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 .
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 1-13 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 1 recites"...wherein said system is excited with the reference signal as the input signal, and said system generates in response to said excitation the measurement signal as the output signal...".
In the physical apparatus disclosed in 639 (FIG. 3), the gas measuring device (100) comprises a radiation source (1) that emits radiation (eW) simultaneously into two parallel chambers and both chambers are physically excited by the common radiation source (1) via emitted radiation eW. Reference signal x(t) is an electrical/digital output signal generated by reference detector (5). Reference signal x(t) never physically enters, excites, or interacts with the measurement chamber (2) or gas sample.
If "said system" refers to the physical gas measuring unit (100) or physical measurement chamber (2), the claim is structurally inoperable based on the parallel optical layout in FIG. 3.
The specification seems to say that the gas sample is "treated as a linear time-invariant system" in software within signal processing unit (50), where reference signal x(t) is "referred to as the input signal" and measurement signal y(t) is "referred to as the output signal" to execute a mathematical cross-correlation or Laplace transfer function calculation.
By reciting a computational software assignment (treating x(t) as a mathematical input to an algorithm) using physical hardware language ("excited with the reference signal... generates in response to said excitation"), the claim improperly conflates abstract mathematical data processing with physical hardware operation. It is unclear whether "said system" refers to the physical hardware apparatus (which is not excited by x(t)), or to an abstract mathematical LTI software model running inside processor 50.
For the purpose of the examination, the office will consider this limitation as: "...wherein a system model receives as inputs both the reference signal and the measurement signal and produces an output signal ...".
Claims 2-6 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claims 7 recites “… wherein said system is excited with the reference signal as the input signal and said system generates the measurement signal as the output signal in response to the excitation …”. Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 1.
For clarity of the record, the Examiner would appreciate if Applicant clarifies what is intended by the term “system” in each instance it is recited in claims 1 and 7, as it is currently unclear whether “system” refers to the overall physical gas measuring device, the optical sample/reference chamber paths, the target gas mixture itself, a cross-correlator, or some mathematical model.
For the purpose of the examination, the office will consider this limitation as: "... wherein a system model receives as inputs both the reference signal and the measurement signal and produces an output signal ...".
Claims 8-13 are rejected because they depend from claim 7.
Claim 10 recites “… the transfer function of the system is calculated when excited by the input signal …”. This limitation is unclear for the same reason as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 1.
For the purpose of the examination, the office will consider this limitation as: “… the transfer function of the system model is calculated when the system model receives the input signal …”
Claim 11 recites “… the zero-point system behavior indicator is calculated using the reference gas sample “and” [#1] during use of the gas measuring unit …” and “… “and” [#2] the zero point system behavior indicator is subtracted from the system behavior indicator …”. Having two conjunctions “and” [#1 & #2] framing a single temporal phrase (“during use …”) breaks the grammatical structure of the sentence, leaving a phrase that is ambiguous.
“And” [#1] links “calculated using the reference gas sample” to “during use …”, making it sound as the zero-point indicator is calculated both prior to use (from the reference sample) and during active target gas detection, whereas active target gas detection occurs during measurement.
Because of “and” [#2], the temporal condition (during use…) becomes detached from main action verb (“is subtracted …”). It is ambiguous whether “during use…” is an incomplete clause fragment attached to the calculation step, or if it was intended to define when the subtraction occurs.
For examination, the office considers the above-mentioned limitations as follows:
“… the zero-point system behavior indicator is calculated using the reference gas sample, and during use of the gas measuring unit for target gas or target gases detection, the zero point system behavior indicator is subtracted from the system behavior indicator.”
Claim 13 recites “… free of the or each target gas …”. This phrase uses grammatically improper disjunctive phrasing in English. It is ambiguous whether the reference gas must be free of one specific target gas being analyzed or all target gases in the predetermined set.
Claim 13 further recites “… wherein a gas sample from the spatial area is used as the reference gas …”. It is ambiguous whether the reference gas sample is the exact same physical gas sample drawn into the measurement chamber or a separate gas sample drawn at a different time or location from the spatial area. Claim 7 which claim 13 depends from explicitly requires that “the reference chamber is filled with a reference gas which is free of every target gas to be detected” and ¶ [58] explains that the reference chamber is separated in a fluid-tight manner from the spatial area.
If the reference chamber is sealed against the surrounding spatial area, a gas sample drawn dynamically from the spatial area cannot enter the reference chamber during operation without violating parent claim 7. This structural and procedural conflict renders the claimed combination inoperable.
For the examination, the office considers the above-mentioned limitations as follows:
A gas detection process according to claim 7, wherein a gas sample is used as the reference gas, which is free of the target gas to be detected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (JP 2011149965 A) hereinafter Nishikawa, See the English Translation, in view of Higashi et al. (JP 6083466 B2) hereinafter Higashi, see the English Translation, and Ershov et al. (US 20080225273 A1) hereinafter Ershov.
Regarding claim 1, Nishikawa teaches A gas measuring device (absorption spectrometer 1, fig 1) for analyzing a gas sample from a spatial area (sample gas enters to cell 5 via gas inlet 52 from a target space, fig. 1).
Nishikawa teaches analyzing a single target gas NO2 as a target measurement component, ¶ [16]. Nishikawa doesn’t teach analyzing a gas sample from a spatial area for several target gases to be detected.
Higashi teaches analyzing a gas sample from a spatial area for several target gases to be detected (According to the present invention, it is possible to provide a gas analyzer that enables the analysis of multiple gas concentrations with a simple configuration, such as the analysis of the gas concentrations of two components contained in a sample gas,¶ [26]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure Nishikawa’s absorption spectrometer 1 to analyze multiple gas samples as taught by Higashi, because analyzing more than one gas sample is more beneficial than analyzing one type of gas.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi further teaches the gas measuring device (absorption spectrometer 1, fig 1) comprising: a gas measuring unit (the physical gas measuring assembly of absorption spectrometer 1 which includes UV light source 2, visible light source 3, reference cell 4, sample cell 5, light guide mechanism 6, and photodetector unit 7, fig. 1 and ¶ [16]); and a signal processing unit (calculation unit 9 (working in conjunction with control unit 8), fig. 1), wherein the gas measuring unit comprises: a measurement chamber (sample cell 5, fig. 1); a reference chamber (reference cell 4, fig. 1); a radiation source (UV light source 2 and visible light source 3, fig. 1 and ¶ [18]); a measurement detector (sample photodetector 72, fig. 1 and ¶ [22]); and a reference detector (reference photodetector 71, fig. 1 and ¶ [22]), wherein the measurement chamber is configured to receive the gas sample from the spatial area (the sample cell 5 is provided with gas inlet 52 to continuously introduce sample gas into the internal cell volume, fig 1 and ¶ [20]. (the sample gas is exhaust gas supplied from spatial environment into cell 5)), wherein the reference chamber is filled with a reference gas which is free of every target gas to be detected (the reference gas filled inside reference cell 4 is pure Nitrogen gas, which has no absorption wavelength band in ultraviolet light, making it free of the target gas (NO2) and free of any target gas to be detected, ¶ [19]), wherein the radiation source is configured to emit radiation (the radiation emitted from the light source assembly (source 2 and source 3) is incident on light guide mechanism 6, fig. 1 and ¶ [21]) both into the measurement chamber and into the reference chamber (half mirror 61 splits the light beam into sample cell 5, while reflected light is directed into parallel reference cell 4, fig. 1 and ¶ [21]) such that emitted radiation penetrates at least once both the measurement chamber and the reference chamber (the light entering sample cell 5 penetrates through entry window 51, passes through the internal sample gas, and penetrates through exit window 51 to reach sample photodetector 72. Simultaneously, light entering reference cell 4 penetrates through entry window 41, passes through the reference N2 gas, and penetrates through exit window 41 to reach reference photodetector 71, fig. 1), wherein the measurement chamber and the reference chamber are arranged in parallel with respect to the radiation (the sample cell 5 has a hollow columnar shape provided in parallel with the reference cell 4 and radiation, fig. 1 and ¶ [20]).
Nishikawa in view of Higashi further teaches wherein a frequency band of the emitted radiation comprises for gas to be detected a respective frequency band portion in which this target gas attenuates at least a part of the radiation (UV light source 2 emits radiation at 360-400nm, which corresponds to the specific absorption band of NO2 where NO2 attenuates the radiation, ¶ [18]).
Nishikawa does not teach the detection frequency band for every target gas.
Higashi teaches selecting light emitting sources (11, 12) such that the combined frequency band contains distinct spectral portion for each target gas (NO2 and SO2) to be detected, ¶ [30-31].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to arrange the light sources taught by Nishikawa to emit radiation in a frequency band of every target gas to be detected, as taught by Higashi, to match the attenuation spectrum of every target gas present in the gas sample.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi further teaches wherein the measurement detector (sample photodetector 72, fig. 1 and ¶ [22]) is configured to generate a time-resolved measurement signal (under control unit 8, light source 2 and 3 are operated in pulsed emission sequence (at regular intervals in a cycle of 30Hz to 100Hz), ¶ [25], causing photodetector 72 to generate signals S1 and S2 over time, ¶ [29] ), which signal is an indicator of an intensity of the emitted radiation (The magnitude of signal S1 reflects the attenuation of UV light intensity caused by NO2 absorption in the sample gas, ¶ [30]), after the radiation has penetrated at least once at least a part of the gas sample in the measurement chamber (the light entering sample cell 5 penetrates through entry window 51, passes through the internal sample gas, and penetrates through exit window 51 to reach sample photodetector 72, fig. 1).
Nishikawa in view of Higashi teaches wherein the reference detector (sample photodetector 71, fig. 1 and ¶ [22]) is configured to generate a time-resolved reference signal (under control unit 8, light source 2 and 3 are operated in pulsed emission sequence (at regular intervals in a cycle of 30Hz to 100Hz), ¶ [25], causing photodetector 71 to generate signals S3 (RUV) and S4 (RVIS) over time, ¶ [29]), which signal is an indicator of an intensity of the emitted radiation (Because Nitrogen gas does not absorb in the target UV band, the intensity of light received by reference photodetector 71 fluctuates solely due to emission source variations, ¶ [19]) after the radiation has penetrated at least once at least a part of the reference gas in the reference chamber (light entering reference cell 4 penetrates through entry window 41, passes through the reference N2 gas, and penetrates through exit window 41 to reach reference photodetector 71, fig. 1).
Nishikawa in view of Higashi further teaches wherein the signal processing unit (calculation unit 9 (working in conjunction with control unit 8), fig. 1 ) is configured to calculate an indicator for a system behavior (calculation unit 9 performs a predetermined calculation (intensity ratios, ¶ [31-32]) after receiving signals S1 to S4 that results in absorbance and concentration values, ¶ [30]) in the time domain (under control unit 8, light source 2 and 3 are operated in pulsed emission sequence (at regular intervals in a cycle of 30Hz to 100Hz), ¶ [25], causing photodetector 71 an 72 to generate signals S1 to S4 over time.) of a system (absorption spectrometer 1, figure 1).
Nishikawa in view of Higashi doesn’t teach the signal processing unit is configured to calculate an indicator for a system behavior in the frequency domain of a system.
