DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-Final office action is in response to the CON application filled on 09/04/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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
Continuation of application No. 18/958, 753 which is a continuation of application No. 17/550,619, filed on Dec. 14, 2021, now Pat. No. 12,190,275, which is a continuation of application No. 17/099,364, filed on Nov. 16, 2020, now Pat. No. 11,222,300. Provisional application No. 62/935,974, filed on Nov. 15, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
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:
“Computing module” in claim 1 and 11
“Landing member” in claim 4 and 14
Per submitted specification, computing module includes processor and memory, see at least [0006] of PGPub of submitted specification. Per submitted specification, landing member is a landing structure/zone, see at least [0082] of PGPUB of submitted specification.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8, 12, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claim 12), which recites “the environmental conditions comprise at least one of wind speed, precipitation, temperature, or visibility”, the specification lacks written description.
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly claim 13), which recites “the navigation instructions are configured to avoid property boundaries associated with residential or commercial structures”, the specification lacks written description.
Regarding claim 8 (and similarly claim 18), which recites “the navigation instructions are updated at a frequency of at least once per second”, the specification lacks written description.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0198801 (“Carthew”), and further in view of US 2021/0125507 (“Haider”).
Regarding Claim 1 (and similarly claim 11), Carthew discloses a system comprising: an integrated roofing accessory installed on a roof (see at least fig 2A, where a roofing accessory integrated into a roof of a home), the integrated roofing accessory comprising a computing module configured to (see at least fig 2A, where 126 is connected with roof accessor. So, the roofing accesory is comprising a computing module):
transmit electronic operating instructions to at least one unmanned vehicle via at least one antenna (see at least fig 2A, where 132 antenna. See also [0028], where “The package receiving station 106 communicates the GPS correction to UAV 102 to allow the UAV 102 to precisely locate itself above the package receiving platform 134.”),
wherein the electronic operating instructions comprise navigation instructions that are dynamically generated by the computing module based at least in part on one or more of (see at least [0038]):
a current location of the at least one unmanned vehicle,
destination location (see at least [0040], where “allowing the package to be delivered to a variety of locations, the notice may include a special delivery location”),
environmental conditions, and
network messages received from at least one additional integrated roofing accessory,
wherein the navigation instructions are configured to cause the at least one unmanned vehicle to follow a route that is (see at least):
minimizing travel time,
avoiding obstacles (see at least [0022], where “the package safe can be attached to a guide feature, such as a rail or track installed along the outside of the building to guide the package safe around obstacles and provide stability during descent and assent.”),
adapting to environmental conditions, or
maintaining communication with the integrated roofing accessory network; and
update the navigation instructions in real-time based on changes in the current location (see at least fig 7 and [0017], where “the receiving station can act as a beacon or landmark using a Real-Time Kinematic GPS antenna to receive GPS signals and to transmit position correction information based on the GPS signal to an approaching UVA.”; position correction information is interpreted as update the navigation instruction).
Carthew does not disclose the following limitations:
unmanned vehicle to follow a route that is optimized for at least one of:
minimizing travel time,
avoiding obstacles,
adapting to environmental conditions, or
maintaining communication with the integrated roofing accessory network; and
update the navigation instructions in real-time based on changes in the current location of the at least one unmanned vehicle or changes in environmental conditions.
However, Haider discloses a system wherein unmanned vehicle to follow a route that is optimized for at least one of (see at least):
minimizing travel time,
avoiding obstacles,
adapting to environmental conditions (see at least [0157], where “The route optimization (real-time) module will utilize the information it receives to optimize the flight path for each UAV. For example, if the weather information indicates a storm is approaching, the flight path, and flight highway, may be altered to avoid storm cells”), or
maintaining communication with the integrated roofing accessory network; and
update the navigation instructions in real-time based on changes in the current location of the at least one unmanned vehicle or changes in environmental conditions (see at least [0004], where “The system takes into account traffic, the UAV's current location along the flight path and is operable to recalculate the flight path and transmit such recalculated flight path to the UAV.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carthew to incorporate the teachings of Haider by including the above feature for providing efficient UAV utilization by optimizing the route.
Regarding Claim 2 (and similarly claim 12), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Haider further discloses a system wherein the environmental conditions comprise at least one of wind speed, precipitation, temperature, or visibility (see at least [0007]).
Regarding Claim 4 (and similarly claim 14), Carthew further discloses a system wherein the electronic operating instructions include at least one landing instruction configured to cause the at least one unmanned vehicle to land on a landing member positioned on the roof (see at least [0028]).
Regarding Claim 6 (and similarly claim 16), Carthew further discloses a system wherein the at least one antenna is embedded within a surface of the integrated roofing accessory (see at least fig 2A and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 9 (and similarly claim 19), Carthew further discloses a system wherein the computing module is configured to notify a user when the at least one unmanned vehicle is approaching or departing from a predetermined location (see at least [0028], [0031] and [0038]).
Regarding Claim 10 (and similarly claim 20), Haider further discloses a system wherein the navigation instructions are configured to redirect the at least one unmanned vehicle in real-time in response to detection of inclement weather (see at least [0157]).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0198801 (“Carthew”), and in view of US 2021/0125507 (“Haider”), as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2021/0380277 (“Walsh”).
Regarding Claim 5 (and similarly claim 15), Carthew in view of Haider does not disclose claim 5. However, Walsh discloses a system wherein the landing member is configured to allow the at least one unmanned vehicle to be electrically charged from a power supply (see at least [0018], where “the landing pad can act as a charging station for the air drone. Various methods for changing the drone could be used including inductive charging, and/or directly allowing the drone to plug into the landing pad.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carthew in view of Haider to incorporate the teachings of Walsh by including the above feature for increasing productivity by charging the UAV on the landing pad so that the UAV does not need to go another place for charging.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0198801 (“Carthew”), and in view of US 2021/0125507 (“Haider”), as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2021/0352502 (“Ginis”).
Regarding Claim 7 (and similarly claim 17), Carthew further discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the integrated roofing accessory and the at least one see citation above.
Carthew does not disclose additional integrated roofing accessory to form a computer network. However, Ginis discloses a system wherein a computer network is formed between various accessories, see at least fig 6.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carthew in view of Haider to incorporate the teachings of Ginis by including the above feature for avoiding any confusion and improving efficiency by forming a network between plural accessories.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
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).
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 §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) 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).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 17 is/are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 11 and 14 of US patent No. 12,190,275 (US Application No. 17/550,619).
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Table below shows the claim matching between the application and issued patent:
Application No.
claims
claims
claims
19/319,404
1/11
7/17
6/16
12,190,275
1/11
5
4/14
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14, 16 and 17 is/are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15 and 16 of US Application No. 18/958,753.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Table below shows the claim matching between the application and issued patent:
Application No.
claims
claims
claims
claims
19/319,404
1/11
4/14
6/16
7/17
18/958,753
1/12
2/13
4/15
5/16
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 5712703976. 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.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights