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 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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected.
Claims 6 , line 3 should be deleted.
Appropriate action is required.
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, 10, 13-18, 20 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.
Claim 3 recites having a reading be at least one of locations of a boundary line associated with the site or a location of each of a plurality of emission sources located at the site (setting these up as alternatives), but then claim 5 (depends on claim 3) recites that “generating a location map of the plurality of emission sources at the site” (which implies they are both required). So, it is not clear whether both must be obtained or whether the claim is met when only one is obtained. Claim 13 has the same issue and rejected for the same reason.
For examination, any limitations claimed as alternative interpreted as it is not required.
Claims 10 and 20 recite a limitation “motion fields”, “obtaining two-dimensional and three-dimensional motion fields associated with the site” and it is not clear what it means. For examination, it is interpreted as air, or plume moment.
Remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG): Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method and claims 11-20 are directed to a system. Accordingly, claims 1-14 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
All claims includes limitations that recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, Abstract claim limitations are bold here:
1. A parameter-determination method for determining at least one site parameter associated with a site, the parameter-determination method comprising:
providing at least one image-capturing device;
obtaining a plurality of two-dimensional images of the site with the at least one image-capturing device;
extracting three-dimensional measurements corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images, wherein extracting the three-dimensional measurements comprises:
determining a photographic image plane corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images; and
calculating the three-dimensional measurements corresponding to a distance between two points lying on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane;
generating a three-dimensional model with the three-dimensional measurements; and
determining at least one site-parameter associated with the site, based on the three-dimensional model.
2. The parameter-determination method of claim 1, wherein calculating the three-dimensional measurements further comprises:
calculating the distance with a scale associated with the plurality of two-dimensional images, wherein the distance calculated corresponds to measured associated distances on the plurality of two-dimensional images.
3. The parameter-determination method of claim 1, wherein determining at least one site-parameter further comprises:
the at least one site-parameter further comprising:
locations of a boundary line associated with the site;
a location of each of a plurality of emission sources located at the site; and
at least one ground control point.
4. The parameter-determination method of claim 3 and further comprising:
establishing a point-of-truth based on the at least one ground control point, wherein a scale associated with the plurality of two-dimensional images is determined based on the point-of-truth.
5. The parameter-determination method of claim 3 and further comprising:
generating a location map of the plurality of emission sources at the site.
6. The parameter-determination method of claim 5, wherein generating the location map further comprises:
the location map further comprising:
a location; and
an identity associated with each of the plurality of emission sources at the location.
7. The parameter-determination method of claim 5 and further comprising:
generating a simulated plume model for each emission source of the plurality of emission sources with a wind-direction contribution value;
calculating a plurality of representative circular normal distributions for each air quality monitor, using the simulated plume model by:
setting a plurality of presumed flux values to the simulated plume model; and
analyzing the plurality of representative circular normal distributions to identify:
a relevant representative circular normal distribution from the plurality of representative circular normal distributions;
wherein the relevant representative circular normal distribution is indicative of a target emission source from the plurality of emission sources; and
quantifying a total emission of a target substance at the site by aggregating the plurality of emission sources.
8. The parameter-determination method of claim 7, wherein the wind-direction contribution value comprises an amount of concentration of the target substance measured in parts per million (ppm) of ambient air.
9. The parameter-determination method of claim 1 and further comprising:
estimating three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site.
10. The parameter-determination method of claim 9, wherein estimating the three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site further comprises:
obtaining two-dimensional and three-dimensional motion fields associated with the site; and
analyzing the two-dimensional and three-dimensional motion fields using a computational model to estimate the three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site.
Claims 11-20 include the same limitations that recite an abstract idea.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
therefore examiner submits that the identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations, known physical elements that considered generic does not provide an practical application to the abstract math and mental steps. Regarding the additional limitations of the processors, program codes, the Examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Looking at the additional limitations combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see 2019 PEG, Page 55 and MPEP § 2106.05).
2019 PEG: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim 1-4, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Brown, US 20150213590 A1.
Claim 1
Brown in Figs.1-3 teaches:
A parameter-determination method for determining at least one site parameter associated with a site, the parameter-determination method comprising:
providing at least one image-capturing device (214/204 in fig.2);
obtaining a plurality of two-dimensional images (112,114, 216, etc. in figs.1-2) of the site (building 102) with the at least one image-capturing device (214/204);
extracting three-dimensional measurements ( e.g.,¶0019-¶0021) corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images (112,114, 216, etc. in figs.1-2), wherein extracting the three-dimensional measurements comprises:
determining a photographic image plane (120 e.g.,¶0019) corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images (112,114, 216, etc. in figs.1-2); and
calculating the three-dimensional measurements 122 corresponding to a distance between two points (e.g., 124) lying on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane (e.g.,120);
generating a three-dimensional model (202) with the three-dimensional measurements ( e.g.,¶0019-¶0021); and
determining at least one site-parameter (e.g., 360-380) associated with the site 102, based on the three-dimensional model 202.
Claim 2
Brown teaches the parameter-determination method of claim 1, wherein calculating the three-dimensional measurements further comprises:
calculating the distance (between 242,230) with a scale associated (e.g., ¶0020) with the plurality of two-dimensional images 206,216, wherein the distance calculated corresponds to measured associated distances on the plurality of two-dimensional images 216,206.
Claim 3
Brown teaches the parameter-determination method of claim 1, wherein determining at least one site-parameter further comprises:
the at least one site-parameter further comprising:
locations of a boundary line associated with the site 102; and
at least one ground control point (e.g.,¶0024).
Examiner notes that ground control points (as also cited in ¶0020) are required for any real-word scale, orientation photogrammetry.
Claim 4
Brown teaches the parameter-determination method of claim 3 and further comprising:
establishing a point-of-truth (230 and 218,208) based on the at least one ground control point (¶0020: related to 230 on building 102), wherein a scale associated with the plurality of two-dimensional images (216,206) is determined based on the point-of-truth (e.g., ¶0020 and ¶0024).
Claim 11
Brown in Figs. 1-4 teaches:
A parameter-determination system for determining at least one site parameter associated with a site, the parameter-determination system comprising:
at least one image capturing device (214/204 in fig.2) to capture a plurality of dimensional images (112,114, 216, etc. in figs.1-2) of the site (building 102); and
a logic control unit (fig.4) to:
extract three-dimensional measurements (e.g.,¶0019-¶0021) corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images (112,114, 216, etc. in figs.1-2) with:
a photographic image plane (120 e.g.,¶0019, related to 218,240) determined by the logic control unit (fig.4 and interface shown as user interface100) corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images (112,114, 216, etc. in figs.1-2); and
three-dimensional measurements 122 corresponding to a distance (e.g., 124) calculated by the logic control unit (fig.4) between two points (e.g., 124) lying on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane (e.g.,120,216);
generate a three-dimensional model (202,122) with the three-dimensional measurements (e.g.,¶0019-¶0021); and
determine at least one site-parameter (e.g., 360-380) associated with the site 102, based on the three-dimensional model (202,122).
Claim 12
Brown teaches the parameter-determination system of claim 11, wherein the distance calculated between two points is calculated with:
a scale associated (e.g., ¶0020) with the plurality of two-dimensional images 206,216, wherein the distance calculated corresponds to measured associated distances on the plurality of two-dimensional images 216,206.
Claim 13
Brown teaches the parameter-determination system of claim 11, wherein the at least one site-parameter associated with the site further comprises:
locations of a boundary line (e.g.,¶0020 considering known origin point) associated with the site 102, and at least one ground control point (¶0020: related to 230 on building 102).
Claim 14
Brown teaches the parameter-determination system of claim 13, wherein the logic control unit is configured to: establish a point-of-truth (230,218,208) based on the at least one ground control point (related to 230), wherein a scale associated with the plurality of two-dimensional images is determined based on the point-of-truth (¶0020).
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 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, US 20150213590 A1 in view of Prince1, US 20100094565 A.
Claim 5
Brown teaches the parameter-determination method of claim 3 and further comprising: but does not teach generating a location map of the plurality of emission sources at the site.
In the similar field of endeavor, Prince teaches generating a location map (e.g., figs.8 and 10 also figs.20 and 22-2020/¶0104 mapping technique) of the plurality of emission sources at the site (e.g., fig.19, ¶0186- mapping of candidate emission sources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Prince‘s site and generating a location map for Brown‘s site. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use the method for different applications, and based on MPEP 2143 (A), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 6
Brown in view of Prince teaches the parameter-determination method of claim 5, Prince further teaches wherein generating the location map further comprises: the location map further comprising: a location (e.g., ¶0187 mapping takes information from the Flux versus wind velocity plots of the observation positions that are relevant to the area being mapped); and an identity associated with each of the plurality of emission sources at the location (such as location/flux of concentrations, characteristics) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 15
Brown teaches the parameter-determination system of claim 13, but does not teach wherein the logic control unit is configured to: generate a location map of the plurality of emission sources at the site.
In the similar field of endeavor, Prince teaches generate a location map (e.g., figs.8 and 10 also figs.20 and 22-2020/¶0104 mapping technique) of the plurality of emission sources at the site (e.g., fig.19, ¶0186- mapping of candidate emission sources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Prince‘s site and generating a location map for Brown‘s site and the modified Brown’s logic control unit configured to: generate a location map of the plurality of emission sources at the site. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use the method for different applications, and based on MPEP 2143 (A), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 16
Brown in view of Prince teaches the parameter-determination system of claim 15, Prince further teaches wherein the location map further comprises: a location (e.g., ¶0187 mapping takes information from the Flux versus wind velocity plots of the observation positions that are relevant to the area being mapped); and an identity associated with each of the plurality of emission sources at the location (such as location/flux of concentrations, characteristics ) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, US 20150213590 A1 in view of Prince, US 20100094565 A and García-Portugués, Eduardo, Rosa M. Crujeiras, and Wenceslao González-Manteiga. "Exploring wind direction and SO2 concentration by circular–linear density estimation." Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 27.5 (2013): 1055-1067.
Claim 7
Brown in view of Prince teaches the parameter-determination method of claim 5 , Prince teaches an air monitoring method comprising :
generating a simulated plume model (e.g., ¶0125, ¶0129 surfaces shown on figs.7a-8c) for each emission source of the plurality of emission sources with a wind-direction contribution value (e.g., figs.7a,9c,10-11 ¶0130);
calculating a plurality of representative normal distributions for each air quality monitor (e.g., ¶0133,¶0139¶0141 figs.10-11), using the simulated plume model(models given by surfaces figs.7a-8c) by:
setting a plurality of presumed flux values (e.g., fig.9c) to the simulated plume model (e.g., ¶0130: surfaces shown on figs.7a-8c); and
analyzing the plurality of representative normal distributions to identify:
a relevant representative normal distribution from the plurality of representative normal distributions (e.g., ¶0141 figs.10-11);
wherein the relevant representative normal distribution (e.g., ¶098) is indicative of a target emission source from the plurality of emission sources (figs 12-13); and
quantifying a emission of a target substance (e.g., figs.13-14 step 2320 of fig.23a) at the site (shown e.g., in fig.19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prince method of air monitoring with Brown’s method and generating a simulated plume model for each emission source of the plurality of emission sources with a wind-direction contribution value; calculating a plurality of representative normal distributions for each air quality monitor, using the simulated plume model by: setting a plurality of presumed flux values to the simulated plume model; and analyzing the plurality of representative normal distributions to identify: a relevant representative normal distribution from the plurality of representative normal distributions; wherein the relevant representative normal distribution is indicative of a target emission source from the plurality of emission sources; and quantifying a emission of a target substance at the as taught by Prince. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to combining well known methods for air monitoring and generating location map, furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (A), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements (Brown method of parameter-determination for determining at least one site parameter associated with a site and Prince’s air monitoring and location map generating models) according to known methods (Brown’s generating a three-dimensional model with the three-dimensional measurements and Prince location map generating) to yield predictable results (Prince’s air monitoring) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination as cited above does not teach circular normal distributions and quantifying a total emission of a target substance at the site by aggregating the plurality of emission sources.
However, examiner notes that first: Prince teaches using distribution functions include, but are not limited to: a normal distribution, a Gaussian distribution, a lambda distribution, an exponential distribution, or a step distribution (e.g., ¶0141) and second: García-Portugués teaches circular linear density distribution for wind direction which is a circular variable (e.g., section 2.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use circular normal distribution for Prince‘s normal distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art knows a circular normal distribution for wind variables which are circular and directional and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use its ability to accurately model wind circular data, which has inherent periodicity and directionality.
Also, Prince teaches quantifying a emission of a target substance (e.g., figs.13-14 step 2320 of fig.23a) at the site (shown e.g., in fig.19), therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to quantifying a total emission of a target substance at the site by aggregating the plurality of emission sources. One of ordinary skill in the art would it is essential for understanding and managing the total environmental impact.
Claim 8
Brown in view of Prince teaches the parameter-determination method of claim 7, Prince further teaches wherein the wind-direction contribution value (e.g., figs.7a-8c) comprises an amount of concentration of the target substance measured in parts per million (ppm) of ambient air (e.g., ¶0094) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 17
Brown in view of Prince teaches the parameter-determination system of claim 15, Prince further teaches wherein the logic control unit is configured to:
generate a simulated plume model (e.g., ¶0125, ¶0129 surfaces shown on figs.7a-8c) for each emission source of the plurality of emission sources with a wind-direction contribution value (e.g., figs.7a,9c,10-11 ¶0130);
calculate a plurality of representative normal distributions for each air quality monitor, using the simulated plume model (e.g., ¶0133,¶0139¶0141 figs.10-11), using the simulated plume model(models given by surfaces figs.7a-8c) with:
a plurality of presumed flux values(e.g., fig.9c) set to the simulated plume model (e.g., ¶0130: surfaces shown on figs.7a-8c);
analyze the plurality of representative normal distributions to identify:
a relevant representative normal distribution from the plurality of representative normal distributions (e.g., ¶0141 figs.10-11),
wherein the relevant representative normal distribution (e.g., ¶098) is indicative of a target emission source from the plurality of emission sources (figs 12-13);and
quantify a emission of a target substance (e.g., figs.13-14 step 2320 of fig.23a) at the site (shown e.g., in fig.19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prince method of air monitoring with Brown’s method and generate a simulated plume model for each emission source of the plurality of emission sources with a wind-direction contribution value; calculate a plurality of representative normal distributions for each air quality monitor, with: a plurality of presumed flux values set to the simulated plume model; analyze the plurality of representative normal distributions to identify: a relevant representative normal distribution from the plurality of representative normal distributions, wherein the relevant representative normal distribution is indicative of a target emission source from the plurality of emission sources; and quantify a emission of a target substance at the as taught by Prince. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to combining well known methods for air monitoring and generating location map, furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (A), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements (Brown method of parameter-determination for determining at least one site parameter associated with a site and Prince’s air monitoring and location map generating models) according to known methods (Brown’s generating a three-dimensional model with the three-dimensional measurements and Prince location map generating) to yield predictable results (Prince’s air monitoring) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination as cited above does not teach circular normal distributions and quantify a total emission of a target substance at the site by aggregating the plurality of emission sources.
However, examiner notes that first: Prince teaches using distribution functions include, but are not limited to: a normal distribution, a Gaussian distribution, a lambda distribution, an exponential distribution, or a step distribution (e.g., ¶0141) and second: García-Portugués teaches circular linear density distribution for wind direction which is a circular variable (e.g., section 2.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use circular normal distribution for Prince‘s normal distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art knows a circular normal distribution for wind variables which are circular and directional and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use its ability to accurately model wind circular data, which has inherent periodicity and directionality.