Ershov teaches calculating an indicator for a system behavior in the time domain (calculates cross-correlation function K(i) between functions
ψ
1
ⅈ
(measurement function/signal) and
ψ
0
ⅈ
(reference function/signal) in the time domain,
K
t
=
∫
ψ
1
T
ψ
0
t
+
T
d
T
,¶ [ 32 & 78 & 88]. Performs a linear fit of the cross-correlation function over autocorrelation A(t) to extract target gas concentration, ¶ [32]) or in the frequency domain (a determination of the similarity in the time domain is not obligatory but may also be, for instance, performed in the frequency domain after applying a Fourier transformation,¶ [92]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement Ershov’s time-domain cross-correlation and frequency domain Fourier transform processing into Nishikawa in view of Higashi’s signal processing unit to filter out background noise.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi doesn’t teach wherein a system model receives the reference signal as the input signal, and said system model yields, in response to said input signal, the measurement signal as the output signal.
Ershov teaches a system model (a model where the relationship between the reference channel and the analytical channel is modeled using a filter framework, cross correlation, and linear fitting procedures, ¶ [32]) receives as inputs both the reference signal and the measurement signal (reference signal (
ψ
0
t
) and measurement signal (
ψ
1
t
) are fed into the system model (filter framework, cross correlation, and linear fitting procedures),¶ [88-89]) , and produces an output signal (the system model evaluates the measurement signal (
ψ
1
t
) and the reference signal (
ψ
0
t
) via cross-correlation K(t) and produces a slop output factor
σ
that measures target gas concentration.¶ [89])
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply system model as taught by Ershov with Nishikawa in view of Higashi signal processing unit in order to treat reference detector signal as the input and its measurement detector signal as the output to eliminate uncorrelated optical noise in both time and frequency domain.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches wherein the signal processing unit (calculation unit 9 working with control unit 8, (Nishikawa, fig. 1)) is configured to determine a target gas information (determines the concentration of the target gas NO2, (Nishikawa,¶ [30])) by evaluating the calculated indicator for the system behavior (evaluates the calculated cross-correlation function K(i) and its linear fit slope factor
σ
over autocorrelation A(i), (Ershov,¶ [88-89])).
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov teaches calculation unit 9 calculates target gas concentration (NO2, (Nishikawa, ¶ [30]) and (NO and SO2, (Higashi, ¶ [26])).
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov doesn’t teach the determined target gas information comprises at least one of: an indicator of a sum of target gases concentrations in the gas sample of the target gases to be detected.
Higashi teaches the determined target gas information comprises at least one of: an indicator of a sum of target gases concentrations in the gas sample of the target gases to be detected (calculates NO2 concentration c4 in the gas sample GS under oxidation state, which is disclosed as the sum of NO gas concentration (c1 ) and NO2 gas concentration (c2), (c4= c2+ c1 )¶ [71 and 88-89]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate concentration sum calculation as taught by Higashi with Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov’s calculation unit 9 to measure multiple target gas concentrations in a single sample and determine total gas concentration.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches what target gas is present or which target gases are present in the gas sample (determines which specific target gas species are present among multiple candidates (NO2),(Nishikawa, ¶ [30]) and (NO with c2 concentration and SO2 with c3 concentration), (Higashi,¶ [26 & 87]))); and for at least one target gas an indicator of a respective quantity or concentration of this target gas in the gas sample (calculates the time-domain intensity ratio (SUV/RUV) as a quantitative indicator of the concentration of (NO2),(Nishikawa, ¶ [30-31 & 34]) and (NO and SO2) (Higashi,¶ [26])).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to identify which target gas is present in the sample gas, because determining a species-specific concentration reveals the presence and identity of that target gas.
Claim 7 is a process equivalent of the apparatus claim 1 and has analogous limitations as claim 1, therefore claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov teaches a gas measuring device according to claim 1 as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 1.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches the signal processing unit calculates the indicator for the system behavior correlation in the time domain or the frequency domain as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 1.
However, Nishikawa in view of Higashi doesn’t teach the signal processing unit comprises a cross-correlator, wherein the cross-correlator is configured to calculate the cross-correlation in the time domain between the reference signal and the measurement signal, and wherein the signal processing unit is configured to calculate the indicator for the system behavior using at least one of the cross-correlation in the time domain or a result of a transformation of the cross-correlation into the frequency domain.
Ershov teaches wherein the signal processing unit (Electronic unit, fig. 6 and ¶[63]) comprises a cross-correlator (data processing is made using the corresponding software in electronic unit, ¶ [63 & 81]), wherein the cross-correlator is configured to calculate the cross-correlation in the time domain between the reference signal and the measurement signal (calculates cross-correlation function K(i) between functions
ψ
1
ⅈ
(measurement function/signal) and
ψ
0
ⅈ
(reference function/signal) in the time domain,
K
t
=
∫
ψ
1
T
ψ
0
t
+
T
d
T
, (Ershov, ¶ [ 32 & 78 & 88])), and wherein the signal processing unit is configured to calculate the indicator for the system behavior using at least one of the cross-correlation in the time domain (evaluates the response of the measurement signal
ψ
1
t
relative to the input reference signal via cross-correlation K(t) yielding a slop output factor
σ
that measures target gas concentration.¶ [89]) or a result of a transformation of the cross-correlation into the frequency domain (a determination of the similarity in the time domain is not obligatory but may also be, for instance, performed in the frequency domain after applying a Fourier transformation,¶ [92]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate cross-correlator and time-domain correlation math or its alternative of Fourier transforming the correlation into the frequency domain into Nishikawa in view of Higashi’s calculation unit 9 (together with control unit 8) to calculate an improved system behavior indicator from reference and measurement signal.
Claim 8 has analogous limitation to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reason as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches a gas detection process according to claim 8 as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 8.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches the step of calculating the indicator for the system behavior (calculates cross-correlation function K(i) between functions
ψ
1
ⅈ
(measurement function/signal) and
ψ
0
ⅈ
(reference function/signal) in the time domain,
K
t
=
∫
ψ
1
T
ψ
0
t
+
T
d
T
, (Ershov, ¶ [ 32 & 78 & 88]). Evaluates the response of the measurement signal
ψ
1
t
relative to the input reference signal via cross-correlation K(t) yielding a slop output factor
σ
that measures target gas concentration.(Ershov, ¶ [89])) comprises the steps of: transforming the cross-correlation into the frequency domain; and determining the indicator for the system behavior using the cross-correlation result of the transformation of the cross-correlation into the frequency domain (a determination of the similarity in the time domain is not obligatory but may also be, for instance, performed in the frequency domain after applying a Fourier transformation, (Ershov,¶ [92])).
Regarding claim 13, Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches a gas detection process according to claim 7 as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 7.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches wherein a gas sample is used as the reference gas, which is free of the or each target gas to be detected (the reference gas filled inside reference cell 4 is pure Nitrogen gas, which has no absorption wavelength band in ultraviolet light, making it free of the target gas (NO2) and free of any target gas to be detected, (Nishikawa ¶ [19])).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov as applied to claims 1 and 7 above and further in view of Demas et al. (US 20220205959 A1) hereinafter Demas.
Regarding claim 3, Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches a gas measuring device according to claim 1 as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 1.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov teaches that it is possible to transform the time-resolved reference and measurement signals into the frequency spectrum to evaluate how closely they match after applying a Fourier transformation, (Ershov, ¶ [92]).
However, Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov doesn’t teach calculating a transfer function in frequency domain.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov doesn’t teach the signal processing unit is configured to calculate in the frequency domain a transfer function of the system and wherein the signal processing unit is configured to calculate the indicator for the system behavior using the transfer function in the frequency domain or to use the transfer function in the frequency domain as the indicator for the system behavior.
Demas teaches how to calculate in the frequency domain a transfer function of the system (calculates the frequency domain transfer function H(f) by dividing input-output cross power spectrum Sxy (measurement signal) by the input auto-power spectrum Sxx (input reference signal):
H
f
=
S
x
y
f
S
x
x
(
f
)
, ¶ [212 & 218]) and to calculate the indicator for the system behavior using the transfer function in the frequency domain or to use the transfer function in the frequency domain as the indicator for the system behavior (evaluates the transfer function gain,
H
f
, and phase,
∠
H
f
, and MSC across frequency band. These frequency domain metrics serve as the characteristic indicator of system response to target gas presence, ¶ [218 & 220]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate frequency domain transfer function calculation as taught by Demas into Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov’s calculation unit 9 to improve measurement stability.
Regarding claim 10, Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches a gas detection process according to claim 8 as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 8.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov teaches that a determination of the similarity in the time domain is not obligatory but may also be, for instance, performed in the frequency domain after applying a Fourier transformation, (Ershov, ¶ [92])).
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov does not teach the radiation source emits the radiation with white noise, and wherein using the result of the transformation of the cross-correlation into the frequency domain, the transfer function of the system is calculated when receives the input signal, and the indicator for the system behavior is calculated using the transfer function.
Demas teaches the radiation source emits the radiation with white noise (drives the emitter source with a stochastic input signal generate as white noise, ¶ [193]) and wherein using the result of the transformation of the cross-correlation into the frequency domain (Sxy = conj (fft (input segment)). fft(output segment), ¶ [212]), the transfer function of the system model is calculated when the system model receives the input signal (calculates the frequency domain transfer function H(f) by dividing input-output cross power spectrum Sxy (measurement signal) by the input auto-power spectrum Sxx (input reference signal):
H
f
=
S
x
y
f
S
x
x
(
f
)
, ¶ [212 & 218]. Demas treats the gas sample as a Linear-Time-Invariant (LTI) dynamic system, ¶ [260]), and the indicator for the system behavior is calculated using the transfer function (evaluates the transfer function gain,
H
f
, and phase,
∠
H
f
, and MSC across frequency band. These frequency domain metrics serve as the characteristic indicator of system response to target gas presence, ¶ [218 & 220]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate frequency domain transfer function calculation as taught by Demas into Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov’s calculation unit 9 to improve measurement stability. Moreover, using white noise signal as an input signal reduces measurement time by exciting the entire frequency domain at once.
Claims 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov as applied to claims 1 and 7 above and further in view of Dattner (US 20210247300 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov teaches a gas measuring device according to claim 1, as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 1.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further doesn’t teach a gas measuring device according to claim 1 further comprising: a computer unit, wherein the gas measuring unit comprises a first communication unit, wherein the computer unit is located spatially remote from the gas measuring unit and comprises a second communication unit, wherein the signal processing unit is a component of the computer unit, and wherein the gas measuring unit is configured to transmit the measurement signal and the reference signal from the gas measuring unit to the signal processing unit using the two communication units.
Dattner teaches a gas measuring device (a gas emission monitoring device comprising controller, abstract) comprising: a computer unit (controller 402 and central controller 902, fig. 5 and fig. 9 and ¶ [51]), wherein the gas measuring unit comprises a first communication unit(controller 402 performs to operation of transmitting results of the measurements comprises of antenna 404 and transceiver 406 ¶ [51]), wherein the computer unit is located spatially remote from the gas measuring unit (the central controller 902 and base transceiver station 414 are located spatially remote from smart poles, fig. 9 and ¶ [96]) and comprises a second communication unit (a base transceiver station receiver/network interface, fig. 9), wherein the signal processing unit (signal analyzer 518 and data analyzer 520, ¶ [59]) is a component of the computer unit (518 and 520 run as modules on processor 506 of the remote computer server 402/902, fig. 5 and ¶ [51 & 59]), and wherein the gas measuring unit (controller 402 performs to operation of transmitting results of the measurements , ¶ [51]) is configured to transmit the measurement signal and the reference signal from the gas measuring unit to the signal processing unit using the two communication units (transmits measurement signals and reference detector signals from the gas analyzer via transceiver 406 and antenna 404 to the remote base station server 414/902 for processing, fig. 4 and fig. 9 and ¶ [93]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine remote server telemetry architecture as taught by Dattner with Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov’s gas measuring apparatus to offload intensive signal processing from field sensors.
Regarding claim 5, Nishikawa in view of Higashi, Ershov and Dattner teaches a gas measuring device according to claim 4 as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 4.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi, Ershov and Dattner further teaches the gas measuring device is configured to transmit the target gas information to the gas measuring unit by using the two communication units (central remote server 402 transmits feedback to gas analyzer system 100 via antenna 404 and transceiver 406, fig. 8 and ¶ [48 & 51]) wherein the signal processing unit has calculated the target gas information as a function of the transmitted measurement signal and the transmitted reference signal (controller calculates target gas concentration as a function of light mode measurement detector signals (path II) and dark/reference-mode detector signals (path I), ¶ [27-28 & 40] and fig. 6), and wherein the gas measuring device is configured to generate a message depending on the received target gas information and output the generated message in at least one form that can be perceived by a human ( triggers alarm system 412 (audio notification system outputting gas-specific sounds) when concentration exceeds threshold¶ [48]. Displays charts of target gas concentrations vs. intensity on display device, ¶ [113]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement bi-directional telemetry and local human perceivable alerts a taught by Dattner to Nishikawa in view of Higashi, Ershov and Dattner’s system, so that field operators located near the gas measuring device are immediately notified of gas leaks or hazardous concentration levels in real-time.
Regarding claim 6, Nishikawa in view of Higashi, Ershov and Dattner teaches a gas measuring device according to claim 4 as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 4.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi, Ershov and Dattner further teaches the gas measuring unit (calculation unit 9 (working in conjunction with control unit 8), (Nishikawa, fig. 1)) comprises an evaluation unit (calculation unit 9, (Nishikawa, fig. 1) )the evaluation unit being configured: to measure, as a function of the measurement signal and of the reference signal, an indicator of an attenuation which at least one of the target gases to be detected cause in the measurement chamber (calculation unit 9 calculates time-resolved intensity ratio (SUV /RUV ) between measurement photodetector signal (SUV) and reference photodetector signal (RUV ) to evaluate target gas attenuation, (Nishikawa,¶ [30-31 & 34])).
Nishikawa in in view of Higashi, and Ershov doesn’t teach any discrete binary decision step. Nishikawa in in view of Higashi, and Ershov doesn’t teach depending on the determined attenuation value, to decide whether or not the gas sample contains this target gas.
Dattner teaches depending on the determined attenuation value (readout circuit 204 uses operational amplifier OP-2 to generate an output signal proportional to the difference between the light mode signal and the dark/reference mode signal, ¶ [73]), to decide whether or not the gas sample contains this target gas (uses a multi-detector array (204b-d), where each detector readout circuit 204b-d is focused on a particular target gas, ¶ [71]. When an individual detector channel exceeds its preset threshold, the controller triggers an alarm system that is pre-programmed to output different sounds for different target gases, ¶ [48]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to configure Nishikawa in in view of Higashi, and Ershov’s calculation unit to execute a threshold decision based on the calculated attenuation value, as taught by Dattner, in order to provide clear automated binary presence/absence alerts to field operator.
Regarding claim 12, Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches a gas detection process according to claim 7 as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 7.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov teaches a set of target gases to be detected is predetermined (emits broadband radiation covering target gas absorption bands. UV light source 2 emits radiation at 360-400nm, which corresponds to the specific absorption band of NO2 where NO2 attenuates the radiation, (Nishikawa,¶ [18]) and Higashi teaches selecting light emitting sources (11, 12) such that the combined frequency band contains distinct spectral portion for each target gas (NO2 and SO2) to be detected, ¶ [30-31]).
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov teaches doesn’t teach for every target gas of the set of target gases and for at least one predetermined concentration of this target gas: the measurement chamber is filled with a gas sample which contains the target gas at the specified concentration and is free from the or every other target gas; the system behavior indicator is determined using the gas sample which contains the target gas at the specified concentration to provide a reference system behavior indicator for the target gas; and the reference system behavior indicator for the target gas is used when determining the target gas concentrations.
Dattner teaches for every target gas of the set of target gases and for at least one predetermined concentration of this target gas: the measurement chamber is filled with a gas sample which contains the target gas at the specified concentration and is free from the or every other target gas (a known concentration of a single target gas (e.g., methane) is transferred into gas cell 106, while ensuring no other target gas is present, ¶ [87 & 93]. The calibration steps are repeated for each predetermined target gas in set, ¶ [92]); the system behavior indicator is determined using the gas sample which contains the target gas at the specified concentration to provide a reference system behavior indicator for the target gas (measures transmitted light intensity for each pure target gas sample at specified concentrations to generate and store target-gas-specific absorption reference parameters in calibration table, ¶ [90-93]) ; and the reference system behavior indicator for the target gas is used when determining the target gas concentrations (uses stored calibration table parameters to convert raw detector differences into active target gas concentration values during active sample testing, ¶ [76 & 92]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate single-gas reference calibration routine taught by Dattner into Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov’s gas detection process to ensure accurate quantitative concentration readings across all predetermined target gases.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov as applied to claims 1 and 7 above and further in view of Shibuya et al. (US 20190101491 A1) hereinafter Shibuya.
Regarding claim 11, Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov further teaches a gas detection process according to claim 7 as set forth with respect to rejection of claim 7.
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov teaches filling the measurement chamber from the spatial area, (Nishikawa, the sample cell 5 is provided with gas inlet 52 to continuously introduce sample gas into the internal cell volume, fig 1 and ¶ [20].)
Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov does not teach prior to using the gas measuring unit for detecting target gas or detecting target gases, the measurement chamber is filled with a reference gas sample from the spatial area, the reference gas sample being free of any target gas, and as a zero-point system behavior indicator, the zero-point system behavior indicator is calculated using the reference gas sample, and during use of the gas measuring unit for target gas or target gases detection, the zero point system behavior indicator is subtracted from the system behavior indicator.
Shibuya teaches prior to using the gas measuring unit for detecting target gas or detecting target gases (the latter measurement (hereinafter also referred to as reference measurement) may be performed any of before and after every sample measurement, ¶ [49]. Subsequently, when the sample gas is enclosed in the measurement cell 1 …, the first calculation part 71 performs the sample measurement, ¶ [57], the measurement chamber is filled with a reference gas sample (when zero gas is enclosed in the measurement cell 1 …, the first calculation part 71 having sensed the enclosure performs the reference measurement, ¶ [55]), the reference gas sample being free of any target gas ( … zero gas whose light absorption is substantially zero in a wavelength band where the measurement target component absorbs light, for example, N2 gas is enclosed in the measurement cell 1 …, ¶ [50]) and as a zero-point system behavior indicator, the zero-point system behavior indicator is calculated using the reference gas sample (first calculation part 71 measures reference light intensity
D
z
t
transmitted through measurement cell 1 when zero-gas N2 is enclosed, capturing the zero-point reference baseline indicator where target light absorption is zero,¶ [50 & 59]), and during use of the gas measuring unit for target gas or target gases detection (during subsequent active sample testing when sample gas is enclosed in measurement cell 1, first calculation part 71 measure measurement target light intensity
D
m
t
, ¶ [57 & 59]), the zero point system behavior indicator is subtracted from the system behavior indicator ( first calculation part 71 calculates absorbance signal
A
(
t
)
=
-
ln
D
m
t
D
z
t
which is equal to
ln
D
z
t
-
ln
D
m
t
, ¶ [58 & 60]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Shibuya’s zero-point baseline calculation and logarithmic subtraction routine into Nishikawa in view of Higashi and Ershov’s baseline dual-chamber optical process to ensure accurate target gas measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAEEDE NAFOOSHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am -5:00pm.
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.
/SAEEDE NAFOOSHE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
