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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 8/11/2025. Claims 1-8 are pending and considered below.
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:
“activation unit”, “data collection unit”, “analysis unit” and “visualization unit” (claims 1-8) are components of a data processing device and a smart device communicating through a network (paragraphs [0024-0029] (PGPub) and FIG. 1, data processing device-12, smart device-14, and network-54). The data processing device is a server (paragraph [0024]). The smart device is a mobile device, smartphone, tablet, smart glasses, headset-type terminal or robot (paragraphs [0070] and [0127-0130]).
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without an additional element which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 1-8, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 1-8 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories (e.g., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Claims 1-8 are directed to a device (a data processing device and a smart device communicating through a network).
Claims 1-8 are directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 1-8 are directed to a device for determining to activate one or more drones. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass an emergency responder determining to dispatch drones to provide aerial photography of a disaster area. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claims 1-8 do not include any revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements.
Claims 1-8 include the step 2B additional elements of an activation unit, a data collection unit, an analysis unit, and a visualization unit. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the activation unit, data collection unit, analysis unit, and visualization unit are anything other than a conventional server and smart device. Determining to activate one or more drones in response to a disaster is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed using a generic server and smart device. Servers and smart devices are widely prevalent and in common use in emergency response systems. Servers and smart devices are not significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well-understood, routine and conventional features previously known to the disaster response industry. Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to positively recite a control function of the drone and a drone camera in order to provide a revised step 2A, prong two, additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. For instance, claim 1 could be amended to include “wherein the drone automatically maneuvers to the site of a disaster; and wherein a drone camera captures images of the site of the disaster”.
See, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, which is available on the USPTO Website.
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 3-8 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.
The claims should use the word “a” or “an” the first time an element is introduced, and should use “the” or “said” during subsequent use.
Terms should be used consistently in all claims, including dependent claims.
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 7, “the damage situation” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, “the damage situation data” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, “the site” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, “the user’s emotion” lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 8, the claim is unclear if the “user” is a person operating the drone, an emergency rescuer, or a disaster victim.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Konishi (US-2025/0004477-A1, hereinafter Konishi).
Regarding claim 1, Konishi discloses:
A system comprising: (paragraphs [0027-0028]; and FIG. 1, unmanned vehicle-100, data storage system-300, data analysis device-400, disaster prediction device-500, rescuer device-600, and disaster victim device-610);
an activation unit that activates a drone (paragraphs [0036] and [0044-0045]; FIG. 3, unmanned vehicle management device-500A, and unmanned vehicle deployment unit-520; and FIG. 6, Disaster occurred? - S200, and Deploy unmanned vehicle and rescuer - S202);
a data collection unit that processes data collected by the drone activated by the activation unit (paragraphs [0030-0031], [0038] and [0049]; FIG. 1, unmanned vehicle-100, and camera image sensor information-340; FIG. 3, unmanned vehicle-100, sensor-110, and camera-112; and FIG. 6, Data collection and accumulation - S204);
an analysis unit that analyzes the data collected by the data collection unit (paragraphs [0031-0032] and [0049]; FIG. 1, data storage system-300, and data analysis device-400; and FIG. 6, Understand disaster (including updating and prediction) - S206, and Select evacuation area and route - S208); and
a visualization unit that visualizes the data analyzed by the analysis unit (paragraphs [0040] and [0049]; FIG. 3, information provision device-500B, information presentation unit for rescuers-540, information presentation unit for disaster victims-542, rescuer device-600, and disaster victim device-610; and FIG. 6, Provide information - S210).
Regarding claim 2, Konishi further discloses:
wherein the activation unit simultaneously activates a plurality of drones within one hour after the occurrence of a disaster (paragraphs [0047] and [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Konishi further discloses:
wherein the data collection unit captures images of the damage situation using a drone equipped with a camera (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Konishi further discloses:
wherein the analysis unit rapidly processes the damage situation data (paragraphs [0047] and [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Konishi further discloses:
wherein the visualization unit enables real-time understanding of the damage situation at the site (paragraphs [0047] and [0054]).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leon Ibarra (US-2024/0004381-A1, hereinafter Leon Ibarra).
Regarding claim 4, Konishi does not disclose analyzing the damage situation using generative AI. However, Leon Ibarra discloses a system for controlling unmanned aerial vehicles (RPA) and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) using platform as a service (PaaS) powered by artificial intelligence (AI), including the following features:
wherein the analysis unit analyzes the damage situation data using generative AI (paragraphs [0156], [0174-0176] and [0197]).
Leon Ibarra teaches that a system for controlling unmanned aerial vehicles (RPA) and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) should use platform as a service (PaaS) powered by artificial intelligence (AI) for mapping forest fires and other public safety emergencies (paragraphs [0156] and [0174-0176]). Leon Ibarra further teaches that information stored in the cloud will enable data-driven decisions to be made quickly and accurately, with the application of AI (paragraph [0197]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system of using AI to map forest fires and other public safety emergencies of Leon Ibarra into the system of using drones to map disaster areas and provide a map display to rescuers and disaster victims of Konishi. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of quickly and accurately providing rescuers and victims with information regarding forest fires and other public safety emergencies.
Regarding claim 5, Konishi does not disclose analyzing the damage situation using generative AI. However, Leon Ibarra further discloses:
wherein the visualization unit visualizes the damage situation as a 3D map using generative AI (paragraphs [0018-0019], [0156], [0174-0176] and [0197]).
Leon Ibarra teaches that aerial images with a photogrammetry technique can generate georeferenced maps and 3D surveys used to support police operations, natural disaster response, and response to other emergencies (paragraph [0018]). Leon Ibarra further teaches that drones should be used with computer vision algorithms and artificial intelligence algorithms (paragraph [0019]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system of using AI to create 3D maps of forest fires and other public safety emergencies of Leon Ibarra into the system of using drones to map disaster areas and provide a map display to rescuers and disaster victims of Konishi. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of quickly and accurately providing rescuers and victims with information regarding forest fires and other public safety emergencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flick (U.S. Patent Number 10,137,984) discloses an autonomous drone which automatically deploys to mitigate damage to insured assets (Abstract).
Halbgewachs et al., Using UAV Data to Improve the Situational Awareness for First Responders in Disaster Management: The Example of Flooding in the AHR Valley, Germany, 2023 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 2023), pp. 934-937, 2023, discloses mapping of flooded areas as well as automatically detecting buildings and vehicles using machine learning workflows. Navigable and analyzable 3D scenes are calculated from drone data and provided to first responders (Abstract).
Krichen et al., Advances in AI and Drone-based Natural Disaster Management: A Survey, 2023 20th ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA), pp. 1-6, 2023, discloses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and drone-based technologies for disaster relief. Drones are used to survey a scene and look for survivors. AI-based systems provide real-time data to rescue workers (Abstract).
Shi et al., Application of Social Sensors in Natural Disasters Emergency Management: A Review, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 3143-3158, 2023, discloses the application of social sensors for natural disaster situation awareness and event detection, disaster information dissemination and communication, and disaster sentiment analysis and public opinion mining (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
