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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colin Irvin Wong et al. (US 2011/0122397), hereinafter ‘Wong’ in view of Javier Burgues et al., “Environmental chemical sensing using small drones: A review”, Science of the Total Environment, Volume 748, Dec. 2020, 20 pages, hereinafter ‘Burgues’ and Marquet Claude (FR 1255929), hereinafter ‘Claude’, and further in view of Steven Vincent Stearns et al. (US 8010300), hereinafter ‘Stearns’.
With regards to Claim 1, Wong discloses
A method comprising:
collecting, using remote sensing from a mobile platform, a plurality of gas concentration measurements of a gas plume, wherein the plurality of gas concentration measurements are collected from an angle with respect to the gas plume (an optical remote sensing instrument (ORSI) and one or more than one ground-based target along one or more than one measurement surface using two or more than two measurement beam paths [0019]; A measurement beam path sampled by an optical remote sensing instrument (ORSI), according to the methods described herein may extend vertically, or substantially vertically, from the ground to the upper limit, or beyond, of the emission plume [0036]; The plurality of measurement paths 24, generally describe a measurement surface 22/32 in cross section to the plume 20 and surrounding airspace 19 (as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6) [0063]);
determining a wind speed corresponding to the height (integrating the concentration and wind speed with respect to the height above ground surface [0010]; determine the representative wind velocity (direction and speed)[0068]; measure the wind speed and direction at a location or locations that are representative of the wind velocity across the measurement surface [0087]; the one or more than one measurement surface is of a height and width that spans or substantially spans the fugitive emission, and is oriented along a transverse straight path, or along a curved path, relative to a wind direction, and determining a parts per million meter (ppm-m) or a mass per unit area measurement of the airborne matter for each of the two or more than two measurement beam paths, the height being a distance between the ORSI on the airborne platform and the ground-based target; b) determining a wind velocity at one or more locations at or near each of the one or more than one measurement surface to obtain a representative wind velocity, Claim 1); and
determining an emission flux based on the wind speed (using the mass per unit length of airborne matter within the measurement surface and representative wind velocity, calculate the emission flux of the airborne matter in mass per unit time [0074]; formula in [0093]).
Wong also discloses evaluating lengths of beams within the emission plume [0065].
However, Wong does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of gas concentration measurements are collected from an angle from at least two angles with respect to the gas plume, determining a height corresponding to the gas plume based on the plurality of gas concentration measurements and determining a gas flux based on one or more of the plurality of gas concentration measurements and the wind speed.
Burgues discloses the plurality of gas concentration measurements are collected from at least two angles with respect to the gas plume (Gas concentration mapping(GCM) is the task of building a spatial representation (i.e. a map) of gas concentrations in a certain area based on a set of spatially distributed sensor measurements (Fig. 10), p.9; a method for reconstructing 2D slices of the gas distribution from path-integral data —using as TDLAS detector mounted on a 3-axis gimbal of an octocopter. Instead of performing one path-integrated measurement at each sampling location, the detector emits multiple beams towards the ground at different angles. Instead of performing one path-integrated measurement at each sampling location, the detector emits multiple beams towards the ground at different angles, p.10).
Claude discloses determining a height corresponding to the gas plume based on the plurality of gas concentration measurements (Figure 2 is a logic diagram for determining the height of said plume. Figure 3 is a graphical representation of the concentration of pollutant product according to the direction of the wind at a point in a geographical area. pp.2-3).
Stearns discloses determining a gas flux based on one or more of the plurality of gas concentration measurements and the wind speed (the emission rate or flux may be determined from a gas source, such as methane, by flying down-wind and across the plume while measuring gas concentration (CPL or concentration.times.pathlength) from the airplane to the ground using an airborne measurement system, such as the ANGEL system, Col.4, Lines 26-30; The total flux or emission rate across the measured in-plume area (W.times.L) may be calculated by calculator 312 as a product of the AIC value and wind speed vector 412, as follows: Emission Rate=(.intg..sub.cross-plume(CPL.sub.vertical)dL).times.v.sub.wind.times.- sin (heading.sub.cross-plume-heading.sub.wind), Col.6, Lines 31-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues to collect the plurality of gas concentration measurements from at least two angles to determine the spatial distribution of gas concentrations as known in the art (Burgues, p.10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns to determine a height corresponding to the gas plume based on the plurality of gas concentration measurements to estimate/designate in-plume area extending across a plume of gas to determine an area-integrated concentration value for the in-plume area to be able to calculate a gas flux based on one or more of the plurality of gas concentration measurements and the wind speed as known in the art (Stearns, Col.1, Line 61-Col.2, Line 4).
With regrds to Claim 7, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns s discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Wong is silent with regards to using cross-correlation to find the displacement between the first and the second gas plume cross sections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns to use a cross-correlation to find the displacement between the first and the second gas plume cross sections that is a function of same wind speed/ direction that affects the displacement/distance between the two cross sections obtained at two different locations/times.
With regards to Claim 12, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 13, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 12.
In addition, Wong discloses that the remote sensor is configured to scan a measurement beam across an environment, and wherein the mobile platform is configured to move relative to the environment (Airborne platform [0019]; The plurality of measurement paths 24, generally describe a measurement surface 22/32 in cross section to the plume 20 and surrounding airspace 19 (as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6) [0063]).
Stearns discloses the airborne platform … scanning the surrounding regions (Col.3, Lines 37-40).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, in further view of Jin Xu et al. (CN 105067534), hereinafter ‘Xu’.
With regards to Claim 2, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Wong is silent with regards to the height is determined with the use of a vertical distribution of the gas concentration based on the at least two angles (Claim 2) and wherein the height corresponding to the plume is an average of the vertical distribution of the gas concentration (Claim 3).
Xu discloses the height is determined with the use of a vertical distribution of the gas concentration based on different angles (using the foundation MAX-DOAS observation at different angles of solar scattering spectrum, using the DOAS algorithm to obtain the concentration of the different angle of pollution gas … combining the MAX-DOAS concentration result, using an optimization algorithm inversion polluted gas vertical distribution information, determining the conveying height and thickness of the polluted gas and wind field information is selected based on the height, Claim 1).
Burgues discloses collecting gas concentration data based on the at least two angles as discussed in Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 3, Stearns additionally discloses the area-integrated concentration value by averaging the vertical CPL measurements (it may be easier to average the vertical CPL across the plume and multiply by the cross-plume length L to produce the same result as a direct integration or a summation across the plume, Col.6, Lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, and further in view of Xu to determine the height with the use of a vertical distribution of the gas concentration based on the at least two angles to correctly calculate the polluted gas delivery flux (Xu, Abstract) (as it relates to Claim 2) while averaging of the vertical distribution of the gas concentration to simplify calculations (it may be easier to average the vertical CPL across the plume … to produce the same result as a direct integration or a summation across the plume, Stearns, Col.6, Lines 42-46) (as it additionally relates to Claim 3).
With regards to Claim 4, Wong is silent about finding a plurality of heights corresponding to portions of the plume wherein each of the plurality of heights corresponds to a portion of a vertical distribution of the gas concentration.
Xu discloses a plurality of heights corresponding to portions of the plume wherein each of the plurality of heights corresponds to a portion of a vertical distribution of the gas concentration (polluted gas profile result reflects the pollution gas distribution information in the different heights, Claim 6).
Claude discloses that it is known to use vertically-integrated gas concentrations to calculate gas flux (Their approach first uses the drone to build a vertically-integrated gas concentration map around the leak source, and then rotates this map so that the x-axis is aligned with the crosswind direction (Fig. 13a). Since measurements are already integrated in the vertical direction, the mass balance can be computed by integrating the map in the crosswind direction (Fig. 13b) and multiplying by the wind speed., Section 4.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, and further in view of Xu to find a plurality of heights corresponding to portions of the plume wherein each of the plurality of heights corresponds to a portion of a vertical distribution of the gas concentration because elevation measurements (exhibit) a different sensitivity to the atmosphere with different heights, so the differential concentration delta elevation can be measure, Xu, Description) and to calculate flux.
With regards to Claim 5, Wong discloses determining the gas flux based on the vertical distribution of the gas concentration and a wind speed as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Wong does not explicitly disclose finding plurality of wind speeds each associated with one of the plurality of heights, and determining the gas flux based on the vertical distribution of the gas concentration and the plurality of wind speeds.
Xu discloses using a wind speed associated with height (combining the MAX-DOAS concentration result, using an optimization algorithm inversion polluted gas vertical distribution information, determining the conveying height and thickness of the polluted gas and wind field information is selected based on the height … conveying height, thickness and information determined concentration profile combining step (6) and step (4), using flux calculation formula to obtain the pollution gas conveying amount, Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, Stearns, and further in view of Xu to find a plurality of wind speeds each associated with one of the plurality of heights, and determine the gas flux based on the vertical distribution of the gas concentration and the plurality of wind speeds similar to determining gas flux based on the vertical distribution and a wind speed but for each height corresponding to a different concentration to build a correct vertical/3-D concentration profile.
Claims 6 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, in further view of PRINCE DENNIS SCOTT et al. (CA 3142814), hereinafter ‘Scott’.
With regards to Claim 6, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 1 including determining the height corresponding to the gas plume as determining a height corresponding to the gas plume based on the plurality of gas concentration measurements.
However, Wong is silent with regards to determining the height corresponding to the gas plume comprises: determining a first gas plume cross section based on one or more of the plurality of gas concentration measurements taken from a first position of the mobile platform; determining a second gas plume cross section based on one or more of the plurality of gas concentration measurements taken from a second position of the mobile platform; finding a displacement between the first gas plume cross section and the second gas plume cross section; and determining the height of the gas plume based on the displacement.
Stearns discloses determining a first and a second gas plume cross sections based on one or more of the plurality of gas concentration measurements taken from a first position of the mobile platform (at each height a cross section of the plume concentration can be created. The cross section is going to be modified as the wind direction is changing [0039]).
Scott discloses finding a displacement between the first gas plume cross section and the second gas plume cross section; and determining the height of the gas plume based on the displacement (plume boundaries and flux patterns across the cross-sectional area within the dimensionless boundaries can be identified [045]; The concentration and flux pattern within the plume boundaries pattern and the "flux per unit plume footprint cross-sectional area" pattern across the plume cross-section can be converted to scalar units, i.e. feet or meters [048]; As described above, the dimensionless angular plume width is projected outward to the correct distance to the source to obtain the scalar dimension of the plume width (horizontal plane). Similarly, the dimensionless angular height of the plume can be projected outward at the correct distance to predict the true scalar dimension of the height of the plume [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, and further in view of Scott to accurately determine the height corresponding to the gas plume according to the claimed steps using gas plume cross sections based on one or more of the plurality of gas concentration measurements obtained at two locations and corresponding geometry.
With regards to Claim 14, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 13.
However, Wong is silent with regards to the system of claim 13, wherein the executable instructions further cause the system to: separate the plurality of gas concentration measurements into a first group based on a first set of the plurality of angles and a second group based on a second set of the plurality of angles; and determine the height corresponding to the gas plume based on the first group and the second group.
Burgues discloses collecting gas concentration data based on the at least two angles as discussed in Claim 1.
Stearns additionally discloses the area-integrated concentration value by averaging the vertical CPL measurements (it may be easier to average the vertical CPL across the plume and multiply by the cross-plume length L to produce the same result as a direct integration or a summation across the plume, Col.6, Lines 42-46).
Scott discloses predicting plume height using two scanning angles (to predict the vertical profile of the plume. For example, it may be that the angle between the leading edge and the trailing edge of the plume is the most predictive of vertical dimensions of the plume [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, and Scott to determine the height corresponding to the gas plume based on the plurality of separate groups of gas concentration measurements based on the plurality of measurement angles and a second group based on a second set of the plurality of angles to reflect a vertical distribution of the gas concentrations as affected by wind based on different scanning angles such as two angles to correctly calculate the height of the plume by using gas concentrations at different angles (it may be easier to average the vertical CPL across the plume … to produce the same result as a direct integration or a summation across the plume, Stearns, Col.6, Lines 42-46; it may be that the angle between the leading edge and the trailing edge of the plume is the most predictive of vertical dimensions of the plume, Scott [0117]).
With regards to Claim 15, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, and Scott discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claims 12 and 6.
With regards to Claims 16 and 17, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns discloses the claim limitations as discussed with regards to Claim 12 and 16, respectively.
Wong discloses using a flow model based on wind velocity (The conventional mass balance method involves measuring the wind and airborne matter concentration profiles through the full height of the boundary layer containing emissions from the emitting source, and integrating the concentration and wind speed with respect to the height above ground surface [0010]; more than one wind velocity measurement device can be used and/or the wind measurement data can be input into an emissions dispersion or wind velocity model to derive a representative wind velocity at the measurement plane. Use of a plurality of wind velocity measurement devices may be useful for large emission plumes [0087]).
However, Wong is silent with regards to determining a source of the gas plume and a height corresponding to the source; and determining the height corresponding to the gas plume based on the height corresponding to the source (Claim 16) and determining the height corresponding to the gas plume at a distance away from the source based on a flow model (Claim 17).
Scott discloses determining a source of the gas plume and a height corresponding to the source (Predicting elevations of emission sources of the remote sample inlet, the elevation of the source, and the rising nature sample calculation of the elevation of the emitting source [051]) and determining the height corresponding to the gas plume based on the height corresponding to the source (the top and bottom edge of the plume to estimate the source height by knowing of the plume (height=width from quantifying section = (sin(39)*a), Description).
Scott additionally discloses considering a distance from the source in a dispersion (“flow”) model (The analysis by having a better estimate as to the distance to the sources. This of an interactive approach as initial assumptions of the distance and time routine produces estimates of the location and timing of emitting sources. more is known about sources better assumptions of the distance and time to sources can be made. Different areas of a map may have different distance to source assumptions for the different source. These assumptions will continue Calibrating air dispersion models, Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, and Scott to determine a source of the gas plume and a height corresponding to the source to be able to determine the height corresponding to the gas plume based on the height corresponding to the source as known in the art (Stearns) while using a flow model reflecting wind speed/direction conditions affecting the height corresponding to the gas plume at a distance away from the source.
With regards to Claim 18, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, and Scott discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claims 1 and 16.
With regards to Claims 19 and 20, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, and Scott discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claims 18 and 16.
With regards to Claim 21, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, and Scott discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claims 19 and 17.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, in further view of Colin Irvin Wong et al. (US 2012/0092649), hereinafter ‘Wong ’649’.
With regards to Claim 22, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, Stearns, Scott discloses the claim invention as discussed in Claim 18.
However, Wong is silent with regards to determining the height corresponding to the source based on 3D topographic information.
Wong ‘649 discloses using a 3D topographic information to obtain plume geometrical characteristics (to obtain such concentrations throughout the entire thickness and width of the emission plume and provide a two-dimensional or three-dimensional map [0030]; also [0052]; The altitude value is determined using a laser range finder or an altimeter in conjunction with topographic information [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, Stearns, Scott, and Wong ‘’649 to determine the height corresponding to the source based on 3D topographic information affecting source and plume height as discussed above.
With regards to Claim 23, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, and Stearns, and Wong ‘649 discloses the claim invention as discussed in Claim 22.
However, Wong is silent with regards to determining the height corresponding to the source by subtracting a vertical coordinate of the source location in the 3D topographic information from an average vertical coordinate of neighboring ground surface in the 3D topographic information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, Stearns, and Wong ‘’649 to determine the height corresponding to the source by subtracting a vertical coordinate of the source location in the 3D topographic information from an average vertical coordinate of neighboring ground surface in the 3D topographic information to obtain true, vertical source (net) height to proper evaluate a diffusion process as known in the art, for example from Yi-qian Huang et al. (CN 104657573) (the distance between the leakage source and ground height reaction of the leakage source, the distance can affect the leakage gas diffusion process, the altitude H0 (the unit is m) is represented in the equation, Huang [0024]).
With regards to Claim 24, Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, Stearns, Scott, and Wong ‘649 discloses the claim invention as discussed in Claim 22.
Wong discloses using topographic maps and elevation of the ground surface [0082].
However, Wong is silent with regards to using a digital elevation model of ground surface to determine a location of the neighboring ground.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong in view of Burgues, Claude, Stearns, Scott, and Wong ’649 to using a digital elevation model of ground surface to determine a location of the neighboring ground that would lead to calculating of a source height as discussed above, wherein digital elevation models are known in the art of aerial imaging, for example, from Liang-Chien Chen et al. (US 2010/0150431).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-11 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Claim 8, the claim would be allowed because the closest prior art, Wong, Burgues, Claude, Stearns, Scott, and Wong ’649, either singularly or in combination, because they fail to anticipate or render obvious determining a first plume image based on the first angle group; determining a second plume image based on the second angle group; finding a plurality of spatial overlaps at a respective plurality of horizontal plane heights; and determining the height based on the plurality of spatial overlaps, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 5/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 (12) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Burgues and Claude.
With regards to Wong (Claim 1), Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.8): Wong teaches against taking measurements from multiple angles, stating that "the measurement beam path 24 is vertical or substantially vertical"…
The Examiner submits that Wong also discloses non-parallel measurements (“This sampling method ensures that localized areas of higher pollutant concentration are not repeatedly sampled, as could be the case if, for example the measurement paths are radial or substantially non-parallel [0038]) as long as the measurement beam paths are non-overlapping [0008, 0059].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights