Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 14 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 7 and 14 recite the elements "tilt angle offset,” “LiDAR range offset,” and “mast incline”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, Claim 4 (depending from Claim 1) limits the LiDAR range offset to being calibrated “during the production of the camera” as a fixed factory parameter, whereas Claim 7 requires this offset to be “recalibrated periodically” during field operation.
Additionally, Claim 8 defines the LiDAR range offset as a “static offset… caused by a fixed optical path length within the camera,” representing an invariant physical hardware property. By contrast, Claim 14 requires this static optical path length offset to be “recalibrated periodically.”
In both instances, requiring a permanent factory-calibrated physical constant to undergo periodic field recalibration creates and internal operational contradiction that renders the scope of Claims 7 and 14 ambiguous.
Claim 7 also recites “A system for performing the method of claim 1…” The attempt to claim a structural “system” through direct dependency on an operational “method” claim creates ambiguity as to the statutory class of the claim (machine vs. process), rendering the metes and bounds of Claim 7 indefinite.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1) in view of Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1) and Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ai teaches a method for calibrating an imaging or light detection and ranging (“LIDAR”) based gas monitoring system ([0066] This method allows one to accurately calibrate the wavelength and other measurement parameters of a rapidly tunable diode lidar gas sensor), comprising:
capturing a scan of an area using a methane LiDAR camera ([0075] The control element 8 is operable to continuously tune the first emission wavelength 9 within the first wavelength spectrum and to perform multiple scans within the first wavelength spectrum. In this arrangement, the gas detection system 1 is operable to continuously vary the first wavelength spectrum, such that the emission wavelength 9 varies continuously over time. A gas may then be detected based on its characteristic transmission or absorption spectrum.).
Ai is not relied upon as teaching capturing a panoramic scan of an area, wherein the panoramic scan comprises a plurality of distinct camera frames; generating a three-dimensional model of the area based on range measurements obtained during the panoramic scan; and correcting for focal plane displacement by mapping a nominal polar beam angle in a camera-fixed coordinate system to a corrected polar beam angle that compensates for displacement of the focal plane relative to a stage pan axis; transforming a line-of-sight vector from the camera-fixed coordinate system to a mast-fixed coordinate system using the corrected polar beam angle; and determining a pan angle offset by positioning a high-contrast optical target at a fixed distance from the camera, recording pan and tilt angles of the target, and calculating a pan angle offset based on the recorded angles.
However, Shakib teaches capturing a panoramic scan of an area, wherein the panoramic scan comprises a plurality of distinct camera frames ([0025] In various embodiments, a mobile capture scan of an object or environment can include a wide range of single-direction 2D view frames (e.g., a dozen, hundreds, thousands, etc.), each with their own distinct location, orientation, exposure, and on occasion motion blur. Each of the 2D image frames may also include 3D data associated therewith (e.g., depth data)); and
generating a three-dimensional model of the area based on range measurements obtained during the panoramic scan ([0026] In various embodiments, the mobile captured 2D and 3D image data is used to generate a rough or partial 3D model or mesh of an object or environment from which the data was captured).
Ai and Shakib are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of capturing optical range measurements across an environment to map a target data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas monitoring system of Ai to include capturing a panoramic scan comprising a plurality of distinct camera frames and generating a three-dimensional model of the area based on range measurements of Shakib with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enable wide-area, multi-perspective spatial mapping and visualization of an environment using 3D depth data and 2D image frames. By integrating Shakib’s teaching of capturing multi-frame panoramic scans and reconstructing 3D spatial models into Ai’s methane LiDAR platform, the system can automatically generate comprehensive three-dimensional spatial models displaying gas concentration distributions across an entire physical site. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining Ai’s methane detection LiDAR with Shakib’s 3D panoramic mapping technique would yield the predictable result of providing an accurate 3D spatial model of a target area displaying localized gas concentration data.
Shakib is not relied upon as teaching correcting for focal plane displacement by mapping a nominal polar beam angle in a camera-fixed coordinate system to a corrected polar beam angle that compensates for displacement of the focal plane relative to a stage pan axis; transforming a line-of-sight vector from the camera-fixed coordinate system to a mast-fixed coordinate system using the corrected polar beam angle; and determining a pan angle offset by positioning a high-contrast optical target at a fixed distance from the camera, recording pan and tilt angles of the target, and calculating a pan angle offset based on the recorded angles.
However, Aoki teaches correcting for focal plane displacement by mapping a nominal polar beam angle in a camera-fixed coordinate system to a corrected polar beam angle that compensates for displacement of the focal plane relative to a stage pan axis; and
transforming a line-of-sight vector from the camera-fixed coordinate system to a mast-fixed coordinate system using the corrected polar beam angle ([0100] From these considerations, in the final product of the optical sensor 10, as shown in FIGS. 6, 7 and 9, an orientation angle deviation δp of the projected light optical axis Op relative to the projected light virtual axis Vp in the three-dimensional coordinate system appears in at least one of a Y-Z plan view, an X-Z plan view and an X-Y plan view. Specifically, in the Y-Z plan view of FIG. 6, the orientation angle deviation δp of the projected light optical axis Op relative to the projected light virtual axis Vp appears as an inclination angle of the projected light optical axis Op around the X-axis, with the bonding interface between the lens barrel 261 and the projector holder 220 serving as the center of this inclination. Also, in the X-Z plan view of FIG. 7, the orientation angle deviation δp of the projected light optical axis Op relative to the projected light virtual axis Vp appears as an inclination angle of the projected light optical axis Op around the Y-axis, with the bonding interface between the lens barrel 261 and the projector holder 220 serving as the center of this inclination. Furthermore, in the X-Y plan view of FIG. 9, the orientation angle deviation δp of the projected light optical axis Op relative to the projected light virtual axis Vp appears as a rotational angle of the projection beam Bp around the Z-axis on the projected light optical axis Op, deviating from the ideal projection beam Bpv on the projected light virtual axis Vp at the bonding interface between the lens barrel 261 and the projector holder 220.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib) and Aoki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of 3D optical sensor positioning and coordinate system alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methane LiDAR gas monitoring system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib) to include calculating optical axis orientation angle deviations relative to reference virtual coordinate axes across three-dimensional planes of Aoki with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to compensate for structural interface and mounting alignment deviations between the optical focal axis and physical rotation axes. By integrating Aoki’s teaching of determining three-dimensional rotational angle deviations at physical mounting interfaces into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib)’s line-of-sight vector processing, the system can precisely align target-directed line-of-sight vectors across offset coordinate frames during scanning. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the accounting for optical axis displacement relative to mechanical mounting axes would yield the predictable result of eliminating spatial mapping errors and providing calibrated, highly accurate line-of-sight measurements in a multi-axis coordinate system.
Aoki is not relied upon as teaching determining a pan angle offset by positioning a high-contrast optical target at a fixed distance from the camera, recording pan and tilt angles of the target, and calculating a pan angle offset based on the recorded angles.
However, Ding teaches determining a pan angle offset by positioning a high-contrast optical target at a fixed distance from the camera, recording pan and tilt angles of the target, and calculating a pan angle offset based on the recorded angles ([0088] FIG. 7B is a schematic diagram showing position adjustment of the neck mechanism 1 for the robot 2 using the ARUCO marker. As shown in FIG. 7B, in one embodiment, the ARUCO marker is put in a random position within the field of view of the camera, so the image captured by the camera includes the ARUCO marker. The image including the ARUCO marker is put into the image coordinate system. Then four corners of the ARUCO marker are detected and three offset angles that includes a yaw angle, a pitch angle, and a yaw angle of the ARUCO marker are estimated through kinematic analysis. And then, the angular information including the yaw angle, the pitch angle, and the yaw angle of the ARUCO marker is sent to the perception control systems. In another example, the angular information may be sent by the computer wirelessly via BLUETOOTH or over a cellular network or WIFI network.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib and Aoki) and Ding are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensor coordinate positioning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib and Aoki) to include detecting four corners of a high-contrast fiducial marker to estimate offset angles, including yaw and pitch angles of Ding with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to accurately calibrate and align the rotational zero-point of an optical sensor platform relative to its environment. By integrating Ding’s teaching of calculating yaw and pitch offset angles from a high-contrast target (ARUCO marker) into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib and Aoki)’s pan-tilt scanning assembly, the system can precisely calculate pan angle offsets to calibrate the baseline orientation of the rotating camera platform. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing a target-based angular offset calculation would yield the predictable result of eliminating rotational mounting bias and ensuring highly accurate, calibrated line-of-sight vector tracking across coordinate frames.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1) and Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), in further view of Mariotti et al. (US 2023/0334586 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ai is not relied upon as teaching corroborating the three-dimensional model generated from the methane LiDAR camera measurements with satellite images or aerial LiDAR scans.
However, Mariotti teaches corroborating the three-dimensional model generated from the methane LiDAR camera measurements with satellite images or aerial LiDAR scans ([0088] The application may also obtain data from the user device 100 regarding the height of the camera 120 during the recording of the video. Using a calculation of the height, the application may guide the user to increase or decrease the height of the camera 120 to capture additional information. As indicated above, the video may be analyzed to determine the distance of the camera 120 from the object of interest. Alternatively, this distance may be based on information obtained from a sensor such as, for example, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor embedded in the user device 100. Information from other types of sensors may also be used to determine the distance, such as ultrasonic, infrared, or LED time-of-flight (ToF). [0104] Additional verifications of the accuracy of the information gathered can be performed such as, comparison of pre-existing images of a structure, including from Google Street Views, satellite images, or images being collected for a given address.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) and Mariotti are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensor spatial mapping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) to include corroborating gathered spatial model accuracy by comparing collected image and sensor data with pre-existing satellite images of Mariotti with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to verify structural accuracy, eliminate global geographic registration errors, and confirm target location identity across spatial datasets. By integrating Mariotti’s teaching of verifying sensor-gathered spatial information against pre-existing satellite imagery into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding)’s methane LiDAR camera scanning platform, the system can cross-reference camera-derived 3D spatial measurements and methane plume coordinates against overhead satellite imagery to confirm environmental locations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that corroborating local LiDAR camera-generated 3D models with satellite imagery would yield the predictable result of providing a validated, geo-registered spatial map with verified target location coordinates.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1) and Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), in further view of Bauer et al. (US 2024/0346690 A1) and Wang et al. (US 2023/0169222 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ai is not relied upon as teaching that the panoramic scan is repeated at periodic intervals to update the three-dimensional model, and the methane LiDAR camera resumes methane leak detection after the completion of each panoramic scan.
However, Bauer teaches that the panoramic scan is repeated at periodic intervals to update the three-dimensional model ([0066] When 3D data is captured over time on a period (e.g., daily, weekly, etc.) and/or aperiodic basis, such as from statically mounted 3D coordinate measurement devices at specific scan points within an environment (e.g., a factory), objects are moved during the 3D data capturing. As a result, a specific object is scanned in multiple positions/orientations. By combining the 3D data, a more complete 3D model could be generated over time.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) and Bauer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical spatial scanning and 3D scene model generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methane LiDAR gas monitoring system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) to include capturing 3D spatial scan data over time on a periodic basis to update and build a more complete 3D model of an environment of Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to maintain updated, highly accurate spatial registration of the environmental baseline features over time as structural or physical changes occur within the target site. By integrating Bauer’s teaching of periodically capturing scan images to update a 3D model into the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding), the system can ensure scene geometry remains current during long-term monitoring operations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that updating 3D baseline models on a periodic basis while conducting gas detection routines would yield the predictable result of maintaining precise spatial alignment during ongoing methane leak tracking operations.
Bauer is not relied upon as teaching that the methane LiDAR camera resumes methane leak detection after the completion of each panoramic scan.
However, Wang teaches that the methane LiDAR camera resumes methane leak detection after the completion of each panoramic scan ([0002] Extensive efforts have been made to improve detection and remediation of atmospheric leaks of pollutants such as methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas… Ground sensors may provide real-time data streams… [0028] Aerial imagery or data may be captured using cameras, light detection and ranging (LiDAR) equipment, gas spectrometers, or other suitable detectors as the environmental sensors 130.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, and Bauer) and Wang, are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of environmental pollutant monitoring and optical gas sensor networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methane LiDAR gas monitoring system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, and Bauer) to include configuring ground-based LiDAR sensors to provide real-time data streams for continuous site monitoring of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to ensure uninterrupted safety surveillance and real-time temporal tracking of atmospheric gas leaks across a facility. By integrating Wang’s teaching of real-time environmental data acquisition into the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, and Bauer), the system can immediately resume active methane leak monitoring and data streaming directly following the completion of each periodic 3D model update scan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that resuming real-time methane monitoring after discrete spatial mapping intervals would yield the predictable result of maintaining continuous site safety coverage without losing temporal leak data during operation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1) and Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), in further view of Rajagopalan et al. (US 12,669,592 B1).
Regarding Claim 4, Ai is not relied upon as teaching that the static offset in the reported LiDAR range is calibrated independently of the mast and pan-tilt stage during the production of the camera.
However, Rajagopalan teaches that the static offset in the reported LiDAR range is calibrated independently of the mast and pan-tilt stage during the production of the camera ([Col. 17, ll. 46-58] In some examples, the patterned fiducials 114(3), 114(4) depicted in FIG. 9 can be used in a factory during calibration of the LIDAR component 110, before the AMD 102 is deployed in the field (e.g., sold to a consumer). For example, light 112 emitted from a particular LIDAR component 110 may not be incident exactly in the middle of the fiducial 114(3), 114(4) (e.g., the light 112 may be offset slightly in a vertical direction), vet the LIDAR component 110 may be functional and safe to use in that condition/state. Accordingly, the LIDAR component 110 can be calibrated with the slight offset in the vertical direction to avoid a false positive of a detected malfunction of the LIDAR component 110 when it is used in the AMD 102 in someone's home.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) and Rajagopalan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensor range calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methane LiDAR gas monitoring system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) to include the calibrating static range offsets of the LiDAR component independently during factory production prior to field deployment of Rajagopalan with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to eliminate internal manufacturing tolerances and baseline offset errors at the factory level before the sensor is integrated with downstream mounting hardware. By integrating Rajagopalan’s teaching of pre-deployment factory calibration into the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding), the system can establish an accurate baseline range calibration prior to field assembly. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pre-calibrating the LiDAR unit during production would yield the predictable result of establishing reliable baseline range measurements independent of external mast and pan-tilt mounting stages.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1) and Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), in further view of Kotzur et al. (US 2018/0347980) and Kim et al. (W. S. Kim, A. I. Ansar, and R. D. Steele, “Rover Mast Calibration, Exact Camera Pointing, and Camera Handoff for Visual Target Tracking,” in 12th Int’l Conf. Advanced Robotics (ICAR’05), Seattle, Washington, July 2005, pp. 1–8).
Regarding Claim 5, Ai is not relied upon as teaching applying a tilt angle offset correction by comparing the measured tilt angle when the camera views the target to a computed tilt angle based on the known length of the target arm and the distance along a mast.
However, Kotzur teaches applying a tilt angle offset correction by comparing a measured tilt angle when the camera views the target to a computed tilt angle ([0046] According to some embodiments of the invention, the deriving the target point coordinates can also be done with additionally correcting the target direction according to the tilt value in such a way, that the target direction is referenced to level by numerically compensating the tilt value of the axis. Such is not to be confused with the present invention, which corrects spatial location movements of the instruments center point, which movements can either be expressed in Cartesian x,y,z or in Polar Hz,V coordinates,—but which is technically different from a simple tilt angle correction of prior art, which leaves the instruments center point location untouched. Nevertheless, in a special embodiment of the present invention, the prior art tilt angle correction can be combined with the present invention of an instrument center point location movement correction, resulting in a correction of the horizon-reference of the angular readings plus a correction of an instrument center point location, latter not given in prior art.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) and Kotzur are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensor calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical calibration system of Ai to include the tilt angle offset correction of Kotzur with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to continuously adjust and compensate for angular measurement variations relative to level ground. By integrating Kotzur’s teaching of numerically compensating measured tilt angles into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding)’s optical monitoring system, the system can obtain level-referenced, mathematically corrected tilt readings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Kotzur’s tilt correction to Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) would yield the predictable result of improving target tracking accuracy be eliminating angular tilt measurement errors.
Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that the computed tilt angle is based on the known length of the target arm and the distance along a mast.
However, Kim teaches that the computed tilt angle based on the known length of the target arm and the distance along a mast ([p. 3, Sec III. C., para 2 and equations 6-8] Rover mast calibration requires definition of the rover mast kinematics. In the Rocky8 rover, the Pancam/Navcam masthead is mounted on a vertical mast with a 2-DOF pan tilt unit (see Fig. 2). Fig. 3 defines coordinate frames for rover mast kinematics. From Fig. 3, the camera frame is related to the rover reference frame by camera masthead mast camera to rover
T
r
o
v
e
r
-
t
o
-
c
a
m
e
r
a
=
T
m
a
s
t
*
T
m
a
s
t
h
e
a
d
*
T
c
a
m
e
r
a
where Tmast is the mast frame relative to rover, Tmasthead is the masthead frame relative to mast, and Tcamera is the camera frame relative to masthead. The rover frame is defined such that the z-axis is down, the x-axis is forward, and the y-axis is to the right, while the camera frame is defined such that the z-axis is forward, the x-axis is to the right, and, the y-axis is down. The transform from the rover reference frame to the mast frame can be described by three translation and three rotation parameters:
T
m
a
s
t
=
T
r
a
n
s
t
x
m
,
t
y
m
,
t
z
m
*
R
o
t
(
x
,
θ
x
m
)
*
R
o
t
(
x
,
θ
y
m
)
*
R
o
t
(
x
,
θ
z
m
)
where an ideal perfect straight-up mast will have zero rotation angels. Initially we added pan_offset and tilt_offset parameters to pan and tilt angles in representing Tmasthead:
T
m
a
s
t
h
e
a
d
=
R
o
t
z
,
p
a
n
+
p
a
n
_
o
f
f
s
e
t
*
R
o
t
(
y
,
t
i
l
t
+
t
i
l
t
_
o
f
f
s
e
t
)
).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, and Kotzur) and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of calibration for optical sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt angle calculation system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, and Kotzur) to include the computing of tilt angle based on target arm length and distance along a mast of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to establish a baseline for the optical assembly based on fixed, pre-measured physical dimensions. By integrating Kim’s teaching of deriving tilt angles from target arm offsets and mast distances into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, and Kotzur)’s system, the system can isolate physical mounting geometry from active sensor readings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using Kim’s physical mast/arm kinematics to derive Kotzur’s computed tilt angle would yield the predictable result of accurately isolating and correcting mechanical mounting alignment errors between the camera line-of-sight and the supporting mast structure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1) and Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), in further view of Ohtomo et al. (US 2019/0346539 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ai is not relied upon as teaching calculating a mast incline by treating the mast as a rigid body rotation about an axis that lies along the ground and intersects the mast at a base of the mast, and using this calculation to correct for discrepancies in reported ground elevation.
However, Ohtomo teaches calculating a mast incline by treating the mast as a rigid body rotation about an axis that lies along the ground and intersects the mast at a base of the mast, and using this calculation to correct for discrepancies in reported ground elevation ([0146] Therefore, the tilt angle and the tilt direction of the pole 83 with respect to the horizontal or the vertical can be also measured. Therefore, a distance, an elevation angle and the horizontal angle can be accurately measured with respect to an accurate measuring point (a point indicated by the lower end of the pole 83) P regardless of the tilt of the pole 83 by correcting the measurement result based on the tilt angle and the tilt direction of the pole 83 with respect to the horizontal or the vertical.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) and Ohtomo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of geometric spatial positioning and sensor elevation measurement correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elevation calculation system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) to include calculating a mast incline by treating the mast as a rigid body rotation about an axis that lies along the ground and intersects the mast at a base of the mast, and using this calculation to correct for discrepancies in reported ground elevation of Ohtomo with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to accurately measure ground elevation coordinates when the support structure tilts relative to true vertical. By integrating Ohtomo’s teaching of base-axis tilt correction calculations into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding)’s elevation system, the system can automatically offset vertical position errors caused by structural mast tilt. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Ohtomo’s tilt compensation calculation would yield the predictable result of providing true, tilt-compensated ground elevation coordinates without requiring complex structural deformation modeling.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1) and Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), in further view of Potyrailo et al. (US 2019/0156600 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Ai is not relied upon as teaching that the focal plane displacement LiDAR range offset, pan angle offset, tilt angle offset, and mast incline are recalibrated periodically.
However, Potyrailo teaches that the focal plane displacement LiDAR range offset, pan angle offset, tilt angle offset, and mast incline are recalibrated periodically ([0881] Aging of chemical gas sensor systems such as the sensor probe assemblies described herein can pose a significant limitation in broad industrial application of the assemblies where long term stability of installed sensors is needed. To address this challenging problem, different approaches have been implemented. In particular, sensors are periodically recalibrated by removing the sensors from a measurement system, by bringing a carrier gas to the sensor without removing the sensors from the measurement system, and/or by simultaneously re-charging and calibrating the sensors on a regular basis (e.g., daily). Sensor aging is defined here as any detectable change in sensor sensitivity or sensor selectivity or sensor offset or sensor drift or sensor response time or sensor recovery time upon normal operation conditions of the sensor over time or upon exposure of the sensor to any undesired conditions.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) and Potyrailo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of sensor measurement calibration and offset management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor calibration process of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) to include periodically recalibrating system offsets of Potyrailo with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to maintain long-term measurement accuracy and counteract operational drift over time. Furthermore, performing periodic recalibrations of optical and gas sensor offsets to compensate for sensor aging, thermal expansion, or mechanical wear is well known, routine, and conventional in the art of optical and LiDAR measurement systems.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1) in view of Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1), Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), Embry et al. (US 2022/0102018 A1), and Lin et al. (US 2026/0126527 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Ai teaches a gas monitoring system ([Abstract] A method of measuring the concentration of a gas in a target environment using a laser lidar system), comprising:
a methane light detection and ranging (“LiDAR”) camera configured to capture a scan ([0075] The control element 8 is operable to continuously tune the first emission wavelength 9 within the first wavelength spectrum and to perform multiple scans within the first wavelength spectrum. In this arrangement, the gas detection system 1 is operable to continuously vary the first wavelength spectrum, such that the emission wavelength 9 varies continuously over time. A gas may then be detected based on its characteristic transmission or absorption spectrum.).
Ai is not relied upon as teaching a continuous panoramic scan comprising a plurality of distinct camera frames; a mast configured to support the methane LiDAR camera, wherein the mast includes a pan-tilt stage for adjusting the orientation of the camera; a processing unit configured to perform stages comprising: generating a three-dimensional model of a site layout based on range measurements obtained during the panoramic scan; correcting for focal plane displacement by mapping a nominal polar beam angle in a camera-fixed coordinate system to a corrected polar beam angle that compensates for displacement of the focal plane relative to the stage pan axis; transforming the line-of-sight vector from the camera-fixed coordinate system to a mast-fixed coordinate system using the corrected polar beam angle; compensating for a static offset in the reported LiDAR range caused by a fixed optical path length within the camera; and determining a pan angle offset by positioning a high-contrast optical target at a fixed distance from the camera, recording the pan and tilt angles of the target, and calculating the pan angle offset based on the recorded angles.
However, Shakib teaches capturing a continuous panoramic scan comprising a plurality of distinct camera frames ([0025] In various embodiments, a mobile capture scan of an object or environment can include a wide range of single-direction 2D view frames (e.g., a dozen, hundreds, thousands, etc.), each with their own distinct location, orientation, exposure, and on occasion motion blur. Each of the 2D image frames may also include 3D data associated therewith (e.g., depth data)); and
a processing unit configured to perform stages ([0035] The 3D modeling and navigation server device 402 can also include or otherwise be associated with at least one processor 420 that executes the computer-executable components stored in the memory 418.) comprising:
generating a three-dimensional model of a site layout based on range measurements obtained during the panoramic scan ([0026] In various embodiments, the mobile captured 2D and 3D image data is used to generate a rough or partial 3D model or mesh of an object or environment from which the data was captured).
Ai and Shakib are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of capturing optical range measurements across an environment to map a target data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas monitoring system of Ai to include capturing a panoramic scan comprising a plurality of distinct camera frames and generating a three-dimensional model of the area based on range measurements of Shakib with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enable wide-area, multi-perspective spatial mapping and visualization of an environment using 3D depth data and 2D image frames. By integrating Shakib’s teaching of capturing multi-frame panoramic scans and reconstructing 3D spatial models into Ai’s methane LiDAR platform, the system can automatically generate comprehensive three-dimensional spatial models displaying gas concentration distributions across an entire physical site. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining Ai’s methane detection LiDAR with Shakib’s 3D panoramic mapping technique would yield the predictable result of providing an accurate 3D spatial model of a target area displaying localized gas concentration data.
Shakib is not relied upon as teaching a mast configured to support the methane LiDAR camera, wherein the mast includes a pan-tilt stage for adjusting the orientation of the camera; correcting for focal plane displacement by mapping a nominal polar beam angle in a camera-fixed coordinate system to a corrected polar beam angle that compensates for displacement of the focal plane relative to the stage pan axis; transforming the line-of-sight vector from the camera-fixed coordinate system to a mast-fixed coordinate system using the corrected polar beam angle; compensating for a static offset in the reported LiDAR range caused by a fixed optical path length within the camera; and determining a pan angle offset by positioning a high-contrast optical target at a fixed distance from the camera, recording the pan and tilt angles of the target, and calculating the pan angle offset based on the recorded angles.
However, Aoki teaches correcting for focal plane displacement by mapping a nominal polar beam angle in a camera-fixed coordinate system to a corrected polar beam angle that compensates for displacement of the focal plane relative to the stage pan axis; and
transforming the line-of-sight vector from the camera-fixed coordinate system to a mast-fixed coordinate system using the corrected polar beam angle([0100] From these considerations, in the final product of the optical sensor 10, as shown in FIGS. 6, 7 and 9, an orientation angle deviation δp of the projected light optical axis Op relative to the projected light virtual axis Vp in the three-dimensional coordinate system appears in at least one of a Y-Z plan view, an X-Z plan view and an X-Y plan view. Specifically, in the Y-Z plan view of FIG. 6, the orientation angle deviation δp of the projected light optical axis Op relative to the projected light virtual axis Vp appears as an inclination angle of the projected light optical axis Op around the X-axis, with the bonding interface between the lens barrel 261 and the projector holder 220 serving as the center of this inclination. Also, in the X-Z plan view of FIG. 7, the orientation angle deviation δp of the projected light optical axis Op relative to the projected light virtual axis Vp appears as an inclination angle of the projected light optical axis Op around the Y-axis, with the bonding interface between the lens barrel 261 and the projector holder 220 serving as the center of this inclination. Furthermore, in the X-Y plan view of FIG. 9, the orientation angle deviation δp of the projected light optical axis Op relative to the projected light virtual axis Vp appears as a rotational angle of the projection beam Bp around the Z-axis on the projected light optical axis Op, deviating from the ideal projection beam Bpv on the projected light virtual axis Vp at the bonding interface between the lens barrel 261 and the projector holder 220.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib) and Aoki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of 3D optical sensor positioning and coordinate system alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methane LiDAR gas monitoring system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib) to include calculating optical axis orientation angle deviations relative to reference virtual coordinate axes across three-dimensional planes of Aoki with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to compensate for structural interface and mounting alignment deviations between the optical focal axis and physical rotation axes. By integrating Aoki’s teaching of determining three-dimensional rotational angle deviations at physical mounting interfaces into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib)’s line-of-sight vector processing, the system can precisely align target-directed line-of-sight vectors across offset coordinate frames during scanning. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the accounting for optical axis displacement relative to mechanical mounting axes would yield the predictable result of eliminating spatial mapping errors and providing calibrated, highly accurate line-of-sight measurements in a multi-axis coordinate system.
Aoki is not relied upon as teaching a mast configured to support the methane LiDAR camera, wherein the mast includes a pan-tilt stage for adjusting the orientation of the camera; compensating for a static offset in the reported LiDAR range caused by a fixed optical path length within the camera; and determining a pan angle offset by positioning a high-contrast optical target at a fixed distance from the camera, recording the pan and tilt angles of the target, and calculating the pan angle offset based on the recorded angles.
However, Ding teaches determining a pan angle offset by positioning a high-contrast optical target at a fixed distance from the camera, recording the pan and tilt angles of the target, and calculating the pan angle offset based on the recorded angles ([0088] FIG. 7B is a schematic diagram showing position adjustment of the neck mechanism 1 for the robot 2 using the ARUCO marker. As shown in FIG. 7B, in one embodiment, the ARUCO marker is put in a random position within the field of view of the camera, so the image captured by the camera includes the ARUCO marker. The image including the ARUCO marker is put into the image coordinate system. Then four corners of the ARUCO marker are detected and three offset angles that includes a yaw angle, a pitch angle, and a yaw angle of the ARUCO marker are estimated through kinematic analysis. And then, the angular information including the yaw angle, the pitch angle, and the yaw angle of the ARUCO marker is sent to the perception control systems. In another example, the angular information may be sent by the computer wirelessly via BLUETOOTH or over a cellular network or WIFI network.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib and Aoki) and Ding are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensor coordinate positioning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib and Aoki) to include detecting four corners of a high-contrast fiducial marker to estimate offset angles, including yaw and pitch angles of Ding with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to accurately calibrate and align the rotational zero-point of an optical sensor platform relative to its environment. By integrating Ding’s teaching of calculating yaw and pitch offset angles from a high-contrast target (ARUCO marker) into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib and Aoki)’s pan-tilt scanning assembly, the system can precisely calculate pan angle offsets to calibrate the baseline orientation of the rotating camera platform. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing a target-based angular offset calculation would yield the predictable result of eliminating rotational mounting bias and ensuring highly accurate, calibrated line-of-sight vector tracking across coordinate frames.
Ding is not relied upon as teaching a mast configured to support the methane LiDAR camera, wherein the mast includes a pan-tilt stage for adjusting the orientation of the camera; and compensating for a static offset in the reported LiDAR range caused by a fixed optical path length within the camera.
However, Embry teaches a mast configured to support the methane LiDAR camera, wherein the mast includes a pan-tilt stage for adjusting the orientation of the camera ([0069[ An operator can thus provide real time or near real time control input, for example through the user input 516 of the control station 504, or through separate controls or inputs, to control operation of a mast 168, the bridge assembly 152, the pan and tilt head 328, the lidar system 400 of the inspection system 160, or other equipment).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) and Embry are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensor mounting and spatial camera positioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding) to include a mast configured to support the methane LiDAR camera, wherein the mast includes a pan-tilt stage for adjusting the orientation of the camera as taught by Embry with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to elevated and dynamically reorient the optical sensor platform to achieve an unobstructed field of view across the target area. By integrating Embry’s teaching of a mast with a pan-tilt stage into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, and Ding)’s optical system, the system can elevate the camera payload and precisely direct its line of sight. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a mast with a pan-tilt stage would yield the predictable result of providing flexible, multi-axis spatial coverage and mechanical height extension for elevated continuous target scanning.
Embry is not relied upon as teaching compensating for a static offset in the reported LiDAR range caused by a fixed optical path length within the camera.
However, Lin teaches compensating for a static offset in the reported LiDAR range caused by a fixed optical path length within the camera ([0018] The first included angle is the included angle between the returned light beam and the emitted light beam. The offset amount of the first returned light beam propagated to the optical receiving module may be determined based on the included angle and a distance of an optical path between a scanner and the optical receiving module, so that a compensation amount of the optical receiving module can be designed.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, and Embry) and Lin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR sensor calibration and optical spatial measurement offset compensation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, and Embry) to include compensating for a static offset in the reported LiDAR range caused by a fixed optical path length within the camera as taught by Lin with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to eliminate geometric and travel-distance reception errors between internal optical components. By integrating Lin’s teaching of calculating offset compensation from internal optical path distances into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, and Embry)’s optical system, the system can establish an accurate zero-distance baseline and improve echo signal validity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that compensating for the internal optical path length offset would yield the predictable result of ensuring true, calibrated distance measurements without signal overlap or receiver misalignment.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1), Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), Embry et al. (US 2022/0102018 A1), and Lin et al. (US 2026/0126527 A1), in further view of Mariotti et al. (US 2023/0334586 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Ai is not relied upon as teaching corroborating the three-dimensional model generated from the methane LiDAR camera measurements with satellite images or aerial LiDAR scans.
However, Mariotti teaches corroborating the three-dimensional model generated from the methane LiDAR camera measurements with satellite images or aerial LiDAR scans ([0088] The application may also obtain data from the user device 100 regarding the height of the camera 120 during the recording of the video. Using a calculation of the height, the application may guide the user to increase or decrease the height of the camera 120 to capture additional information. As indicated above, the video may be analyzed to determine the distance of the camera 120 from the object of interest. Alternatively, this distance may be based on information obtained from a sensor such as, for example, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor embedded in the user device 100. Information from other types of sensors may also be used to determine the distance, such as ultrasonic, infrared, or LED time-of-flight (ToF). [0104] Additional verifications of the accuracy of the information gathered can be performed such as, comparison of pre-existing images of a structure, including from Google Street Views, satellite images, or images being collected for a given address.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) and Mariotti are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensor spatial mapping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) to include corroborating gathered spatial model accuracy by comparing collected image and sensor data with pre-existing satellite images of Mariotti with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to verify structural accuracy, eliminate global geographic registration errors, and confirm target location identity across spatial datasets. By integrating Mariotti’s teaching of verifying sensor-gathered spatial information against pre-existing satellite imagery into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin)’s methane LiDAR camera scanning platform, the system can cross-reference camera-derived 3D spatial measurements and methane plume coordinates against overhead satellite imagery to confirm environmental locations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that corroborating local LiDAR camera-generated 3D models with satellite imagery would yield the predictable result of providing a validated, geo-registered spatial map with verified target location coordinates.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1), Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), Embry et al. (US 2022/0102018 A1), and Lin et al. (US 2026/0126527 A1), in further view of Bauer et al. (US 2024/0346690 A1) and Wang et al. (US 2023/0169222 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Ai is not relied upon as teaching that the panoramic scan is repeated at periodic intervals to update the three-dimensional model, and the methane LiDAR camera resumes methane leak detection after the completion of each panoramic scan.
However, Bauer teaches that the panoramic scan is repeated at periodic intervals to update the three-dimensional model ([0066] When 3D data is captured over time on a period (e.g., daily, weekly, etc.) and/or aperiodic basis, such as from statically mounted 3D coordinate measurement devices at specific scan points within an environment (e.g., a factory), objects are moved during the 3D data capturing. As a result, a specific object is scanned in multiple positions/orientations. By combining the 3D data, a more complete 3D model could be generated over time.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) and Bauer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical spatial scanning and 3D scene model generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methane LiDAR gas monitoring system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) to include capturing 3D spatial scan data over time on a periodic basis to update and build a more complete 3D model of an environment of Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to maintain updated, highly accurate spatial registration of the environmental baseline features over time as structural or physical changes occur within the target site. By integrating Bauer’s teaching of periodically capturing scan images to update a 3D model into the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin), the system can ensure scene geometry remains current during long-term monitoring operations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that updating 3D baseline models on a periodic basis while conducting gas detection routines would yield the predictable result of maintaining precise spatial alignment during ongoing methane leak tracking operations.
Bauer is not relied upon as teaching that the methane LiDAR camera resumes methane leak detection after the completion of each panoramic scan.
However, Wang teaches that the methane LiDAR camera resumes methane leak detection after the completion of each panoramic scan ([0002] Extensive efforts have been made to improve detection and remediation of atmospheric leaks of pollutants such as methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas… Ground sensors may provide real-time data streams… [0028] Aerial imagery or data may be captured using cameras, light detection and ranging (LiDAR) equipment, gas spectrometers, or other suitable detectors as the environmental sensors 130.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, Lin, and Bauer) and Wang, are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of environmental pollutant monitoring and optical gas sensor networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methane LiDAR gas monitoring system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, Lin, and Bauer) to include configuring ground-based LiDAR sensors to provide real-time data streams for continuous site monitoring of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to ensure uninterrupted safety surveillance and real-time temporal tracking of atmospheric gas leaks across a facility. By integrating Wang’s teaching of real-time environmental data acquisition into the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, Lin, and Bauer), the system can immediately resume active methane leak monitoring and data streaming directly following the completion of each periodic 3D model update scan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that resuming real-time methane monitoring after discrete spatial mapping intervals would yield the predictable result of maintaining continuous site safety coverage without losing temporal leak data during operation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1), Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), Embry et al. (US 2022/0102018 A1), and Lin et al. (US 2026/0126527 A1), in further view of Rajagopalan et al. (US 12,669,592 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ai is not relied upon as teaching that the static offset in the reported LiDAR range is calibrated independently of the mast and pan-tilt stage during the production of the camera.
However, Rajagopalan teaches that the static offset in the reported LiDAR range is calibrated independently of the mast and pan-tilt stage during the production of the camera ([Col. 17, ll. 46-58] In some examples, the patterned fiducials 114(3), 114(4) depicted in FIG. 9 can be used in a factory during calibration of the LIDAR component 110, before the AMD 102 is deployed in the field (e.g., sold to a consumer). For example, light 112 emitted from a particular LIDAR component 110 may not be incident exactly in the middle of the fiducial 114(3), 114(4) (e.g., the light 112 may be offset slightly in a vertical direction), vet the LIDAR component 110 may be functional and safe to use in that condition/state. Accordingly, the LIDAR component 110 can be calibrated with the slight offset in the vertical direction to avoid a false positive of a detected malfunction of the LIDAR component 110 when it is used in the AMD 102 in someone's home.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) and Rajagopalan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensor range calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methane LiDAR gas monitoring system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) to include the calibrating static range offsets of the LiDAR component independently during factory production prior to field deployment of Rajagopalan with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to eliminate internal manufacturing tolerances and baseline offset errors at the factory level before the sensor is integrated with downstream mounting hardware. By integrating Rajagopalan’s teaching of pre-deployment factory calibration into the system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin), the system can establish an accurate baseline range calibration prior to field assembly. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pre-calibrating the LiDAR unit during production would yield the predictable result of establishing reliable baseline range measurements independent of external mast and pan-tilt mounting stages.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1), Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), Embry et al. (US 2022/0102018 A1), and Lin et al. (US 2026/0126527 A1), in further view of Kotzur et al. (US 2018/0347980) and Kim et al. (W. S. Kim, A. I. Ansar, and R. D. Steele, “Rover Mast Calibration, Exact Camera Pointing, and Camera Handoff for Visual Target Tracking,” in 12th Int’l Conf. Advanced Robotics (ICAR’05), Seattle, Washington, July 2005, pp. 1–8).
Regarding Claim 12, Ai is not relied upon as teaching applying a tilt angle offset correction by comparing the measured tilt angle when the camera views the target to a computed tilt angle based on the known length of the target arm and the distance along a mast.
However, Kotzur teaches applying a tilt angle offset correction by comparing a measured tilt angle when the camera views the target to a computed tilt angle ([0046] According to some embodiments of the invention, the deriving the target point coordinates can also be done with additionally correcting the target direction according to the tilt value in such a way, that the target direction is referenced to level by numerically compensating the tilt value of the axis. Such is not to be confused with the present invention, which corrects spatial location movements of the instruments center point, which movements can either be expressed in Cartesian x,y,z or in Polar Hz,V coordinates,—but which is technically different from a simple tilt angle correction of prior art, which leaves the instruments center point location untouched. Nevertheless, in a special embodiment of the present invention, the prior art tilt angle correction can be combined with the present invention of an instrument center point location movement correction, resulting in a correction of the horizon-reference of the angular readings plus a correction of an instrument center point location, latter not given in prior art.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) and Kotzur are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensor calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical calibration system of Ai to include the tilt angle offset correction of Kotzur with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to continuously adjust and compensate for angular measurement variations relative to level ground. By integrating Kotzur’s teaching of numerically compensating measured tilt angles into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin)’s optical monitoring system, the system can obtain level-referenced, mathematically corrected tilt readings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Kotzur’s tilt correction to Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) would yield the predictable result of improving target tracking accuracy be eliminating angular tilt measurement errors.
Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that the computed tilt angle is based on the known length of the target arm and the distance along a mast.
However, Kim teaches that the computed tilt angle based on the known length of the target arm and the distance along a mast ([p. 3, Sec III. C., para 2 and equations 6-8] Rover mast calibration requires definition of the rover mast kinematics. In the Rocky8 rover, the Pancam/Navcam masthead is mounted on a vertical mast with a 2-DOF pan tilt unit (see Fig. 2). Fig. 3 defines coordinate frames for rover mast kinematics. From Fig. 3, the camera frame is related to the rover reference frame by camera masthead mast camera to rover
T
r
o
v
e
r
-
t
o
-
c
a
m
e
r
a
=
T
m
a
s
t
*
T
m
a
s
t
h
e
a
d
*
T
c
a
m
e
r
a
where Tmast is the mast frame relative to rover, Tmasthead is the masthead frame relative to mast, and Tcamera is the camera frame relative to masthead. The rover frame is defined such that the z-axis is down, the x-axis is forward, and the y-axis is to the right, while the camera frame is defined such that the z-axis is forward, the x-axis is to the right, and, the y-axis is down. The transform from the rover reference frame to the mast frame can be described by three translation and three rotation parameters:
T
m
a
s
t
=
T
r
a
n
s
t
x
m
,
t
y
m
,
t
z
m
*
R
o
t
(
x
,
θ
x
m
)
*
R
o
t
(
x
,
θ
y
m
)
*
R
o
t
(
x
,
θ
z
m
)
where an ideal perfect straight-up mast will have zero rotation angels. Initially we added pan_offset and tilt_offset parameters to pan and tilt angles in representing Tmasthead:
T
m
a
s
t
h
e
a
d
=
R
o
t
z
,
p
a
n
+
p
a
n
_
o
f
f
s
e
t
*
R
o
t
(
y
,
t
i
l
t
+
t
i
l
t
_
o
f
f
s
e
t
)
).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, Lin, and Kotzur) and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of calibration for optical sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt angle calculation system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, Lin, and Kotzur) to include the computing of tilt angle based on target arm length and distance along a mast of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to establish a baseline for the optical assembly based on fixed, pre-measured physical dimensions. By integrating Kim’s teaching of deriving tilt angles from target arm offsets and mast distances into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, Lin, and Kotzur)’s system, the system can isolate physical mounting geometry from active sensor readings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using Kim’s physical mast/arm kinematics to derive Kotzur’s computed tilt angle would yield the predictable result of accurately isolating and correcting mechanical mounting alignment errors between the camera line-of-sight and the supporting mast structure.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1), Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), Embry et al. (US 2022/0102018 A1), and Lin et al. (US 2026/0126527 A1), in further view of Ohtomo et al. (US 2019/0346539 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Ai is not relied upon as teaching calculating a mast incline by treating the mast as a rigid body rotation about an axis that lies along the ground and intersects the mast at a base of the mast, and using this calculation to correct for discrepancies in reported ground elevation.
However, Ohtomo teaches calculating a mast incline by treating the mast as a rigid body rotation about an axis that lies along the ground and intersects the mast at a base of the mast, and using this calculation to correct for discrepancies in reported ground elevation ([0146] Therefore, the tilt angle and the tilt direction of the pole 83 with respect to the horizontal or the vertical can be also measured. Therefore, a distance, an elevation angle and the horizontal angle can be accurately measured with respect to an accurate measuring point (a point indicated by the lower end of the pole 83) P regardless of the tilt of the pole 83 by correcting the measurement result based on the tilt angle and the tilt direction of the pole 83 with respect to the horizontal or the vertical.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) and Ohtomo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of geometric spatial positioning and sensor elevation measurement correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elevation calculation system of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) to include calculating a mast incline by treating the mast as a rigid body rotation about an axis that lies along the ground and intersects the mast at a base of the mast, and using this calculation to correct for discrepancies in reported ground elevation of Ohtomo with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to accurately measure ground elevation coordinates when the support structure tilts relative to true vertical. By integrating Ohtomo’s teaching of base-axis tilt correction calculations into Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin)’s elevation system, the system can automatically offset vertical position errors caused by structural mast tilt. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Ohtomo’s tilt compensation calculation would yield the predictable result of providing true, tilt-compensated ground elevation coordinates without requiring complex structural deformation modeling.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 2022/0390361 A1), Shakib et al. (US 2018/0144547 A1), Aoki et al. (US 2025/0362389 A1), Ding et al. (US 2021/0331323 A1), Embry et al. (US 2022/0102018 A1), and Lin et al. (US 2026/0126527 A1), in further view of Potyrailo et al. (US 2019/0156600 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Ai is not relied upon as teaching that the focal plane displacement LiDAR range offset, pan angle offset, tilt angle offset, and mast incline are recalibrated periodically.
However, Potyrailo teaches that the focal plane displacement LiDAR range offset, pan angle offset, tilt angle offset, and mast incline are recalibrated periodically ([0881] Aging of chemical gas sensor systems such as the sensor probe assemblies described herein can pose a significant limitation in broad industrial application of the assemblies where long term stability of installed sensors is needed. To address this challenging problem, different approaches have been implemented. In particular, sensors are periodically recalibrated by removing the sensors from a measurement system, by bringing a carrier gas to the sensor without removing the sensors from the measurement system, and/or by simultaneously re-charging and calibrating the sensors on a regular basis (e.g., daily). Sensor aging is defined here as any detectable change in sensor sensitivity or sensor selectivity or sensor offset or sensor drift or sensor response time or sensor recovery time upon normal operation conditions of the sensor over time or upon exposure of the sensor to any undesired conditions.).
Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) and Potyrailo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of sensor measurement calibration and offset management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor calibration process of Ai (as previously modified by Shakib, Aoki, Ding, Embry, and Lin) to include periodically recalibrating system offsets of Potyrailo with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to maintain long-term measurement accuracy and counteract operational drift over time. Furthermore, performing periodic recalibrations of optical and gas sensor offsets to compensate for sensor aging, thermal expansion, or mechanical wear is well known, routine, and conventional in the art of optical and LiDAR measurement systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm EST.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 272-9358. 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.
/E.H.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights