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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/11/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the NOA on 3/13/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement 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 1-5, 8-9, 13, 15-16, 18-19, 22, 32-34, 36, 42-44 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, line 6 states “a plurality of sources” which is indefinite as it is unclear what “sources” the applicant is referring to, what the sources are and how the data packets are obtained from the “sources”. Applicant should amend to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 1, line 13 states “determining an event occurrence” which is indefinite as it is unclear what an “event occurrence” is referring to and what the event is. Applicant should amend to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations of the claims. Independent claim 32 and 44 are also rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 15, line 15 states “other different environment features” which is indefinite as it is unclear what “other different” is referring to. Applicant should amend to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations of the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "an image capture aerial vehicle" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "one or more computing devices" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "an image capture aerial vehicle" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "one or more computing devices" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "an image capture aerial vehicle" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "one or more computing devices" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "an image capture aerial vehicle" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "one or more computing devices" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "an image capture aerial vehicle" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "one or more computing devices" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 13, 15-16, 18-19, 22, 32-34, 36, 42-44 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As stated previously in the Office Action dated 3/13/2026, the prior art as best exemplified by Mccann (WO 2023/060350) does not teach or render obvious a method and system to enhance vegetation control along an underground feature right-of-way having the particulars of determining a plurality of right-of-way points on a graphical representation of a selected location based on one or more of underground feature data, pipeline right-of-way surveys, pipeline right-of-way images, geographical landmarks, or georeferencing data; obtaining a plurality of data packets from a plurality of sources, each of the plurality of data packets including one or more of underground feature characteristics, pipeline characteristics, or environment characteristics; correlating each of the plurality of data packets to a corresponding right-of-way point of the graphical representation; storing each of the plurality of data packets as metadata associated with the corresponding right-of-way; determining an event occurrence based on image data in each of the plurality of data packets; determining a next action for each of the plurality of right-of-way points based on one or more of a capture date or the event occurrence associated with a corresponding data packet; and in response to a determination of the next action, one or more of: initiating capture of one or more aerial images or ground images of the right-of-way, initiating capture of one or more aerial images or ground images of the pipeline right-of-way, initiating a biological survey of a portion of the right-of-way, or initiating vegetation treatment of the portion of the right-of-way. Prior art Mccann discloses an aerial vehicle for field treatment of agricultural and pest control applications along roadways, farms, golf courses, parks and power lines having a targeting system and treatment system for the release of the agricultural or pest control substance within or along a set area, but fails to disclose determining a plurality of right-of-way points on a graphical representation of a selected location based on one or more of underground feature data, pipeline right-of-way surveys, pipeline right- of-way images, geographical landmarks, or georeferencing data; obtaining a plurality of data packets from a plurality of sources, each of the plurality of data packets including one or more of underground feature characteristics, pipeline characteristics, or environment characteristics; correlating each of the plurality of data packets to a corresponding right-of-way point of the graphical representation; storing each of the plurality of data packets as metadata associated with the corresponding right-of-way; determining an event occurrence based on image data in each of the plurality of data packets; determining a next action for each of the plurality of right-of-way points based on one or more of a capture date or the event occurrence associated with a corresponding data packet; and in response to a determination of the next action, one or more of: initiating capture of one or more aerial images or ground images of the right-of- way, initiating capture of one or more aerial images or ground images of the pipeline right-of-way, initiating a biological survey of a portion of the right-of-way, or initiating vegetation treatment of the portion of the right-of-way.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RODZIWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/AARON M RODZIWICZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights