DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 41, Line 2: A verb such as –be—is needed before the word “toxic”.
Paragraph 87, Line 9: The phrase “may multiplication of the speed” is not grammatically correct.
Paragraph 87, Line 12: The letter “T” before the “(T)” is not needed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 of claim 4 appears to have an extra word “is” before “stops”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittberner et al [U.S. 10,677,771] in view of Klass et al [U.S. 3,864,628].
For claim 1, the gas leakage detection apparatus (Title: Detecting Gas Leaks using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) taught by Dittberner includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed movement control unit is met by the controller (No. 38) mounted on the drone (No. 20) and responsive to operation control methods (Col. 3, Lns. 46-49), 2) the claimed acquisition unit is met by the sensors (No. 26) mounted on said drone that acquires a measurement result of a target gas that is obtained by a measurement by the gas sensor (Col. 37-45) while the moving object is moving over a target area (No. 204), and 3) the claimed detection unit is met by the processor (No. 105) that detects leakage of the target gas (i.e., See Fig. 5) based on the measurement result to identify a gas leakage spot (Fig. 3, No. 212). However, there is no mention of using a response time from the start of the measurement until an output of the measurement unit by the gas sensor.
Using response times and time lags in gas sensors have been used in the prior art. The gas sensors taught by Klass teaches a method for detecting gas that qualitatively reports sensing a gas as an electrical output after a predetermined time lag (Abstract). Using gas permeable membranes as well as known gases through precalibration, a response time in detecting an output is recorded (Col. 3, Lns. 47-52). This precalibrated time-response information can be used to verify the identity of an unknown or suspected test gas. One important object of the Klass reference is to present a detection means that may be actuated in different ways to qualitatively and quantitatively report the presence of gases through preselected membranes using one or more sensor assemblies (Col. 2, Lns. 44-49).
The Klass reference may be applied to any equivalent solid-state gas sensor (Col. 3, Lns. 9-10). And the Dittberner reference would require a gas sensor with a reliable outcome. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use response time in order to detect the presence of gas in order to qualitatively report the correct gas and concentration.
For claim 2, one method (No. 500) of Dittberner captures images and measurements of a geographical area, including GPS location information (Col. 7, Lns. 60-63).
For claim 6, Figure 4B of Dittberner depicts the UAV moving over a target area (No. 316) multiple times. Furthermore, the reference also details at least two flight paths (Col. 6, Lns. 24-44) in order to capture more detailed information about the presence of gas while flying a secondary flight plan.
For claim 12, the Dittberner reference also evaluates the wind speed and direction using a sensor positioned on the drone (Col. 6, Lns. 45-56) that are then fed to the engines that rotate the propellers of the drone.
For claim 13, Figures 8 and 9 of Dittberner depict a system capable of supporting the detection apparatus having its own drive source (controller No. 38) and gas sensor (No. 26).
For claim 19, the gas leakage detection method (Title: Detecting Gas Leaks; Abstract: Methods) taught by Dittberner includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed controlling a movement is achieved using the controller (No. 38) mounted on the drone (No. 20) and responsive to operation control methods (Col. 3, Lns. 46-49), 2) the claimed acquiring a measurement result is achieved using the sensors (No. 26) mounted on said drone that acquires a measurement result of a target gas that is obtained by a measurement by the gas sensor (Col. 37-45) while the moving object is moving over a target area (No. 204), and 3) the claimed detecting a leakage is achieved using the processor (No. 105) that detects leakage of the target gas (i.e., See Fig. 5) based on the measurement result to identify a gas leakage spot (Fig. 3, No. 212). However, there is no mention of using a response time from the start of the measurement until an output of the measurement unit by the gas sensor.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For claim 20, the non-transitory computer readable medium (Abstract: computer program products) taught by Dittberner includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed movement control unit is met by the controller (No. 38) mounted on the drone (No. 20) and responsive to operation control methods (Col. 3, Lns. 46-49), 2) the claimed acquisition unit is met by the sensors (No. 26) mounted on said drone that acquires a measurement result of a target gas that is obtained by a measurement by the gas sensor (Col. 37-45) while the moving object is moving over a target area (No. 204), and 3) the claimed detection unit is met by the processor (No. 105) that detects leakage of the target gas (i.e., See Fig. 5) based on the measurement result to identify a gas leakage spot (Fig. 3, No. 212). However, there is no mention of using a response time from the start of the measurement until an output of the measurement unit by the gas sensor.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittberner et al in view of Klass et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohr, Jr. et al [US 2023/0213413].
For claim 3, the Dittberner reference does take wind speed into consideration; however, the speed information of the moving object is not acquired.
Velocity is sometimes needed in operating an unmanned aerial vehicle as shown by the apparatus for collecting environmental samples taught by Mohr. In Mohr, a pump and detector combination are configured to draw gas samples from a distal end of a tube (Abstract). Also, in one embodiment (Paragraph 114), the velocity of the UAV is measured during autonomous flight. Moreover, at times the UAV travels at a known velocity (Paragraph 122) at a constant height to maintain a consistent above ground height as well as modifying the velocity (Paragraph 125) in order to gather needed data. Furthermore, a UAV pilot may include speed, direction, and elevation programming (Paragraph 150) in order to execute a specific flight path.
One obvious advantage of the Mohr reference is to introduce a gas sensor that can be redirected and guided along a localization course, whereby the source of gas emission may be more precisely located (Paragraph 17). And the Dittberner reference is also directed to a gas sensor tasked with locating the source of a leak. Locating and re-locating the leak found in Dittberner would necessarily entail changes in velocity that would improve location as taught by Mohr. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acquire speed information of the moving object in Dittberner in order to more precisely locate the source of gas leak.
For claim 9, in one embodiment (Paragraph 143) of Mohr, the spatial resolution may be increased as a function of the speed of the UAV.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittberner et al in view of Klass et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parrott et al [US 2021/0380272].
For claim 10, neither the Dittberner nor the Klass references mention acquiring a target gas obtained outside a target area in order to calibrate the gas sensor based on said measurements.
Calibration is sometimes necessary in order to verify that a sensor is working properly. The calibration methods for gas sensors taught by Parrott recognize this and teach a drone that can be use to monitor hazardous particulates and gases as they autonomously travel to desired locations (Paragraph 3). Sometimes, uneven and uncontrollable air flow can distort a detection profile and reduce detection sensitivity (Paragraph 4). The Parrott reference measures a concentration of a reference gas having a known atmospheric concentration positioned in or one the drone, and calibrates the concentration of the gas based on the measured concentration (Paragraph 5). In certain embodiments, the reference gas can be oxygen or carbon dioxide (Paragraph 6).
The Dittberner reference, with its drone-mounted gas sensor, can certainly be prone to distortion of the sensor. Regular calibrations of the sensor would improve the sensor performance and detection sensitivity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate the sensor of Dittberner using the method of Parrott in order to increase the detection sensitivity of the sensor.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittberner et al in view of Klass et al as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wilkins [U.S. 9,494,511].
For claim 14, the Dittberner reference is silent as to the location of the gas sensor on the body of the moving object.
The exact placement of the gas sensor on the drone or moving object can be one of a myriad of locations. In one system taught by Wilkins, an apparatus that can continuously detect and quantify a range of chemicals and pollutants (Abstract) can be located on the roof of a vehicle (See Figure 3; Col. 11, Lns. 31-32) to detect gases in the atmosphere. Furthermore, in another embodiment mentioned in the same reference, the apparatus can also be carried in the air by a UAV (Col. 14, Lns. 2-5) to provide a 3-D and real-time map of pollution levels.
The Wilkins reference presents one of many locations onto which the gas sensor may be mounted on a moving body. The top surface is but one of many locations on a drone or UAV that can the sensor can be mounted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gas sensor of Dittberner on the top surface of the UAV as this is one obvious location used in the prior art to locate said sensor.
For claims 15 and 16, the direction of the intake is not considered a patentable innovation as the sensor must be open to the air at some location in order to gather the requisite amount of gas. As this does not produce any new or unexpected result, this limitation is considered an obvious variation similar to the location of the sensor on the housing of the UAV itself.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Each objected dependent claim presents a more specific recitation of limitations of a gas leakage detection apparatus not found in the prior art. For example, the Dittberner reference does mention a secondary flight plan that is performed in order to sample the gas concentration; however, the reference does not mention controlling the drone at a second velocity that is slower than a first velocity that satisfied a first condition to acquire an additional measurement result of the target gas in order to identify that a gas leakage candidate area is the gas leakage spot found in claims 4 and 5. Also, detecting a leakage based on a level of deviation of a gas concentration of the target gas based on a measurement that is obtained while the moving object is moving and the level of deviation is calculated by a degree of deviation from a statistical average of the gas concentration of the target gas found in claim 8 is also unobvious. The same is true of also including a correction unit that corrects an error that is generated on the measurement result of the target gas that is obtained due to a noise generated by driving a drive source of the moving object with a correction amount depending on a speed of the moving object found in claim 11. Claim 17 presents a plurality of moving objects to perform a measurement of the gas concentration while moving over at least one target area assigned from a plurality of target areas included in an entire target area that also comprises a distribution generation unit that generates gas distribution information of the target gas in the entire target area based on a measurement result from the plurality of moving objects that further derives a baseline correction distribution of a gas concentration such that a residual error between measurement result group of respective pieces of the target areas from respective pieces of the moving objects is minimized.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Al-Qahtani et al [U.S. 12,346,132] uses an unmanned aerial vehicle for identifying a gas leak.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT
1/15/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689