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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 07/02/2026 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 2 has been amended.
Claims 13-14 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argued at page 6 for independent claim 1 that “Mayer, in view of Akbar fails to disclose or suggest a device with one or more angle sensors to compensate for pitch and roll from the drone. In Akbar, the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) includes a global positioning system (GPS) measuring the position and the speed (See paragraph [0028] of Akbar) to guide the UAV to the correct position in proximity of each storage container (See paragraph [0031] of Akbar). The GPS does not measure the drone's orientation about its axes. Therefore, it is not an angle sensor measuring the pitch and roll. In sharp contrast, the present application specifically states that GPS and altitude measurements might be useful, but are not mandatory as drones can be set-up to fly precise routes with high accuracy. (See paragraph [0028] of the published application.) A GPS and an angle sensor are distinct instruments fundamentally different and is part of the common knowledge. One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of the basic differences and would not understand the devices to be equivalent and/or interchangeable. These instruments are fundamentally different and have different functions and purposes. There is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to attempt to modify or combine the systems of Mayer and Akbar to achieve the non-invasive microwave measuring device with angle sensors for calculating the flow rate of a fluid of claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Akbar teaches drone has sensors that measure and guide the correct route of drone. Therefore it is inherent property of drone having angle sensor to measure angle and pitch so that accurately guiding drone to target position. Therefore Akbar teaches device with one or more angle sensors to compensate for pitch and roll from the drone.
Furthermore PG-Pub US 2020/0142432 A1 discloses drone with sensor that measures and correct angle and pitch (para [0425]); US PG-Pub 2018/0048828 A1 discloses drone with sensor that measures and correct angle and pitch (para [0019], [0036], [0053], [0061]).
Therefore it is inherent property and well known in the art of drone having angle sensor to measure and correct angle and pitch.
Therefore applicant’s arguments regarding 103 rejection are not persuasive.
Therefore the rejection stands.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al. (Pub NO. us 2010/0031753 A1; hereinafter Mayer) in view of in view of Akbar et al. (Pub NO. US 2017/0023394 A1; hereinafter Akbar).
Regarding Claim 1, Mayer teaches a non-invasive microwave measuring device for calculating the flow rate of a fluid (system in Fig.1-Fig. 2 and Fig. below; See [0025]-[0035]), the device comprising:
a non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device (device in Fig. 1-Fig. 2 and Fig. below) comprising a patch antenna or horn antenna (10 is horn antenna in Fig. 2 and Fig. below; See [0029]) to generate a microwave signal (signal 6 is microwave signal in Fig. 2 and fig. below; See [0029]) that is transmitted at a specific elevation angle towards a fluid surface (signal 6 is transmitted from specific elevation angle towards fluid surface 13 in Fig. 2 and Fig. below; See [0035]) and to receive the microwave signal reflected from the fluid surface (See [0029]-[0035]) with a doppler shift frequency (See [0035]-[0036]);
to which is suspended the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device via a suspension system (measuring device 8, 6,7 10 and11 are suspended via suspension system in Fig. 2 and Fig. below),
determine a final angle from the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device towards the fluid surface (See [0035]-[0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
806
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mayer teaches measuring device is suspended (measuring device 8, 6,7 10 and11 are suspended), However Mayer does not teach a drone to which measuring device is suspended; and one or more angle sensors to compensate for pitch and roll from the measuring device that influence fluid surface velocity measurement.
Akbar teaches a drone to which measuring device is suspended (drone 1 to which measuring device is suspended in Fig. 2; See [0035]); and one or more angle sensors (GPS sensor in drone; See [0031]) to compensate for pitch and roll from the drone that influence fluid surface velocity measurement (See [0031]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to modify he system of Mayer by using drone to which measuring device is suspended; and one or more angle sensors to compensate for pitch and roll from the drone that influence fluid surface velocity measurement, as taught by Akbar in order to measure position and distance (Akbar; abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Akbar further teaches wherein the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device comprises a 3D control system (as all dimensions height and area are taken, therefore three dimension; See [0035]) with three motors (each craft has each motor, therefore three motors; See [0028]) adapted to automatically reposition the non-invasive microwave measuring device to compensate for the pitch and roll of the drone (See [0028]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 3, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Akbar further teaches wherein the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device is associated to a measuring device comprising GPS (See [0034]) and altimeter sensors (height is altimeter sensor; See [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 4, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 3. Akbar further teaches wherein the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device is associated to an interface to capture global position system (GPS) data and altimeter data from the drone (See [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 6, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 4. Akbar further teaches wherein the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device comprises a recording device to record pictures or videos, together with fluid velocity measurements and/or GPS and altimeter data (See [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 7, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Mayer further teaches wherein the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device comprises one or more of. a level or distance measuring device (See [0029]-[0031]), or a wind speed and direction measurement device.
Regarding Claim 12, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the suspension device comprises a rigid upper plate (upper plate 8 in Fig. 2) and a rigid lower plate connected to the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device (lower plate 11 connected to measuring device 8 in Fig. 2), both plates are connected with silent block dampers (See silent block dampers between 11 and 8 in Fig. 2).
Mayer is silent about upper plate connected to the drone.
Akbar teaches upper plate connected to the drone.
Akbar teaches upper plate connected to the drone (drone 1 to upper plate is connected in Fig. 2; See [0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to modify he system of Mayer by using upper plate connected to the drone, as taught by Akbar in order to measure position and distance (Akbar; abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Akbar further teaches said suspension system eliminating vibration noise generated by the drone (noise filtering is eliminate noise; See [0034]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of in view of Akbar further in view of Rick et al. (Pub NO. US 2019/0086247 A1; hereinafter Rick).
Regarding Claim 5, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Akbar further teaches comprising a camera and light to (See [0006]-[0007], [0025]) facilitate pilotage (See [0007, [0028]).
Mayer in view of Akbar is silent about in underground pipes and channels.
Rick teaches measurement in underground pipes and channels (See [0016]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to modify he system of Mayer and Akbar by using measurement in underground pipes and channels, as taught by Rick in order to achieve lower maintenance cost (Rick; [0016]).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of in view of Akbar further in view of Dolata et al. (Pub NO. US 2020/0369408 A1; hereinafter Dolata).
Regarding Claim 16, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Mayer in view of Akbar is silent about further comprising one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone.
Dolata teaches further comprising one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone (See [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to modify he system of Mayer and Akbar by using one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone, as taught by Dolata in order to determine anomaly (Dolata; [0028]).
Regarding Claim 17, Mayer in view of Akbar teaches the device according to claim 1. Akbar further teaches further comprising and said suspension system eliminating vibration noise generated by the drone (noise filtering is eliminate noise; See [0034]).
Mayer in view of Akbar is silent about one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone.
Dolata teaches one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone (See [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to modify he system of Mayer and Akbar by using one or more vibration sensors to identify and eliminate false velocity readings induced by the drone, as taught by Dolata in order to determine anomaly (Dolata; [0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. Regarding Claim 8, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests the device according to claim 1, wherein the suspension system comprises three or more tubes connected to each other by ropes, the tubes connecting the velocity measuring device to the drone, the non-invasive microwave fluid velocity measuring device being attached to a first end of the tubes and the drone being attached to a second end of the tubes.
Claims 9-11 depend on claim 8, therefore claims 9-11 also have allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights