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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 64, “a memory 10” should read as “a memory 19”.
In paragraph 66, “comparing means 19” should read as “comparing means 18”.
Appropriate correction 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 4, 6-11, and 14 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 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the averaging period will be interpreted as being any period of time.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the rain indicator" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be interpreted as “the precipitation indicator”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the rain indicator" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 7 will be interpreted as “the precipitation indicator”.
Claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the threshold is required to be 60 Hz or can be any value from 10 to 70 Hz. For examination purposes, the threshold value will be interpreted as having a value of 60 Hz.
Claims 8 and 10 depend on claim 7, therefore claims 8 and 10 inherit the same issues as claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the time period standard deviations are determined in will be interpreted as being any period of time.
Claim 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, claim 9 will be interpreted as a period of 3 to 6 minutes.
Claim 14, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, claim 14 will be interpreted as only requiring the magnitude of the change in frequency to be greater than 800 Hz.
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 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., Effects of precipitation on sonic anemometer measurements of turbulent fluxes in the atmospheric surface layer, Journal of Ocean University of China. 15. 389-398, 2016 [hereinafter "Zhang"] in view of Walls (US 20100226208 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches two sound transducers arranged on opposite sides of a measuring section each alternately emit ultrasonic waves (Fig. 2: “Schematic drawing of Windmaster Pro, where d is the length between emitting and receiving transducers, t1 and t2 the transmitting time of the ultrasonic signal”) during a transmission period at least in certain areas along the measuring section in such a way that, in a first transmission period, a first of the sound transducers emits ultrasonic waves, while the opposite second sound transducer at least partially receives the emitted ultrasonic waves, and, in at least one second transmission period, the second sound transducer emits ultrasonic waves, while the first sound transducer at least partially receives the emitted ultrasonic waves (Fig. 2; pg 391: “The sonic anemometer determines the wind velocity components and sound speed by measuring the transit times of sound pulses traveling in two opposite directions”),
wherein the sound transducers each generate a measurement signal during receipt of the ultrasonic waves depending on a property of the received ultrasonic waves,
Zhang does not explicitly teach a method for recording precipitation events in which the measurement signals generated by the sound transducers are transmitted, via a data transmission path, to an evaluation unit,
characterized in that the evaluation unit detects and evaluates changes in the frequency of the measurement signals transmitted by the sound transducers records a magnitude and a response curve of the frequencies during the changes in frequency and depending on the magnitude of the changes in frequency as well as a comparison of the frequency response curves during the change in frequency, detects a precipitation event and outputs information about the occurrence of the precipitation event.
Walls teaches a method for recording precipitation events in which the measurement signals generated by the sound transducers are transmitted, via a data transmission path, to an evaluation unit, which generates information about at least one atmospheric parameter on the basis of a property of the measurement signals (Fig. 2; Para 35: “Conversion and analysis component 26 analyzes the spectral properties of the returned echoes in order to estimate atmospheric properties”),
characterized in that the evaluation unit detects and evaluates changes in the frequency of the measurement signals transmitted by the sound transducers (Fig. 5; Abstract: “detecting precipitation with a sodar apparatus that transmits sound beams into the atmosphere, detects echoes returned from the atmosphere, from the echoes determines a Doppler-shifted spectrum comprising the relative strength of the echoes at various Doppler-shifted frequencies”),
records a magnitude and a response curve of the frequencies during the changes in frequency and (Para 9: “a method of detecting precipitation with a sodar apparatus that transmits sound beams into the atmosphere, detects echoes returned from the atmosphere, from the echoes determines a Doppler-shifted spectrum comprising the relative strength of the echoes at various Doppler-shifted frequencies”; The examiner draws attention to Figures 4A thru 4D, which display Doppler-shifted frequencies and identify peaks associated with various weather conditions),
depending on the magnitude of the changes in frequency as well as a comparison of the frequency response curves during the change in frequency, detects a precipitation event (Fig. 4A-4D; Para 8: “Characteristics of these peaks are used to estimate the presence and severity of precipitation”)
and outputs information about the occurrence of the precipitation event (Para 35: “After the received data is analyzed, it may be stored using some storage element 27, transmitted, reported or displayed for the user using reporting means 28”; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Zhang with the method of Walls by using the two sound transducers of Zhang to detect changes in frequency and determine precipitation with the method of Walls. Doing so would allow for accurate detection of rainfall.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang in view of Walls teach the limitations of claim 1, but Zhang does not explicitly teach upon evaluation of the measurement signals, the occurrence of a precipitation event is detected, if a limit value defined for the magnitude of the changes in frequency is exceeded and the response curves of the changes in frequency of the measurement signals generated by the opposite sound transducers are identical, synchronous and/or mean gradients of the response curves of the changes in frequency are identical.
Walls, as applied to Zhang, would teach upon evaluation of the measurement signals, the occurrence of a precipitation event is detected, if a limit value defined for the magnitude of the changes in frequency is exceeded (Fig. 6C; Para 60: “appropriate fuzzy rules and their application is as follows. See FIGS. 6A-6L. The five rules shown in FIGS. 6A-6E rule for number of good shots, rule for frequency of main wind peak, rule for frequency of rain peak”; The examiner notes that Fig. 6C displays a doppler shifted frequency threshold, where a value below 0 Hz indicates no rainfall and above indicates rainfall) and the response curves of the changes in frequency of the measurement signals generated by the opposite sound transducers are identical, synchronous and/or mean gradients of the response curves of the changes in frequency are identical (Para 56: “From the shape of these Gaussian curves taken over an interval of time for the three beam directions, at one or more elevations, it is possible to determine the likelihood that rain is present, and the likely intensity of that rain”; The examiner notes that Figs. 4B-4D show Doppler-shifted frequency spectrums when raining. The two opposite sound transducers of Zhang would produce two identical Doppler-shifted frequency spectrums).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang in view of Walls teach the limitations of claim 1, but Zhang does not explicitly teach upon evaluation of the measurement signals, the frequencies of the measurement signals generated by the opposite sound transducers in a measuring period are at least temporarily added and/or mean values are formed therefrom.
Walls teaches upon evaluation of the measurement signals, the frequencies of the measurement signals generated by the opposite sound transducers in a measuring period are at least temporarily added and/or mean values are formed therefrom (Para 50: “the invention also contemplates peak identification directly from the averaged spectra”).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang in view of Walls teach the limitations of claim 3, but Zhang does not explicitly teach that the mean values of the recorded frequencies of the measurement signals are formed over an averaging period (wm), which preferably is 50 s.
Walls teaches that the mean values of the recorded frequencies of the measurement signals are formed over an averaging period (wm), which preferably is 50 s (Para 74: “results of the rain detection algorithm are applied only to the data taken in the time block or averaging period during which these results were calculated”).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang in view of Walls teach the limitations of claim 1, but Zhang does not explicitly teach that the information about the presence of the precipitation event is stored in a memory and/or output over a period of 3 to 6 minutes, preferably for about 5 minutes, from detection of the precipitation event.
Walls teaches that the information about the presence of the precipitation event is stored in a memory (Para 35: “After the received data is analyzed, it may be stored using some storage element 27”) and/or output over a period of 3 to 6 minutes, preferably for about 5 minutes, from detection of the precipitation event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Zhang in view of Walls with the storage of Walls by having the precipitation analysis of Zhang in view of Walls be stored in the storage of Walls. Doing so would allow for record keeping and access to the precipitation analysis.
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang teaches a device for recording precipitation events having at least two sound transducers, between which a measuring section extends and of which respectively one sound transducer is alternately adapted to emit ultrasonic waves along the measuring section (Fig. 2: “Schematic drawing of Windmaster Pro, where d is the length between emitting and receiving transducers, t1 and t2 the transmitting time of the ultrasonic signal”),
while the opposite sound transducer is adapted to generate a measurement signal, which is specific for the ultrasonic waves impinging after propagation along the measuring section,
Zhang does not explicitly teach an evaluation unit, which is connected to the sound transducers via a signal transmission path and generates information about at least one atmospheric parameter on the basis of a frequency of the at least one measurement signal, characterized in that the evaluation unit is adapted to detect a precipitation event on the basis of a change in the frequencies of the measurement signals generated by the opposite sound transducers, taking into account a magnitude of the changes in frequency of the measurement signals and a comparison of the frequency response curves of the measurement signals generated during the change in frequency.
Walls teaches an evaluation unit, which is connected to the sound transducers via a signal transmission path and generates information about at least one atmospheric parameter on the basis of a frequency of the at least one measurement signal (Control 21 Fig. 2 and Fig. 5; Abstract: “detecting precipitation with a sodar apparatus that transmits sound beams into the atmosphere, detects echoes returned from the atmosphere, from the echoes determines a Doppler-shifted spectrum comprising the relative strength of the echoes at various Doppler-shifted frequencies”),
characterized in that the evaluation unit is adapted to detect a precipitation event on the basis of a change in the frequencies of the measurement signals generated by a Doppler-shifted spectrum comprising the relative strength of the echoes at various Doppler-shifted frequencies”; The examiner draws attention to Figures 4A thru 4D, which display Doppler-shifted frequencies and identify peaks associated with various weather conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Zhang with the method of Walls by using the two sound transducers of Zhang to detect changes in frequency and determine precipitation with the method of Walls. Doing so would allow for accurate detection of rainfall.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang in view of Walls teach the limitations of claim 12, but Zhang does not explicitly teach that the evaluation unit is adapted to detect the occurrence of a precipitation event, if a limit value defined for the magnitude of the changes in frequency is exceeded and the response curves of the changes in frequency of the measurement signals generated by the opposite sound transducers are identical, synchronous and/or mean gradients of the response curves of the changes in frequency are identical.
Walls teaches that the evaluation unit is adapted to detect the occurrence of a precipitation event, if a limit value defined for the magnitude of the changes in frequency is exceeded (Fig. 6C; Para 60: “appropriate fuzzy rules and their application is as follows. See FIGS. 6A-6L. The five rules shown in FIGS. 6A-6E rule for number of good shots, rule for frequency of main wind peak, rule for frequency of rain peak”; The examiner notes that Fig. 6C displays a doppler shifted frequency threshold, where a value below 0 Hz indicates no rainfall and above indicates rainfall) and the response curves of the changes in frequency of the measurement signals generated by the opposite sound transducers are identical, synchronous and/or mean gradients of the response curves of the changes in frequency are identical (Para 56: “From the shape of these Gaussian curves taken over an interval of time for the three beam directions, at one or more elevations, it is possible to determine the likelihood that rain is present, and the likely intensity of that rain”; The examiner notes that Figs. 4B-4D show Doppler-shifted frequency spectrums when raining. The two opposite sound transducers of Zhang would produce two identical Doppler-shifted frequency spectrums).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang in view of Walls teach the limitations of claim 13, but Zhang does not explicitly teach that the limit value taken into account in the evaluation unit for the magnitude of the change in frequency is greater than 800 Hz, preferably 1 kHz.
Walls teaches using a limit value taken into account in the evaluation unit the magnitude of the change in frequency in assessing the presence of rain (See the limit value of 0 Hz where a presence of rain is identified in Fig. 6C).
Walls also teaches that lower frequency shifts correlate to non-rain related events (See Fig. 4C; Wind related peaks 44) and higher frequency shifts are rain related (See Fig. 4C; Rain related peaks 45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the recited frequency threshold as a design choice where one having ordinary skill in the art would have decided upon an appropriate threshold through routine extermination and optimization when applying the teachings of Walls to the device of Zhang.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Walls as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Niwa (US 20180003808 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang in view of Walls teach the limitations of claim 12, but Zhang does not explicitly teach that the sound transducers are designed as piezo sound transducers with a natural frequency of 58 kHz and a 3 dB bandwidth of about 6 kHz.
Niwa teaches the sound transducers are designed as piezo sound transducers with a natural frequency of 58 kHz (Para 92: “Here, the resonance frequency fc is assumed to be, for example, 58 kHz”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Zhang in view of Walls with the invention of Niwa by replacing the sound transducers of Zhang with the piezoelectric sound transducers of Niwa. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed invention is a result of routine optimization. The selection of a piezo sound transducer with a 3 dB bandwidth of about 6 kHz amounts to a design choice based on the exact needs of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang and Walls do not teach calculating standard deviation of frequencies of measurement signals.
Rodney (US 20180171772 A1) teaches calculating standard deviation of measured frequency signals (Table 1; Para 109: “In addition to the center frequencies of the dominant spectral peak, and the width of these spectral peaks in the power and cross-power spectral densities, it is important to also have an estimate of the standard deviation in these parameters”). Rodney does not teach a standard deviation of half the difference in frequencies, a quotient of standard deviation, or a precipitation indicator based on those calculated values.
Fischer (US 20060097907 A1) teaches using standard deviation of frequency spectrum to determine a threshold value to determine a precipitation event (Para 36: “whether precipitation falls or not, is made by detection of a signal in the difference frequency spectrum” and Para 37: “Average values of the noise background of the difference frequency spectrum added to the 1.5-fold value of the standard deviation”). Fischer does not teach a standard deviation of half the difference in frequencies, a quotient of standard deviation, or a precipitation indicator based on those calculated values.
None of the prior art discloses or fairly suggests “a standard deviation of half the difference in frequencies, a quotient q formed of
σ
d
and
σ
m
, and a precipitation indicator
σ
r
determined taking into account the standard deviation
σ
m
as well as the aforementioned quotient q, in particular by quotient formation, are formed”.
Dependent Claims 6-10 distinguish over the prior art due to dependence upon claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bognar (US 6856273 B1) teaches determining amount of precipitation with doppler shifted frequency data (Col 13 Ln 25-27: “From the amplitude and Doppler shift(s) of the return radio frequency signal, the quantity of precipitation in the air and the precipitation rate can be calculated”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights