DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, 28, 32, 36-37 are cancelled while claims 21-22, 29-31, 33-35, 38-42, and 45-46 are amended and claims 47-50 are newly added. Therefore, claims 21-27, 29-31, 33-35, and 38-50 filed 11/19/25 are currently pending and being examined.
Double Patenting
3. 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).
4. 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 § 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).
5. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
6. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
7. Claims 21-27, 29-31, 33-35, and 38-50 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-23 of U.S. Patent 12,020,148 and claims 1-7, 12, 14-19, 24-27, and 30 of U.S. Patent 12,254,439. In fact, the ‘148 patent and ‘439 patent are more detailed and more specific and encompasses almost all of the elements of the broader, current ‘521 application as seen below.
8. This is an obviousness nonstatutory double patenting rejection because although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations from the present application and U.S. Patent 12,020,148 above are significantly similar and the claimed features seem to be identical with various obvious alternate methods. The omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375. For these reasons, claims 21-46 of the instant application are not identical to claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-23 of U.S. Patent 12,020,148, and claims 1-7, 12, 14-19, 24-27, and 30 of U.S. Patent 12,254,439, but they are not patentably distinct.
9. Claims 21-27, 29-31, 33-35, and 38-50 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 31-60 of Application No. 18/744198. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Examiner Notes
10. Claims 21-27, 29-31, 33-35, and 38-50 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a pending double patenting rejection. To overcome the double patenting rejection, the Examiner suggests filing a terminal disclaimer.
11. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Ferencz (US 2017/0001653), Al Dhaheri et al (US 2020/0265377), Breed et al (US 2009/0015400), and Simpson et al (US 2024/0029092). Simpson (US 2024/00290902 is directed to transmitting geolocation exchange based markets. Breed (US 2009/0015400) is directed to shipping container monitoring based on door status. Al Dhaheri et al (US 2020/0265377) is directed to a tracking system. Ferencz et al (US 2017/001653) is directed to monitoring and controlling distributed machines. Meanwhile, Unknown (IEEE Guide for Collecting and Managing Transmission Line Inspection and Maintenance Data, NPL) was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art, and is directed to computer vision and imaging in transportation.
12. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
a first machine learning model comprising a neural network trained to predict a location of text sequences in the image data;
a second machine learning model comprising a neural network for scanning the text sequences or predicting a sequence of missing characters, or a combination thereof; or
a combination of the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model.
13. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the double patenting rejection. Regarding the claim objections, the applicant’s claim amendments filed 11/19/25 obviate the previous claim objections, which are hereby withdrawn. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the applicant made significant claim amendments on 11/19/25 which obviate the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection including more cameras and how the neural networks are trained, thereby the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Unknown (IEEE Guide for Collecting and Managing Transmission Line Inspection and Maintenance Data, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
16. 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).
17. 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.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
19. 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.
20. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
21. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627