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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 3/17/2026, as corrected on 5/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims are overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The existing rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are overcome by amendment.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s argument is that Bennett only teaches making corrections when using a differential absorption lidar (DIAL) system, which uses only two different wavelengths rather than spectrographic information as claimed, however, this argument is not persuasive. First, Bennett’s description of DIAL in paragraph 7 is compatible with a spectrographic approach, especially when more than two wavelengths are used, which, as Bennett teaches, allows mapping gas absorption features in greater detail, which puts the DIAL approach of Bennett within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “spectrographic information” language of the claim. Further, a frequency comb spectrometer with a large number of closely spaced wavelengths would be fully capable of performing the comparison between wavelengths strongly absorbed by a target gas and nearby wavelengths that are not strongly absorbed in order to perform exactly the kind of comparison that paragraph 22 of Bennett describes in terms of a DIAL system. Second, the disclosure of Bennet is not limited to just a sensor system incorporating a DIAL instrument (paragraph 6, final sentence). Finally, the claims as written do not prohibit an approach that includes DIAL or similar when accounting for terrain reflectivity.
As claim 1 is not allowed, the other independent claims are not allowable for similar reasons, and the dependent claims are not automatically allowable.
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 1-19 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite the limitation "the location of the vehicle" in lines, 7, 5, and 11, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In each case, the limitation is interpreted as a location of the vehicle.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreitinger (US Patent Publication 20220082495) in view of Bennett (US Patent Publication 20190376890).
Regarding claim 1, Kreitinger teaches a system comprising: a vehicle (FIG. 2, first drone 201, which has the laser source 101 and transceiver 102 shown in first payload 110 as shown in FIG. 1) having a body with at least one aperture formed therein and a vehicle surface (inherent. Any part of a laser source that limits the size of the beam acts as the aperture. Every vehicle has at least one surface.);
a dual-comb spectrometer (paragraph 53 lists dual-comb spectroscopy as one of the options of open-path laser spectroscopy that can be used) mounted to the body (as part of first payload 110), wherein the dual-comb spectrometer is configured to emit dual-comb optical signals through the at least one aperture towards an external surface (FIG. 1, the laser source transmits transmitted beam 108 via transceiver 102 at a target), wherein the external surface is a surface not part of the vehicle surface (FIG. 2 makes clear that the target is not part of first drone 201) and associated with the location of the vehicle (FIG. 2 shows the target within line-of-sight of a location of first drone 201, a form of association), wherein the dual-comb spectrometer is configured to receive reflected optical signals through the at least one aperture (FIG. 1, the transceiver receives the reflected signals in addition to transmitting), wherein the reflected optical signals correspond to the dual-comb optical signals that have been reflected by the external surface (FIG. 1, the target is shown having a reflector, from which the signals are reflected);
a detector configured to detect the reflected optical signals and generate an electrical signal representing information in the reflected optical signals (FIG. 1, transceiver 102, which may measure the received light, as described in paragraph 56); and
one or more processors (FIG. 1, processor 104) configured to produce measurements of an average concentration (paragraph 7, the integrated-path concentration is an average over the integration path) of at least one particle (paragraph 33 mentions methane and carbon dioxide, each of which consists of particles) within a volume between the vehicle and the external surface (FIG. 1, the region that transmitted beam 108 passes through) based on spectrographic information from the reflected optical signals (paragraph 28 describes the spectroscopic technique used);
Kreitinger does not explicitly teach that the spectrographic information is generated by characterizing the terrain type of the external surface and removing terrain spectrographic information from the electrical signal associated with the characterized terrain type.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection between an aircraft and the ground, Bennett does teach that the spectrographic information is generated by characterizing the terrain type of the external surface (paragraph 22, characterizing terrain based on reflectivity) and removing terrain spectrographic information from the electrical signal associated with the characterized terrain type (paragraph 22 mentions examples of forested hillside 128, lake or pond 148, and area covered in snow (unnumbered) as examples of terrain elements or features that might reflect illumination light 116 more or less efficiently and describes correcting for different reflectivities. Note that the disclosure of Bennett is not limited to systems incorporating DIAL (paragraph 6, final two sentences), and that Bennett teaches DIAL techniques incorporating a spectrum of more than two wavelengths (paragraph 7)). By identifying how reflective the terrain is and adjusting the data accordingly, Bennett is able to increase the accuracy of the measurements of gas concentration in the volume of air under test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger with the background terrain characterization and correction of Bennett in order to gain the predictable benefit of increasing the accuracy of the measurements of average concentration.
Regarding claim 2, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Kreitinger further teaches that the at least one particle is at least one of: water vapor; methane; nitrous oxide; carbon dioxide; carbon monoxide; and ozone (paragraph 33, penultimate sentence mentions methane and carbon dioxide specifically. Note that an apparatus claim is not limited by the article or material upon which it works. See MPEP 2115. It is the examiner’s position that claim 2 is further limiting on claim 1 in that claim 2 further limits the configuration of the one or more processors, not due to the user’s choice of what type of gas to point the spectrometer towards. ).
Regarding claim 3, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Kreitinger further teaches that at least one processor in the one or more processors is located on the vehicle (FIG. 1, processor 104 is part of first payload 110, which is part of the first drone (labeled 201 in FIG. 2) and the at least one processor produces the measurements (paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 4, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Kreitinger further teaches one or more communication interfaces (paragraph 35, last three sentences mention a mobile platform being wirelessly coupled to another or to a base station).
Kreitinger discusses wireless communication largely in terms of providing controls to the mobile platforms rather than using it to report back the findings, so Kreitinger does not explicitly disclose that data transmitted through the one or more communication interfaces comprises at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements of the average concentration, wherein the data is transmitted through the one or more communication interfaces to a control center.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection from aircraft, Bennett does teach that data transmitted through the one or more communication interfaces comprises at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements of the average concentration, wherein the data is transmitted through the one or more communication interfaces to a control center (paragraph 28 describes using ground datalink 372 or radio frequency datalink 376 to support the real time transmission of data). By transmitting data in real time, Bennett is able to provide the data to computers or people outside of the aircraft while the craft is still in the air and allowing computers on the ground to do the processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger with the real time data transmission of Bennett in order to provide earlier and more convenient access to the data and allow the use of computer hardware when processing the data that might be heavier than one might want to include on a mobile platform of the types used by Kreitinger.
Regarding claim 5, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 4 (as described above).
Kreitinger further teaches that the data transmitted through the one or more communication interfaces is transmitted to a relay system (paragraph 97. When one of the drones communicates to the other through a base station, the base station is serving as a relay system through which data is transmitted).
Kreitinger does not explicitly teach using that relay method to send data ultimately to the control center.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection from aircraft, Bennett does teach that data is transmitted to the control center (paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the relay-based communication method of the vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, to transmit data to the control station after the example of Bennett in order to move the data in a more convenient manner, allowing different communication hardware be used when doing so.
Regarding claim 6, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 4 (as described above).
Kreitinger does not explicitly teach that the spectrographic information is transmitted to the control center and the one or more processors are located at the control center and produces the measurements from the spectrographic information transmitted through the one or more communication interfaces.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection from aircraft, Bennett does teach that the spectrographic information is transmitted to the control center (paragraph 28, via the ground datalink 372 or radio frequency datalink 376 to support the real time transmission of data). By transmitting data in real time, Bennett is able to provide the data to computers or people outside of the aircraft while the craft is still in the air and allowing computers on the ground to do the processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger with the real time data transmission of Bennett in order to provide earlier and more convenient access to the data and allow the use of computer hardware when processing the data that might be heavier than one might want to include on a mobile platform of the types used by Kreitinger.
While Kreitinger and Bennett do not go into great detail regarding information processing facilities located in the stations on the ground, so do not explicitly teach that the one or more processors are located at the control center and produces the measurements from the spectrographic information transmitted through the one or more communication interfaces, mere rearrangement of parts, such as placing the one or more processors receiving data from a sensor and performing calculations in a ground-based facility rather than on the vehicle holding the sensor, does not generally distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger, as modified by the real-time data transmission of Bennett, to locate the processors performing the calculations on the spectrographic information in the control center receiving the data rather than on the vehicle sending that information.
Regarding claim 7, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Kreitinger further teaches one or more position sensors configured to determine position (FIG. 1, GPS 106) and attitude of the vehicle (paragraph 6 attitude information); and
a memory configured to store a terrain database (paragraph 82, storing the tables to calculate surface roughness or the digital elevation model and paragraph 83 storing the measured input data, which can include terrain data, such as ground topography data and surface roughness data);
wherein at least one processor in the one or more processors is configured to identify a terrain associated with the external surface (paragraph 82, using 3D lidar, photogrammetry or other methods as observations of measurement scene terrain type associated with the vehicle and the external surface via physical proximity) based on terrain information stored in the terrain database (paragraph 82, performing calculations based on tables and/or 3D topography information) that is associated with the position and the attitude of the vehicle (in the region mapped);
wherein the at least one processor adjust the spectrographic information based on the terrain (Kreitinger uses the terrain data to estimate the wind conditions, which are used to adjust the spectrographic data when estimating the flux of the target gas through the measurement region (paragraph 84)).
Regarding claim 8, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Kreitinger further teaches a memory configured to store one or more particle models (FIG. 1, calibration module 105);
wherein at least one processor in the one or more processors is configured to identify the average concentration of the at least one particle by correlating the spectrographic information with the one or more particle models (paragraph 56, using the calibration data from the calibration module 105 to determine the concentration).
Regarding claim 9, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Kreitinger does not explicitly teach that the one or more processors are configured to calculate the average concentration of the at least one particle from the spectrographic information after removal of the terrain spectrographic information.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection between an aircraft and the ground, Bennett does teach that the one or more processors are configured to calculate the average concentration of the at least one particle from the spectrographic information after removal of the terrain spectrographic information (FIG. 5, signal denoising 510, which paragraph 34 states may include combining signals with terrain data. Note that feature extraction is performed after the signal is denoised). By denoising the measurements before extracting features from the data, Bennett is able to remove noise related to structures and vegetation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger by correcting for terrain-based noise before calculating gas concentration in the manner of Bennett to gain the predictable benefit of correcting the data before using the data.
Regarding claim 10, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Kreitinger further teaches one or more vision sensors configured to provide image information (this is necessary to perform the photogrammetry discussed in paragraph 82, which would need photographic input data).
While Kreitinger uses a second drone with a retroreflector as the external surface, elimination of an element (such as a retroreflecting drone) and its function (such as increasing the retroreflection from the target of transmitted beam 108 above that of the local terrain) is generally obvious, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger by the elimination of both the second drone and its function of increasing retroreflection received above that of the local terrain, relying on that local terrain to provide the reflection.
Kreitinger does not explicitly teach imaging of the external surface;
wherein at least one processor in the one or more processors is configured to identify a surface type for the external surface; and
wherein the at least one processor adjusts the spectrographic information based on the surface type due to assuming that there will be a reflector in the path of the transmitted beam.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection between an aircraft and the ground, Bennett does teach such measurements of the external surface (paragraph 22, to determine the reflectivity of different target areas 114 within a scene 112);
wherein at least one processor in the one or more processors is configured to identify a surface type for the external surface (paragraph 22 mentions examples of forested hillside 128, lake or pond 148, and area covered in snow (unnumbered) as examples of terrain elements or features that might reflect illumination light 116 more or less efficiently); and
wherein the at least one processor adjusts the spectrographic information based on the surface type (paragraph 22, correcting for different reflectivities). By identifying how reflective the terrain is and adjusting the data accordingly, Bennett is able to increase the accuracy of the measurements of gas concentration in the volume of air under test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger with the background terrain correction of Bennett in order to gain the predictable benefit of increasing the accuracy of the measurements of average concentration.
Regarding claim 11, Kreitinger teaches a method, comprising:
emitting dual-comb optical signals (paragraph 53 lists dual-comb spectroscopy as one of the options of open-path laser spectroscopy that can be used) through at least one aperture on a vehicle (FIG. 2, first drone 201, which has the laser source 101 and transceiver 102 shown in first payload 110 as shown in FIG. 1) towards an external surface, wherein space between the vehicle and the external surface defines a volume, wherein the external surface is a surface not part of a surface of the vehicle (FIG. 1, the laser source transmits transmitted beam 108 via transceiver 102 at a target) and associated with the location of the vehicle (FIG. 2 shows the target within line-of-sight of a location of first drone 201, a form of association);
receiving reflected optical signals through the at least one aperture, wherein the reflected optical signals correspond to the dual-comb optical signals that have been reflected by the external surface (FIG. 1, the transceiver receives the reflected signals in addition to transmitting);
detecting the reflected optical signals to generate an electrical signal representing information in the reflected optical signals (FIG. 1, with transceiver 102, to be passed on to processor 104);
generating spectrographic information from the electrical signal (FIG. 1, performed by processor 104); and
calculating measurements of an average concentration of at least one particle within the volume based on the spectrographic information (paragraph 7, the integrated-path concentration is an average over the integration path. Paragraph 33 mentions methane and carbon dioxide as possible choices of target gas, each of which consists of particles).
Kreitinger does not explicitly teach that generating the spectrographic information comprises characterizing the terrain type of the external surface and removing terrain spectrographic information from the electrical signal associated with the characterized terrain type.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection between an aircraft and the ground, Bennett does teach that generating the spectrographic information comprises characterizing the terrain type of the external surface (paragraph 22, characterizing terrain based on reflectivity) and removing terrain spectrographic information from the electrical signal associated with the characterized terrain type(paragraph 22 mentions examples of forested hillside 128, lake or pond 148, and area covered in snow (unnumbered) as examples of terrain elements or features that might reflect illumination light 116 more or less efficiently and describes correcting for different reflectivities. Note that the disclosure of Bennett is not limited to systems incorporating DIAL (paragraph 6, final two sentences), and that Bennett teaches DIAL techniques incorporating a spectrum of more than two wavelengths (paragraph 7)). By identifying how reflective the terrain is and adjusting the data accordingly, Bennett is able to increase the accuracy of the measurements of gas concentration in the volume of air under test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometry method of Kreitinger with the background terrain characterization and correction of Bennett in order to gain the predictable benefit of increasing the accuracy of the measurements of average concentration.
Regarding claim 12, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above).
Kreitinger does not explicitly teach that calculating the measurements of the average concentration further comprises providing the spectrographic information to a control center, wherein the measurements of the average concentration are performed by at least one processor located at the control center.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection from aircraft, Bennett does teach that calculating the measurements of the average concentration further comprises providing the spectrographic information to a control center (paragraph 28, via the ground datalink 372 or radio frequency datalink 376 to support the real time transmission of data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger with the real time data transmission of Bennett in order to provide earlier and more convenient access to the data and allow the use of computer hardware when processing the data that might be heavier than one might want to include on a mobile platform of the types used by Kreitinger.
While Kreitinger and Bennett do not go into great detail regarding information processing facilities located in the stations on the ground, so do not explicitly teach that the measurements of the average concentration are performed by at least one processor located at the control center, mere rearrangement of parts, such as placing the one or more processors receiving data from a sensor and performing calculations in a ground-based facility rather than on the vehicle holding the sensor, does not generally distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger, as modified by the real-time data transmission of Bennett, to locate the processors performing the calculations on the spectrographic information in the control center receiving the data rather than on the vehicle sending that information.
Regarding claim 13, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above).
Kreitinger does not explicitly teach providing at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements of the average concentration to a control center through at least one of:
transmitting at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements of the average concentration to the control center through one or more communication interfaces; and
storing at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements of the average concentration on a vehicle memory and providing at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements to the control center when the vehicle is proximate to the control center.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection from aircraft, Bennett does teach providing at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements of the average concentration to a control center through at least one of:
transmitting at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements of the average concentration to the control center through one or more communication interfaces (paragraph 28, via the ground datalink 372 or radio frequency datalink 376 to support the real time transmission of data); and
storing at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements of the average concentration on a vehicle memory (paragraph 27, using memory or data storage 318 or using the processing and control components 316) and providing at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements to the control center (paragraph 28, via the ground datalink 372 or radio frequency datalink 376). By either transmitting the data right away or storing it and sending it later, Bennett is able to output the data to a remote or separate system or user (paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger with the real time or delayed data transmission of Bennett in order to provide a remote or separate system or user with that data.
While Bennett does not explicitly state that the datalink is used when the vehicle is proximate to the control center, the means disclosed by Bennett not only appear to be perfectly capable of transferring data while proximate to the control center, they appear to potentially benefit from such an arrangement, as interference from weather, obstacles, and the curvature of the earth are less likely to cause issues when transmitting from a closer distance or by not requiring as strong a signal to be sent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have transmitted the data stored in the memory or data storage of vehicle-based spectrometer of Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, when the vehicle is proximate to the control center to avoid potential sources of interference or allow for a less strong signal source, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 13 (as described above).
While Bennett does not explicitly teach that transmitting at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements of the average concentration to the control center further comprises transmitting the at least one of the spectrographic information and the measurements through a relay system towards the control center, Kreitinger does teach communicating via a relay (paragraph 97, the first drone communicating with the second via the base station, which would act as a relay). By using a relay, Kreitinger is able to move the data in a more flexible manner, allowing different communication hardware be used while doing so.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data transmission method of Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, to use a relay in the manner of Kreitinger in order to increase flexibility of the networking and communication setups that can be used to practice that method.
Also, note that claim 13 offers two options of providing the data, transmitting or storing, and only one need be chosen. Since claim 14 only provides a further limitation on the manner in which the transmitting option is performed, when the method of claim 13 is practiced by taking the storing option and not the transmitting option, there is no transmitting step to be modified by claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is also obvious over Kreitinger in view of Bennett as a direct result of Kreitinger and Bennett rendering the storing option of claim 13 obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above).
Kreitinger further teaches generating the spectrographic information further comprises:
identifying position (FIG. 1, GPS 106) and attitude (paragraph 6 attitude information) of the vehicle using one or more position sensors located on the vehicle (FIG. 1, within first payload 110); and
identifying a terrain type (paragraph 82, using, for example, 3D lidar or photogrammetry) in a terrain database (paragraph 82, tables and terrain observations) associated with the position and the attitude of the vehicle in relation to the external surface (paragraph 82, terrain information is used to help determine surface roughness for altitude and wind estimates, which is associated with where the vehicle is positioned).
Regarding claim 16, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above).
Kreitinger does not explicitly teach that generating the spectrographic information further comprises:
acquiring image information of the external surface through one or more vision sensors located on the vehicle; and
identifying a terrain type based on the image information.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection between an aircraft and the ground, Bennett does teach that generating the spectrographic information further comprises:
acquiring image information of the external surface through one or more vision sensors located on the vehicle (paragraph 22, to determine the reflectivity of different target areas 114 within a scene 112); and
identifying a terrain type based on the image information (paragraph 22 mentions examples of forested hillside 128, lake or pond 148, and area covered in snow (unnumbered) as examples of terrain elements or features that might reflect illumination light 116 more or less efficiently). By identifying how reflective the terrain is and adjusting the data accordingly, Bennett is able to increase the accuracy of the measurements of gas concentration in the volume of air under test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometry method of Kreitinger with the background terrain correction of Bennett in order to gain the predictable benefit of increasing the accuracy of the measurements of average concentration of the target gas.
Regarding claim 17, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above).
Kreitinger largely focuses on detecting a particular gas, such as carbon dioxide or methane, so does not explicitly teach that calculating the measurements of the average concentration of the at least one particle comprises:
acquiring a plurality of particle models, wherein a particle model represents expected spectrographic information for particular concentrations of a particle;
correlating the spectrographic information with the plurality of particle models; and
calculating the measurements of the average concentration based on correlations of the spectrographic information with the plurality of particle models.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection from aircraft Bennett does teach that calculating the measurements of the average concentration of the at least one particle comprises:
acquiring a plurality of particle models, wherein a particle model represents expected spectrographic information for particular concentrations of a particle (paragraph 30 describes models in which a target gas and an ambient gas absorb light at particular, known wavelengths, which constitute basic models of those particles);
correlating the spectrographic information with the plurality of particle models (paragraph 30 describes associating particular wavelengths with particular gases); and
calculating the measurements of the average concentration based on correlations of the spectrographic information with the plurality of particle models (paragraph 30 describes use of those wavelengths to distinguish between the target gas and other gases known or expected to be in the target volume 106).
Regarding claim 18, Kreitinger, as modified by Bennett, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above).
Kreitinger further teaches that the at least one particle is at least one of: water vapor; methane; nitrous oxide; carbon dioxide; carbon monoxide; and ozone (paragraph 33, penultimate sentence mentions methane and carbon dioxide specifically).
Regarding claim 19, Kreitinger teaches a system comprising:
a vehicle (FIG. 2, first drone 201, which has the laser source 101 and transceiver 102 shown in first payload 110 as shown in FIG. 1) having a body with at least one aperture formed therein and a vehicle surface (inherent. Any part of a laser source that limits the size of the beam acts as the aperture. Every vehicle has at least one surface.);
one or more sensors configured to acquire at least one of vision information and position and attitude information of the vehicle (see FIG. 1, GPS 106 for position information and paragraph 6 attitude information);
one or more communication interfaces for communicating with one or more other systems (paragraph 97 teaches that the first and second drones may communicate with each other or through a base station);
a dual-comb spectrometer (paragraph 53 lists dual-comb spectroscopy as one of the options of open-path laser spectroscopy that can be used) mounted to a vehicle body (as part of first payload 110), wherein the dual-comb spectrometer is configured to emit dual-comb optical signals through the at least one aperture towards an external surface (FIG. 1, the laser source transmits transmitted beam 108 via transceiver 102 at a target), wherein the external surface is a surface not part of the vehicle surface (FIG. 2 makes clear that the target is not part of first drone 201) and associated with the location of the vehicle (FIG. 2 shows the target within line-of-sight of a location of first drone 201, a form of association), wherein the dual-comb spectrometer is configured to receive reflected optical signals through the at least one aperture (FIG. 1, the transceiver receives the reflected signals in addition to transmitting), wherein the reflected optical signals correspond to the dual-comb optical signals that have been reflected by the external surface (FIG. 1, the target is shown having a reflector, from which the signals are reflected);
one or more processors (FIG. 1, processor 104) configured to produce measurements of an average concentration (paragraph 7, the integrated-path concentration is an average over the integration path) of at least one particle (paragraph 33 mentions methane and carbon dioxide, each of which consists of particles) within a volume between the vehicle and the external surface (FIG. 1, the region that transmitted beam 108 passes through) based on spectrographic information from the reflected optical signals (paragraph 28 describes the spectroscopic technique used); and
a memory configured to store at least one of a repository of the measurements of the average concentration (paragraph 7, necessary to produce a gas concentration profile), a terrain database, and a plurality of particle models.
Kreitinger does not explicitly teach that the one or more processors uses at least one of the vision information and the position and attitude information to identify terrain spectrographic information associated with a terrain of the external surface and removes the terrain spectrographic information from the spectrographic information from the reflected optical signals before the one or more processors produce the measurements of the average concentration of the at least one particle.
In the same field of endeavor of open-path spectroscopic gas detection between an aircraft and the ground, Bennett does teach that the one or more processors uses at least one of the vision information (paragraph 22, to determine the reflectivity of different target areas 114 within a scene 112) and the position and attitude information to identify terrain spectrographic information associated with a terrain of the external surface (paragraph 22 mentions examples of forested hillside 128, lake or pond 148, and area covered in snow (unnumbered) as examples of terrain elements or features that might reflect illumination light 116 more or less efficiently) and removes the terrain spectrographic information from the spectrographic information from the
reflected optical signals before the one or more processors produce the measurements of the average concentration of the at least one particle (paragraph 22, correcting for different reflectivities). By identifying how reflective the terrain is and adjusting the data accordingly, Bennett is able to increase the accuracy of the measurements of gas concentration in the volume of air under test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle-based spectrometry method of Kreitinger with the background terrain correction of Bennett in order to gain the predictable benefit of increasing the accuracy of the measurements of average concentration of the target gas.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights