifically identified. The circular area partitioning illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4 is useful in visualizing the extent and rate of growth of fires in individual sectors.) are updated, substantially in real time (Pedersen; col. 11, ll. 29-40: The video 102 and infrared 103 scanners are coupled through respective analog to digital (A/D) converters 102A and 103A illustrated in FIG. 5 for digitizing image signals and communicating them to the control processor and signal routing circuitry 101. The signal routing circuity 101 in turn transmits the data in real time to the fire control headquarters 20, or routes the image data to the appropriate memory 106, 109 and processing circuitry 107, 108, as shown in FIG. 5. Thus, the system has the ability to acquire, process and analyze image data on the surveillance satellite 10, or to communicate the image data to the fire control center for processing and analysis.),
it is configured for simulating the evolution of the fires in the near future in the event of a fire that develops in said physical environment, said simulations are performed through a simulation program, executed by means of said computing means (Pedersen; col. 17, ll. 3-12: Determining the combined impact of critical fire fighting variables in an organized, accurate and real-time basis to assess or predict relative danger and priority zones requires a structured approach based on expert system knowledge and past experience with respect to risk assessment. Fuzzy logic electronic circuitry and software is a particularly attractive method for implementing such an expert system to determine and quantify the relative degree of danger for sectors of a monitored region, such as that depicted in FIGS. 3 and 4.), and configured to process some input data including at least:
data about speed and direction of wind (Pedersen; col. 17, ll. 13-23: a danger index is derived for selected (or all) sectors of the monitored region, using fuzzy logic inference rules to evaluate critical fire fighting control factors, such as … the velocity of the wind in the direction from the fire to each location of concern … Each of these parameters is computer analyzed and evaluated on a real-time basis and its quantified codes used in the fuzzy logic expert system to assist in optimizing fire fighting activities.), detected by special sensors with which said second observation drone is equipped (Pedersen; col. 16, ll. 50-55: one of the purposes of the … surveillance craft 11 … is to continually update the computers at fire control headquarters 20 with current weather information, including specifically wind … conditions), and
data describing the vegetation which is present in said environment represented by said environmental model, in which said data descriptive of the vegetation comprise a parameter which expresses the combustibility of the described vegetation (Pedersen; col. 16, ll. 27-39: very dry conditions may be known to exist in a dense forest area, and further, that there is a high degree of combustible material present on the forest floor. Those conditions represent a very hazardous situation in the presence of fire. On the other hand, wide open areas with little or dispersed vegetation, or very wet conditions, represent a comparatively less dangerous situation … a combustion factor is defined and stored in the database 210 for each of the monitored sectors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the control server unit of Park, as modified, to use an expert system to predict the fire’s progression, as disclosed by Pedersen, with the motivation of automatically and efficiently directing the closest or most effective fire fighting resource to specific high priority locations in or beyond the fire zone thereby optimizing fire fighting activities (Pedersen; col. 7, ll. 61-67).
Although a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Park’s master drone should be flown in a safe area with respect to the fire, and Park, in figure 2, discloses the master drone is flown at a height that is far from the burning building, Park, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the observation drone is positioned at safe height with respect to a possible fire.
Wu, in the same field of endeavor (drone firefighting systems) discloses a drone positioned at a safe height (Wu; para. 39: The standby point at the fire point is defined by the dimension of the geometric center of the fire area and the height of the highest object (building or tree, etc.) at this point plus a safety height H.) with respect to a possible fire (Wu; para. 56: The central computer control system sends instructions to the pan-tilt unit, causing the pan-tilt unit, camera unit, infrared thermometer, and laser rangefinder to perform a 360-degree blind scan in the horizontal direction to detect fire sources. The second optical camera uses AI visual image recognition technology to identify flames and smoke, the second infrared camera uses a special infrared and ultraviolet detector to inspect the ignition point of the fire source, the infrared thermometer measures whether the temperature is greater than 100 degrees Celsius, and the linear beam smoke detection fire detection technology, after mutual verification by multiple systems, confirms a fire, greatly reducing false alarms.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the master drone of Park, as modified, to standby at a safe height over the fire, as disclosed by Wu, to yield the predictable result of protecting the master drone from damage.
Park, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the temperature values of the points; and simulating the evolution of temperatures by processing temperature data also detected by said thermal imaging camera with which said second observation drone is equipped.
Wu further discloses mapping temperature values of points in an area (Wu; para. 9: The central computer control system is used to obtain a fire scene temperature gradient map based on the temperature of the fire scene) by processing temperature data detected by a thermal imaging camera with which a drone is equipped (Wu; para. 9: the first infrared camera is used to scan the temperature of the fire scene).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the infrared thermal camera of Park, as modified, to also measure the temperature of the fire scene, as disclosed by Wu, with the motivation of confirming a fire by mutually verifying multiple measurement thereby greatly reducing false alarms (Wu; para. 56).
Park, as modified, does not explicitly disclose simulating the evolution of the temperatures.
Wu further discloses a drone determines a flight path to a fire point before flying to it, and periodically measures a highest temperature of a fire to determine a target to extinguish (Wu; para. 58: The drone calculates the optimal flight path to the fire point in the 2D environmental data, takes off, flies to the fire point, uses laser measurement and 3D modeling, uses infrared thermography to measure the highest temperature of the fire source, calculates the target to be attacked by the drone based on the highest temperature, calculates the drone's movement command, and positions itself. It breaks the window, launches the extinguishing agent, and periodically monitors the fire and the highest temperature.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the predictions of relative danger and priority zones by the expert system of Park, as modified, to include a temperature gradient map, as disclosed by Wu, to yield the predictable result of enabling the drone to predict the location of the highest temperature of the fire source thereby allowing it to reach it faster.
Park, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the mission drone includes:
at least one temperature sensor;
memory means suitable for memorizing at least one flight path; and
geolocation means suitable for detecting the position and the instantaneous speed of the mission drone itself, in order to verify, while it is in flight, and albeit in an approximate way, whether the flight path it is making is compliant, or not, with said at least one memorized flight path.
Hoffman, in the same field of endeavor (UAV wildfire control), discloses a mission drone (Hoffman; para. 30: one or more UAVs 16 that can be placed into flight, or launched, from the transport aircraft 12, and thereafter fly and be guided to the fire area) includes:
at least one temperature sensor (Hoffman; para. 34: The UAV may also include sensors for monitoring and determining conditions, including weather conditions and its flight conditions. Weather conditions can include wind speed, wind direction, humidity, and temperature. Conditions relating to the flight of the UAV can include the monitoring of altitude, speed, location, and attitude of the UAV. The UAV may also include sensors for determining conditions relating to the fire, such as heat sensors, infrared sensors and the like.);
memory means suitable for memorizing at least one flight path (Hoffman; para. 34: The sensors may participate in navigating and controlling the UAV to track to a fire area, or a preloaded mission plan might be used exclusively.); and
geolocation means suitable for detecting the position and the instantaneous speed of the mission drone itself (Hoffman; para. 34: The UAV may also include sensors for monitoring and determining conditions, including … its flight conditions … Conditions relating to the flight of the UAV can include the monitoring of … speed, location … of the UAV.), in order to verify, while it is in flight, and albeit in an approximate way, whether the flight path it is making is compliant, or not, with said at least one memorized flight path (Hoffman; para. 37: the UAV flight control system may either use the information, or be controlled, to adjust its actions to maintain a precise flight path in the presence of wind disturbances, fire flare-ups, or other factors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the slave drone of Park, as modified, to include temperature and location sensors, and to determine its actions relative to a preloaded flight path, as disclosed by Hoffman, with the motivation of enabling the drone to maintain a precise flight path in the presence of wind disturbances, fire flare-ups, or other factors (Hoffman, para. 37) thereby increasing the accuracy and thus effectiveness of the extinguishing agents it applies.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Park, as modified, discloses said at least one memorized flight path, is calculated and updated, substantially in real time (Hoffman; para. 37: The computerized system preferably can receive communicated command, control and intelligence information regarding the situation and management of a fire event and adjust the parameters of the UAV flight appropriately in light of such command and control information. For example, the UAV flight control system may either use the information, or be controlled, to adjust its actions to maintain a precise flight path in the presence of wind disturbances, fire flare-ups, or other factors.), as a function of the evolution of temperatures, according to values calculated by means of simulations carried out with said environmental model (Pedersen; col. 20, ll. 40-60: The expert system uses the value matrix entries of FIG. 13 and the danger index values of FIG. 12 to determine more specific priorities for fighting fires in particular areas of the monitored region … The control processor 208 recommends or initiates the dispatching of appropriate fire fighting resources 30, 40 to the higher priority areas … As a result, the best available fire fighting resources 30, 40 are properly dispatched on a real-time basis to the areas in immediate danger).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Park, as modified, discloses said second at least one radio station with which said heat-resistant drone is enabled to communicate is located in said observation drone (Park; para. 35: communication unit (110) may form a network that communicates with each other between a plurality of drone devices (10') constituting the drone squadron (10); para. 39: the drone squadron (10) may have only one of the plurality of drone devices (10') capable of flying in a swarm recognized as a first drone device (11) in a role mode, and the other plurality of drone devices (10') recognized as a second drone device (12) in a role mode).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Park, as modified, discloses said mission drone is also equipped with dispensers of substances with extinguishing properties (Park; para. 49: control unit (130) of the second drone device (12) generates a control command for the mission execution module; para. 51: mission execution module … may include a module for performing a mission for fire suppression, such as firing a fire extinguishing projectile and/or spraying a fire extinguishing agent).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Park, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as describe above.
Park, as modified, does not explicitly disclose said mission drone is also equipped with a video-camera.
Hoffman discloses a mission drone is equipped with a video camera (Hoffman; para. 39: The UAV may also include any of the sensors mentioned above, optical cameras, infrared imaging systems, or the like; para. 34: The sensors or other processors to locate a target may include, but are not limited to … pattern recognition from video pictures, laser detectors, optical equipment and cameras).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the slave drone of Park, as modified, to include a camera, as disclosed by Hoffman, with the motivation of controlling and guiding the flight of the UAV to its intended target (Hoffman; para. 39).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Park, as modified, discloses said mission drone is also equipped with one or more environmental sensors to measure any air currents (Hoffman; para. 34: The UAV may also include sensors for monitoring and determining conditions, including weather conditions … Weather conditions can include wind speed, wind direction).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Park, as modified, discloses said environmental model is suitable for simulating the evolution of temperatures in the near future in the event of a fire, and it is made in "WRF-Fire" technology (Pedersen; col. 17, ll. 3-12: Determining the combined impact of critical fire fighting variables in an organized, accurate and real-time basis to assess or predict relative danger and priority zones [and temperatures, as modified by Wu] requires a structured approach based on expert system knowledge and past experience with respect to risk assessment. Fuzzy logic electronic circuitry and software is a particularly attractive method for implementing such an expert system to determine and quantify the relative degree of danger for sectors of a monitored region, such as that depicted in FIGS. 3 and 4.).
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Hoffman, Wu and Pedersen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Türkmen (TR 2019 05485).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Park, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Park, as modified, does not explicitly disclose said mission drone is a heat-resistant drone, being equipped with a heat-resistant coat, or treated with protective heat-resistant paints.
Türkmen, in the same field of endeavor (fire investigation drones), discloses a mission drone is a heat-resistant drone, being equipped with a heat-resistant coat, or treated with protective heat-resistant paints (Türkmen; para. 40: To protect its equipment and main body when entering a fire, the aforementioned fireproof drone has its entire exterior covered with fire-resistant and lightweight materials such as aramid fibers and air buffers. Thanks to this coating, the fire-resistant drone can take samples without being affected by the high temperatures generated by the fire.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the slave drone of Park, as modified, to include a heat-resistant coating, as disclosed by Türkmen, with the motivation of using the drone to dive into flames and collect images from inaccessible areas of the scene thereby preventing harm to the first responders (Türkmen; para. 40).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Park, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Park, as modified, does not explicitly disclose said mission drone is also equipped with one or more environmental sensors to detect information on the composition of air.
Türkmen discloses a mission drone is equipped with one or more environmental sensors to detect information on the composition of air (Türkmen; para. 38: the fireproof drone contains a Tenax sampler that can take samples from the ambient air, allowing for the collection of evidence during a fire. Samples can be taken from any number of points, determined with the help of images before contamination/dilution. Thanks to the Tenax sampling system, many alternative methods have been developed for the analysis of volatile hydrocarbon compounds in fire debris. In sampling of numerous fire accelerants, including gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel, using a tenax sampling trap—a porous polymer capable of adsorbing volatile material—a Gas Chromatography Mass Detector (Agilent) system with a Thermal Desorber unit was used for analysis.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the slave drone of Park, as modified, to include a Tenax sampler used to sample the ambient air, as disclosed by Türkmen, with the motivation of collecting samples quickly and without endangering anyone's life, thus ensuring that evidence that will help understand the cause of the fire is collected in a timely manner and before it is destroyed (Türkmen; para. 38).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Hoffman, Wu and Pedersen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jarrell (US 9,087,451).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Park, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Park, as modified, does not explicitly disclose at least one monitoring station located in an elevated fixed position, wherein said observation drone is equipped for maintain a direct radio connection with said at least one monitoring station.
Jarrell, in the same field of endeavor (UAV fire monitoring systems), discloses at least one monitoring station (Jarrell; col. 9, ll. 56-57) located in an elevated fixed position, wherein an observation drone is equipped for maintaining a direct radio connection with said at least one monitoring station (Jarrell; col. 5, ll. 51-58: communications stations 101 (e.g., stations 101a, 101b, 101c, 101d, 101e, 101f), which may be positioned on streetlights, traffic lights, utility poles, towers (e.g., cell towers), communications station poles, road signs or display monitors, buildings, trees, billboards, bridges, or other structures within a proximity of a roadway or a right-of-way, according to various implementations, can be used to communicate with UAVs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the master drone of Park, as modified, to communicate directly with one or more communication stations mounted on poles and/or towers, as disclosed by Jarrell, to yield the predictable result of extending the communication range of the drone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights