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 .
An amendment was received on 8/20/2025.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 19 and 22 are amended.
Claims 20 and 21 are cancelled.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims have been amended to include the limitation “wherein the ignition zone is defined by a range in which an ignition mechanism of the unmanned surface vehicle can deploy an ignition source into the gas leak”. Such limitation is an obvious consideration in Nedwed which includes “deploying the incendiary devices based on the transmitted signal and the relative location of the oil slick”. While an “ignition zone” is not explicitly claimed, the process of Nedwed is equivalent and clearly includes considerations of proximity/range to the oil slick and the ability to deploy a suitable ignition source from the proximate location. The examiner considers this to already be included in the previous rejection of the claims.
The previous rejections under 35 USC § 103 stand and are repeated below incorporating the equivalent process of Nedwed.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 (1-14 and 16-22) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nedwed et al., US 2014357929 in view of Dittberner et al., US 2018292374. In general, the disclosure of Nedwed is directed to an unmanned aerial vehicle, however Nedwed also discloses unmanned vessels and launching remote operated sensing devices from vessels [see part 0032 and 0060]. The examiner considers Nedwed to encompass a method for identifying and remediating a gas leak using an unmanned surface vehicle configured to operate on a body of water, whether the unmanned surface vehicle performs the functions or if a UAV is launched from the unmanned surface vessel. Nedwed discloses a method for locating and repairing a leak using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [see Figures 4-5: 308, 410]; The process involves: flying an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) towards a potential leak site [see Figure 1B; 156-160, Figures 4-5, Parts 0039-0040: the process begins with the preparation and deployment phase, which includes preparing the equipment and deploying it at the oil spill site. The process begins at barrier 152, then at barrier 154, the vessel (such as a ship or plane), is deployed with one or more remotely controlled devices...];
Detecting via the first sensor of the UAV, a first condition indicating a leak [see Figure 1B: 160- 164, Parts 0041: these techniques may include moving the remotely controlled device over a specific location in the oil slick and performing one or more measurement techniques. These measurement techniques may include one or more different measurement components used with the remotely controlled device to determine the thickness of the oil slick... Part 0043: once the deployment is made, it is determined whether the oil slick is thick enough to ignite, as described in Box 164. This assessment may include deploying the remotely controlled device to measure the thickness of the oil slick. This may be done using any of the techniques described above in the discussion of Box 160. Determining the thickness may include determining whether the oil slick is thicker than 0.1 mm, 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm, or more];
Sensing, via a UAV environmental sensor, a variety of environmental conditions for an environment close to a leak [see Part 0077: additionally, the command unit may include a set of instructions stored in a memory and accessible via the processor, where the set of instructions is configured, when executed, to monitor inputs from the infrared camera, in order to keep the “ignition” delivery system from delivering the “ignition” when the infrared ‘camera detects an elevated temperature indicating the presence of an oil slick located under the remote delivery system, see Claim 28];
Receiving, via a control unit operationally coupled to the UAV, a signal representing the first condition indicating a leak, and a signal representing the set of environmental conditions close to a leak [see Figure 5: 520, Part 0058: Figure 5 is the diagram of an airborne hydrocarbon release management system 500, according to a third embodiment of the current technology. The airborne hydrocarbon release management system 500 may include one or more remotely controlled devices such as the remotely controlled airborne device 410 that is in communication with a control unit 520, Part 0076: for example, a computer system may be used and configured to implement one or more of the present aspects. The computer system may include a processor, a-memory connected to the processor, and a set of instructions stored in the memory that can be accessed via the processor, where the set of instructions is configured, when implemented, to: receive the signal transmitted from the remotely controlled airborne device; determine the thickness of the oil slick based on the transmitted signal; provide a visual indication of the thickness of the oil slick based on the determined thickness: deploy, based on the transmitted signal and/or the relative location of the oil slick, and deploy the incendiary devices based on the transmitted signal and/or relative location of the oil slick... (the examiner considers this as equivalent to the amended claim language “wherein the ignition zone is defined by a range in which an ignition mechanism of the unmanned surface vehicle can deploy an ignition source into the gas leak”).];
Determining, via the control unit, the first condition indicating a leak, and the multiple set of environmental conditions close to the leak, a flight plan including the following: [see Figure 1B: 164-166, Part 0043: for example, the airborne remote-control device (such as a helicopter) may be launched to a location close to the windward edge of the oil dick, then one or more incendiary devices may be dropped into the oil slick to ignite the oil slick. The incendiary devices may include sparks, missiles, lasers, frozen gasoline, frozen kerosene, or any other suitable ignition system];
Determining the position of the UAV relative to the ignition area, based on the flight plan [see Part 0043: once deployed, determine whether the oil slick is thick enough to ignite, as shown in Box 164. Determining the thickness may include deploying the remotely controlled device to measure the thickness of the oil slick.];
And discharging an ignition source by means of an ignition mechanism on the UAV, into the leak to ignite the leak [see Figure 1B, Parts 0043-0044: once the igniters are deployed, determine whether the oil slick is thick enough to ignite, as shown in Box 164. Determining the thickness may include the deployment of a remotely controlled device to measure the thickness of the oil slick.];
Nedwed did not mention a “gas leak”. However, Dittberner did mention a “gas leak” [see Figures 3, 4A, 5-6, Parts 0023, 0034, 0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nedwed to include the detection of a gas leak, as described by Dittberner in order to develop the drone's ability to detect flammable gases.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4: Nedwed discloses the case “where the first sensor is a thermal sensor that includes the detection of the first condition indicating a gas leak, and the detection of the difference in the temperature of the gas leak relative to the environment” [see Part 0077].
Regarding Claim 3: Nedwed discloses the case “where the first sensor is an optical sensor that includes the detection of the first condition indicating a-gas leak on an optical parameter of a gas leak relative to the environment” [see Parts 0031, 0041].
Regarding Claims 5 and 6: Nedwed discloses “where the flight plan includes determining a starting location for the UAV: determining the source of gas leakage; and determining a path that includes multiple waypoints from the starting location to the ignition area” [see Figure 1B, Part 0043].
Regarding Claim 7: Nedwed discloses the case “where the discharge of the ignition source in the gas leak by means of the ignition mechanism of the UAV includes directing the ignition mechanism towards the gas leak” [see Part 0036].
Regarding Claim 8: Nedwed discloses “where the ignition source comprises at least one flame, a flammable gel flame, a fireball or a spark” [see Part 0036].
Regarding Claim 9: Nedwed discloses the case “where the ignition source in the gas leak is discharged to ignite the gas leak a first time, the method involving, the second time after the first time, the following: Detecting, via the first sensor, a second case indicating an ongoing gas leak, Sensing, via the environmental sensor, a second set of environmental conditions close to a gas leak, Receiving, via the control unit, a signal representing the second case indicating an ongoing gas leak, and a signal representing the second set of environmental conditions close to the gas leak; Determining, via the control unit, and based on the second case indicating a gas leak and the second set of environmental conditions close to the gas leak, that there is a need for another discharge by means of the ignition mechanism in the gas leak: And discharging by means of the ignition mechanism, the ignition source in the gas leak to ignite the gas leak the second time” [see Part 0044].
Regarding Claim 10: Nedwed discloses the case “where the gas leak is from at least one offshore gas repair facility, one onshore gas repair facility, one offshore drilling platform, one onshore drilling platform, or a pipeline” [see Part 0003].
Regarding Claim 11: Claim 11 shares the same technical features as those claimed in the method of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12: Nedwed discloses the case “where the gas leakage sensor comprises at least one thermal imaging device or one optical imaging device” [see Part 0061].
Regarding Claim 13: Nedwed discloses sensors including one or more cameras [see Part 0031].
Regarding Claim 14: Nedwed discloses has mentioned the case “where the ignition mechanism comprises an actuator, and. at least one flammable gas source configured to flow a stream of flammable gas or flammable gas ball, a flammable gel source, or a spark emitter” [See Figure 5, Part 0062].
Regarding Claim 16: Nedwed discloses “1t also comprises a propulsion subsystem adapted to the UAV, the propulsion subsystem including the following: an operationally coupled motor controlled by the control unit, and a multiple set of propulsors coupled to the motor” [see Figure 5, Part 0062}.
Regarding Claim 17: Nedwed discloses a power subsystem including a battery [See Fig. 6 Part 0062].
Regarding Claim 18: Nedwed discloses a communications subsystem comprising an antenna configured to transmit and receive control signals and status signals from the control unit to a user” [see Figure 3, Parts 0053, 0062].
Regarding Claim 19-22: Claims 19-22 shares the same technical features as those claimed in the method of Claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nedwed in view of Dittberner in further view of Espersen et al., US 2015350569. Nedwed as modified by Dittberner discloses the invention set forth above, but does not disclose where the ignition mechanism comprises a gimbal configured to aim the ignition mechanism at the gas leak. Espersen discloses a “biaxial support mount” [see Parts 0004, 0031, 0048]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ignition mechanism of Nedwed with a biaxial support mount as disclosed by Espersen in order to redirect the load relative to the support platform.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D WIEST whose telephone number is (571)270-5974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 - 3:00.
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.
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.
/ANTHONY D WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615