Claim 18
Brown in view of Prince teaches the parameter-determination system of claim 17,
Prince further teaches wherein the wind-direction contribution value (e.g., figs.7a-8c) comprises an amount of concentration of the target substance measured in parts per million (ppm) of ambient air (e.g., ¶0094) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, US 20150213590 A1 in view of Thorpe, US 20210055180 A1.
Claim 9
Brown teaches the parameter-determination method of claim 1 but does not teach further comprising:
estimating three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site.
In the similar field of endeavor, Thorpe teaches a photogrammetry method (e.g., ¶0109 creating 3D models using photogrammetry) estimating three-dimensional (inherent with photogrammetry method) relative motions associated with the site (e.g., figs.10-12 relative motion of plume).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Thorpe‘s photogrammetry for Brown‘s photogrammetry further comprising: estimating three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site as taught by Thorpe, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 10
Brown in view of Thorpe teaches the parameter-determination method of claim 9, Thorpe teaches wherein estimating the three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site further comprises: obtaining two-dimensional and three-dimensional motion fields associated with the site (2D,3D spatial information e.g., ¶0057); analyzing the two-dimensional and three-dimensional motion fields using a computational model (CFD models¶0085¶0097 and fig.2) to estimate the three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site (fig.2 220-224) for the same reason and motivation cited above.
Claim 19
Brown teaches the parameter-determination system of claim 11, but does not teach wherein the logic control unit is configured to: estimate three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site.
In the similar field of endeavor, Thorpe teaches a photogrammetry method (e.g., ¶0109 creating 3D models using photogrammetry) and logic control unit (200) estimating three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site (e.g., figs.10-12 relative motion of plume).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Thorpe‘s photogrammetry and control unit for Brown‘s photogrammetry and control unit further comprising: estimating three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site as taught by Thorpe, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 20
Brown teaches the parameter-determination system of claim 19, Thorpe further teaches wherein the logic control unit (200) is further configured to:
obtain two-dimensional and three-dimensional motion fields associated with the site; and
analyze the two-dimensional and three-dimensional motion fields (2D,3D spatial information e.g., ¶0057) using a computational model (CFD models¶0085¶0097 and fig.2) to estimate the three-dimensional relative motions associated with the site (fig.2 220-224) for the same reason and motivation cited above.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. US11802860B1, here cited as “860 ” and also in view of Brown, US 20150213590 A and Prince, US 20100094565 A.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because first: the patented claims are narrower (contain more subject matter) than the broader application claims. Thus, the scope of the patented claims overlap the scope of the broader application claims; second: although some limitations have different language but they describe same thing (ex: providing at least one image-capturing device of application is same as : using drone imagery of “860”), third: they only have different limitations that are obvious over prior art of record including Brown and Prince and therefore the application claims are obvious in view of the patented claims.
More specifically: for claim 1, claims 1 and 6 of 860 do not specifically teach generating a three-dimensional model with the three-dimensional measurements; and determining at least one site-parameter associated with the site, based on the three-dimensional model.
But these limitations are obvious over Brown. And It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Brown‘s three-dimensional model for “860”‘s method. One of ordinary skill in the art would know the photogrammetry and three-dimensional modeling tools (Brown ¶0004) have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a well-known method for a well-known application. And similar for claims 2-6 that are obvious over Brown in view of Thorpe as cited in this action . For claim 7 of the instant application, claims 1 and 6 of “860” does not disclose: limitation “quantifying a total emission of a target substance at the site by aggregating the plurality of emission sources”. And “quantifying a total emission of a target substance at the site by aggregating the plurality of emission sources, is obvious variant of “determining the target emission source, based on the analysis and the location map as claimed in claim 1 of “860”.
Note that claims 11-17, although do not have method language however, the instant application as claimed and the patented claims encompass overlapping subject matter and show them to be obvious variants, and are not patentably distinct, and would not have been restricted if presented in the same application. Thus, the scope of the patented claims overlaps the scope of the broader application claims for same reasons are rejected over claims 1 and 6 of “860” based on obviousness.
18677752
US11802860B1, here as “860”
1. A parameter-determination method for determining at least one site parameter associated with a site, the parameter-determination method comprising:
providing at least one image-capturing device;
obtaining a plurality of two-dimensional images of the site with the at least one image-capturing device;
extracting three-dimensional measurements corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images, wherein extracting the three-dimensional measurements comprises:
determining a photographic image plane corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images; and
calculating the three-dimensional measurements corresponding to a distance between two points lying on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane;
generating a three-dimensional model with the three-dimensional measurements; and
determining at least one site-parameter associated with the site, based on the three-dimensional model.
In view of
1. A location method for locating an emission source of a target substance at a site, the location method comprising:
providing a first air quality monitor comprising:
a first sensor responsive to the target substance; and
a first location at which the first air quality monitor is located on the site;
measuring a first set of onsite parameters with the first air quality monitor over a period of time to obtain a plurality of individual measurements of each parameter of the first set of onsite parameters, wherein the plurality of individual measurements of the first set of onsite atmospheric parameters comprises:
a first measured substance concentration of the target substance measured with the first air quality monitor; and
a first set of individual atmospheric readings, wherein the first set of individual atmospheric readings comprises at least one of atmospheric reading selected from:
a barometric pressure,
an air temperature, and
a humidity level;
transmitting the first measured substance concentration to a first server;
transmitting the first set of individual atmospheric readings to the first server;
procuring a regional atmospheric parameter for the site from a second server;
training a prediction model associated with the first air quality monitor:
obtaining a plurality of first predicted substance concentrations of the target substance corresponding to the first air quality monitor from the prediction model, with at least:
the first set of individual atmospheric readings; and
the regional atmospheric parameter for the site;
wherein the plurality of first predicted substance concentrations is obtained over a predefined period at a predefined frequency;
generating a mapping of a weighted mean of the plurality of first predicted substance concentrations grouped in each feature group of a predetermined number of feature groups, wherein the predetermined number of feature groups together are representative of feature values over a predetermined range;
obtaining a location map of a plurality of emission sources at the site, the location map comprising a location and an identity associated with each of the plurality of emission sources;
for each emission source of the plurality of emission sources:
generating a simulated plume model, based on a wind-direction; and
calculating a plurality of representative circular normal distributions for each air quality monitor, using the simulated plume model, by setting a plurality of presumed flux values to the simulated plume model;
performing an analysis of the plurality of representative circular normal distributions in relation with the mapping to identify a relevant representative circular normal distribution from the plurality of representative circular normal distributions, wherein the relevant representative circular normal distribution is indicative of a target emission source; and
determining the target emission source, based on the analysis and the location map.
6. The location method of claim 1, wherein the location map is obtained using drone imagery, and wherein the location map is created by:
obtaining a plurality of two-dimensional images using the drone imagery; and
extracting three-dimensional measurements corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images, wherein each of the three-dimensional measurements comprises:
a distance between two points lying on a plane parallel to a photographic image plane, corresponding to measured associated distances on the plurality of two-dimensional images, using a scale.
2. The parameter-determination method of claim 1, wherein calculating the three-dimensional measurements further comprises:
calculating the distance with a scale associated with the plurality of two-dimensional images, wherein the distance calculated corresponds to measured associated distances on the plurality of two-dimensional images.
6. The location method of claim 1, wherein the location map is obtained using drone imagery, and wherein the location map is created by:
obtaining a plurality of two-dimensional images using the drone imagery; and
extracting three-dimensional measurements corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images, wherein each of the three-dimensional measurements comprises:
a distance between two points lying on a plane parallel to a photographic image plane, corresponding to measured associated distances on the plurality of two-dimensional images, using a scale.
Claims 3-6 are rejected over claims 1 and 6 of “860” based on obviousness over Brown and Price.
7. The parameter-determination method of claim 5 and further comprising:
generating a simulated plume model for each emission source of the plurality of emission sources with a wind-direction contribution value;
calculating a plurality of representative circular normal distributions for each air quality monitor, using the simulated plume model by:
setting a plurality of presumed flux values to the simulated plume model; and
analyzing the plurality of representative circular normal distributions to identify:
a relevant representative circular normal distribution from the plurality of representative circular normal distributions;
wherein the relevant representative circular normal distribution is indicative of a target emission source from the plurality of emission sources; and
quantifying a total emission of a target substance at the site by aggregating the plurality of emission sources.
As cited above: Claims 3 and 5 are rejected based on obviousness over Brown and Price.
1. A location method for locating an emission source of a target substance at a site, the location method comprising:
providing a first air quality monitor comprising:
a first sensor responsive to the target substance; and
a first location at which the first air quality monitor is located on the site;
measuring a first set of onsite parameters with the first air quality monitor over a period of time to obtain a plurality of individual measurements of each parameter of the first set of onsite parameters, wherein the plurality of individual measurements of the first set of onsite atmospheric parameters comprises:
a first measured substance concentration of the target substance measured with the first air quality monitor; and
a first set of individual atmospheric readings, wherein the first set of individual atmospheric readings comprises at least one of atmospheric reading selected from:
a barometric pressure,
an air temperature, and
a humidity level;
transmitting the first measured substance concentration to a first server;
transmitting the first set of individual atmospheric readings to the first server;
procuring a regional atmospheric parameter for the site from a second server;
training a prediction model associated with the first air quality monitor:
obtaining a plurality of first predicted substance concentrations of the target substance corresponding to the first air quality monitor from the prediction model, with at least:
the first set of individual atmospheric readings; and
the regional atmospheric parameter for the site;
wherein the plurality of first predicted substance concentrations is obtained over a predefined period at a predefined frequency;
generating a mapping of a weighted mean of the plurality of first predicted substance concentrations grouped in each feature group of a predetermined number of feature groups, wherein the predetermined number of feature groups together are representative of feature values over a predetermined range;
obtaining a location map of a plurality of emission sources at the site, the location map comprising a location and an identity associated with each of the plurality of emission sources;
for each emission source of the plurality of emission sources:
generating a simulated plume model, based on a wind-direction; and
calculating a plurality of representative circular normal distributions for each air quality monitor, using the simulated plume model, by setting a plurality of presumed flux values to the simulated plume model;
performing an analysis of the plurality of representative circular normal distributions in relation with the mapping to identify a relevant representative circular normal distribution from the plurality of representative circular normal distributions, wherein the relevant representative circular normal distribution is indicative of a target emission source; and
determining the target emission source, based on the analysis and the location map.
6. The location method of claim 1, wherein the location map is obtained using drone imagery, and wherein the location map is created by:
obtaining a plurality of two-dimensional images using the drone imagery; and
extracting three-dimensional measurements corresponding to the plurality of two-dimensional images, wherein each of the three-dimensional measurements comprises:
a distance between two points lying on a plane parallel to a photographic image plane, corresponding to measured associated distances on the plurality of two-dimensional images, using a scale.
Claims 1- 7 and 11-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. US11774426B1, here cited as “426 ” and also in view of Brown, US 20150213590 A and Prince, US 20100094565 A.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because first: the patented claims are narrower (contain more subject matter) than the broader application claims. Thus, the scope of the patented claims overlap the scope of the broader application claims; Second: they may use slightly different languages but they mean same thing, third: they only have a different limitation that is obvious over all prior art of record including Brown, and therefore the application claims are obvious in view of the patented claims.
More specifically: for claim 7 of the instant application, claim 1 of “426” does not disclose: claimed limitations of claims 1 and 5, and limitation “quantifying a total emission of a target substance at the site by aggregating the plurality of emission sources”.
Brown in view of Prince teaches a method of claims 1 and 5.
It would have been obvious to one o