DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 08/09/2024, in which claims 1-20 are currently pending. The Application claims Priority from Provisional Application 63532315, filed 08/11/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 8/9/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6- This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Device in claims 1, 9,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
7- The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
8- Claims 1-2, 4-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (PGPUB No. 2021/0364427, cited by Applicants)
As to claim 1, Smith teaches a system (Abstract, Figs. 1-25) comprising: a mobile platform (or 702 or equivalents such as 2002/2004/2006/2010 for ex.) comprising: an in situ trace gas sensor (¶ 55-56, 99-100 for ex; gas sensor are included); and a device configured to receive an open path laser beam (such as detailed in Figs. 1-6).
(Claim 2) wherein the mobile platform is a drone (¶ 56, 99-101; UAVs 702, 2002, are considered).
(Claim 4) wherein the device configured to receive the open path laser beam is a retroreflector configured to receive and return the open path laser beam (Figs. 1-6; ¶ 54).
(Claims 5-6) further comprising a fixed laser sensor, wherein the fixed laser sensor is configured to emit the open path laser beam and receive the returned open path laser beam from the retroreflector on the mobile platform (¶ 99-101; devices in Figs. 1-6 are disposed in conjunction with stationary monitoring devices, i.e. fixed laser sensor); (Claim 6) further comprising a mobile laser sensor, wherein the mobile laser sensor is configured to emit the open path laser beam and receive the returned open path laser beam from the retroreflector on the mobile platform (devices in Figs. 1-6 are disposed in conjunction with mobile monitoring devices/ground vehicles 2010, i.e. mobile laser sensors; ¶ 100-101).
(Claim 7) wherein the device configured to receive the open path laser beam is a detection device, wherein the detection device comprises processing electronics configured to interpret at least one of: a laser dispersion and an absorption signal (Figs. 10, 21-25 and ¶ 48, 54, 58-59, 75; GCS 2012 or processing electronics 1016/1022/1024) .
(Claim 8) wherein the in situ trace gas sensor is an open cavity Tunable Diode Laser Absorption Spectrometer -TDLAS- (¶ 40, 58), wherein the open cavity TDLAS is configured to refine positional and quantification uncertainty (as a mere intended use since no details pertaining to position refining are claimed).
(Claim 9) further comprising: a processor having addressable memory (Figs. 10, 21-26; 1022-1024-1016), wherein the processor is in communication with the in situ trace gas sensor (Figs. 10, 21-26), wherein the device is configured to receive the open path laser beam from at least one of: a fixed laser sensor and a mobile laser sensor (See rejection of claims 5-6), and wherein the processor is configured to: confirm that a gas detected by at least one of: the in situ trace gas sensor, the device configured to receive the open path laser beam, and the at least one of: the fixed laser sensor and the mobile laser sensor is a trace gas that is present in a vicinity of the mobile platform rather than somewhere along a path of the open path laser beam (Figs. 7-9; ¶55-61).
(Claims 10-11) wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a position of a localized source emitting the detected gas; (Claim 11) wherein the mobile platform is deployed in response to the gas detected by the at least one of: the fixed laser sensor and the mobile laser sensor to refine the determined position of the localized source and yield a real-time quantification estimate (¶ 99; the localization is considered as part of the identification process of the trace gas leak; see also rejection of claim 8).
(Claim 12) a system comprising: at least one laser sensor, wherein each laser sensor is configured to emit an open path laser beam; and at least one mobile platform, wherein each mobile platform comprises a first retroreflector configured to reflect the open path laser beam transmitted from the at least one laser sensor; wherein the at least one laser sensor is configured to detect, locate, and quantify trace gas based on the open path laser beam reflected from the first retroreflector (See rejections of claims 1, 4-5, 9-10 and Smith’s Figs. 1-9; ¶ 55-61, 99-100).
(Claims 13-14) further comprising: at least one second retroreflector fixed in a monitored area and configured to monitor the monitored area continuously (the additional retroreflector in the systems of Figs. 1-6, and/or the retroreflectors in the vehicles 2002-2004-2010 for ex.); and a processor having addressable memory, wherein the processor is in communication with the at least one laser sensor and the at least one mobile platform, wherein the processor is configured to: generate an alarm when the at least one laser sensor detects trace gas based on the open path laser beam reflected from the at least one second retroreflector; and transmit the alarm to the at least one mobile platform; wherein the operations of the at least one mobile platform is triggered by the alarm; (Claim 14) wherein the at least one mobile platform further includes an in situ trace gas sensor, wherein the operation of the in situ trace gas sensor is triggered by the alarm, wherein the in situ trace gas sensor is configured to: receive the open path laser beam from the at least one laser sensor; independently detect, locate, and quantify trace gas; and refine positional and quantification uncertainty obtained by the at least one laser sensor (see rejection of claims 1, 8-11 and ¶ 99-101 where multiple gas sensors with their respective second reflectors may be used to locate, identify and quantify gas leaks).
(Claim 15) wherein the at least one mobile platform comprises a plurality of mobile platforms, and a plurality of first retroreflectors of the plurality of mobile platforms are configured to reflect the open path laser beam transmitted from one of the at least one laser sensor (See rejections of claims 12, and the use of the system in Fig. 25 for ex).
(Claim 16) wherein the at least one mobile platform further comprises an in situ trace gas sensor configured to: receive the open path laser beam from the at least one laser sensor; independently detect, locate, and quantify trace gas; and refine positional and quantification uncertainty obtained by the at least one laser sensor (See rejections of claims 1, 8-9,11-12, and the use of the system in Fig. 25 for ex).
(Claim 17) wherein any one of the at least one laser sensor is located at one of: a fixed position and a mobile platform (See rejections of claims 5-6, 9, and the use of the system in Fig. 25 for ex).
(Claim 18) wherein the at least one laser sensor includes a plurality of laser sensors, and the plurality of laser sensors are configured to aim to one of the first retroreflector of the at least one mobile platform, wherein the plurality of laser sensors are mounted on mobile platforms, and the first retroreflector to which the plurality of laser sensors aim is fixed (See rejections of claims 5-6, 9, and the use of the system in Figs. 1-6, 25 for ex).
(Claim 19) wherein the first retroreflector is at least one of: a curved retroreflector; a moveable planar retroreflector; a corner retroreflector; and a spherical retroreflector (curved and spherical mirrors in Figs. 1-6).
(Claim 20) wherein the mobile platform further comprises a detection device, wherein the detection device comprises processing electronics configured to interpret at least one of: a laser dispersion and an absorption signal (See rejection of claim 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
10- Claim 3 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith
As to claim 3, Smith teaches the system of claim 1.
Smith does not teach expressly wherein the mobile platform further comprises an anemometer configured to generate wind measurements.
However, Smith teaches, ¶ 55-56, collecting wind speed measurements, i.e. using anemometers, as necessary to the localization of the gas leak position. Considering the anemometer to be onboard the mobile platform appears as an obvious choice to facilitate the mapping of the gas traces in the environment around possible leaks (¶ 99 for ex.); See MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the system of Smith so that the mobile platform further comprises an anemometer configured to generate wind measurements, with the advantage of effectively mapping/localization of possible gas leaks.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (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 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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877