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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation “analyzer unit” recited in L4 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (for analyzer). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is a computer as recited in pg.12 L7-18. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as requiring a computer or its equivalent.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2022/0091026 A1; pub. Mar. 24, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Scott et al. disclose in a first embodiment: A system for measuring at least one analyte in air over an area (para. [0009], [0021]), the system comprising:
open-path sensing equipment; and an analyzer unit in operable communication with the open-path sensing equipment (para. [0009], [0021]), wherein the open-path sensing equipment comprises:
at least one mid-infrared (mid-IR) light source disposed thereon and configured to provide light at a predetermined wavelength for a particular analyte, wherein the predetermined wavelength is in a range of from 2 micrometers (µm) to 30 µm (para. [0151]).
In the first embodiment Scott et al. are silent about: a plurality of reflection mirrors configured to reflect light from each mid-IR light source; and
a detector configured to receive signals of light reflected from the plurality of reflection mirrors.
In a further embodiment Scott et al. disclose: a plurality of reflection mirrors (fig.6 items M1-M3) configured to reflect light from each mid-IR light source (fig.6 item S1); and
a detector (fig.6 items Sp1 & Sp2) configured to receive signals of light reflected from the plurality of reflection mirrors motivated by the benefits for increased and SNR (Scott et al. para. [0139]).
In light of the benefits for increased absorption and SNR as taught by Scott et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two embodiments of Scott et al.
Regarding claim 2, Scott et al. disclose: an airborne vehicle having the open-path sensing equipment mounted thereon; and a meteorology station in operable communication with the analyzer unit, wherein the meteorological station is configured to obtain meteorological data of the air on the airborne vehicle (para. [0009], [0269]),
wherein the meteorological data comprises wind speed, wind direction, air pressure, air temperature, humidity, or a combination thereof (para. [0092], [0090], [0093]).
Regarding claim 6, Scott et al. disclose: the open-path sensing equipment further comprises an off-axis parabolic mirror configured to focus the light reflected from the plurality of reflection mirrors onto the detector (para. [0210]).
Regarding claim 7, Scott et al. disclose: the open-path sensing equipment is configured such that the light has a number of passes after it is provided by the at least one light source and before it is reaches the detector, wherein the number of passes is in a range of from 2 passes to 200 passes (fig.6).
Regarding claim 8, Scott et al. disclose: the analyzer unit comprises software stored thereon that is configured to receive the signals of light reflected from the plurality of reflection mirrors and convert them to data indicative of a concentration of the at least one analyte in the air, and
wherein the data indicative of the concentration of the at least one analyte in the air comprises spatial information of the concentration of the at least one analyte in the air (para. [0146]).
Regarding claim 9, Scott et al. disclose: the analyzer unit converts the signals via wavelength modulation spectroscopy, direct absorption spectroscopy, or both (para. [0146]).
Regarding claim 11, Scott et al. disclose: a global positioning satellite (GPS) receiver disposed on the airborne vehicle and in operable communication with the open-path sensing equipment (para. [0187]-[0188]); and an external battery disposed on the airborne vehicle and configured to provide power to the open-path sensing equipment (para. [0269] drones are equipped with batteries).
Regarding claim 12, Scott et al. disclose: the system is configured such that during operation the system uses a power of 10 watts (W) or less, wherein the system excluding the airborne vehicle has a total weight of about 3 kilograms (kg) or less, and wherein the open-path airborne vehicle is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (para. [0269] teaches a drone based system, therefore, one of ordinary skill could have derive the claimed limitation from the teaching of para. [0269]).
Regarding claim 13, Scott et al. disclose: A method for measuring at least one analyte in air over an area, the method comprising:
i) providing the system according to claim 2;
ii) operating the open-path sensing equipment (para. [0269]);
iii) operating the airborne vehicle such that it moves over at least a majority of the area while the open-path sensing equipment is being operated (para. [0269]); and
iv) using the analyzer unit to convert signals of reflected light in the open-path sensing equipment to data indicative of a concentration of the at least one analyte in the air (para. [0146], [0209]).
Regarding claim 14, Scott et al. disclose: a meteorology station in operable communication with the analyzer unit, wherein the meteorological station is configured to obtain meteorological data of the air over the area, air adjacent to the area, or both (para. [0092], fig.7A),
wherein the meteorological data comprises wind speed, wind direction, air pressure, air temperature, humidity, or a combination thereof (para. [0093]), and
wherein the meteorology station is disposed within or adjacent to the area (fig.1 & fig.7).
Regarding claim 17, Scott et al. disclose: at least one power source configured to provide power to the open-path sensing equipment,
wherein the system is configured such that during operation the system uses a power of 60 watts (W) or less (para. [0269] teaches the use of a drone, the limitation is obvious in light of para. [0269] since drones are optimized to consume less power).
Regarding claim 18, Scott et al. disclose: the open-path sensing equipment is mounted on a tower disposed in or adjacent to the area; or the open-path sensing equipment is mounted on a moving object (para. [0269]).
Regarding claim 19, Scott et al. disclose: the system is configured to operate without failure at all temperatures in a range of from -40 °C to 60 C (para. [0092] teaches meteorological measurements & air quality monitoring, obvious in view of the teaching of para. [0092] because outdoor temperature never has reached 600 Celsius).
Regarding claim 20, Scott et al. disclose: A method for measuring at least one analyte in air over an area, the method comprising:
i) providing the system according to claim 14;
ii) operating the open-path sensing equipment (drone); and
iii) using the analyzer unit to convert signals of reflected light in the open-path sensing equipment to data indicative of a concentration of the at least one analyte in the air (para. [0146], [0209]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2022/0091026 A1; pub. Mar. 24, 2022) in view of Eichenlaub et al. (US 2023/0304982 A1; pub. Sep. 28, 2023).
Regarding claim 3, Scott et al. disclose: each analyte of the at least one analyte is a greenhouse gas or air pollutant (para. [0151]).
Scott et al. are silent about: the system is configured to measure the at least one analyte with a sensitivity of 100 parts per billion (ppb) or less.
In a similar field of endeavor Eichenlaub et al. disclose: the system is configured to measure the at least one analyte with a sensitivity of 100 parts per billion (ppb) or less (para. [0314]) motivated by the benefits for air quality monitor (Eichenlaub et al. para. [0314]).
In light of the benefits for air quality monitor as taught by Eichenlaub et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Scott et al. with the teachings of Eichenlaub et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2022/0091026 A1; pub. Mar. 24, 2022) in view of Sabry et al. (US 2023/0014558 A1; pub. Jan. 19, 2023) and further in view of Vodopyanov et al. (US 2011/0058248 A1; pub. Mar. 10, 2011).
Regarding claim 4, Scott et al. are silent about: each reflection mirror of the plurality of reflection mirrors is a spherical mirror, wherein each reflection mirror of the plurality of reflection mirrors is gold-coated, wherein the open-path sensing equipment further comprises a pair of alignment mirrors, wherein each alignment mirror of the pair of alignment mirrors is flat, and wherein each alignment mirror of the pair of alignment mirrors is gold-coated.
In a similar field of endeavor Sabry et al. disclose: each reflection mirror of the plurality of reflection mirrors is a spherical mirror (para. [0084], [0118]), the open-path sensing equipment further comprises a pair of alignment mirrors, wherein each alignment mirror of the pair of alignment mirrors is flat (para. [0084], [0120]) motivated by the benefits for increased absorption.
In light of the benefits for increased absorption, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Scott et al. with the teachings of Sabry et al.
Sabry et al. are silent about: each reflection mirror of the plurality of reflection mirrors is gold-coated, each alignment mirror of the pair of alignment mirrors is gold-coated.
In a similar field of endeavor Vodopyanov et al. disclose: gold coated mirror used for gas analyte detection (para. [0035]-[0036], [0081]) motivated by the benefits for long-lasting mirrors that are efficient in infrared spectrum.
In light of the benefits for long-lasting mirrors that are efficient in infrared spectrum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Scott et al. and Sabry et al. with the teachings of Vodopyanov et al.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2022/0091026 A1; pub. Mar. 24, 2022) in view of Wang et al. (CN 117214097A; pub. Dec. 12, 2023).
Regarding claim 5, Scott et al. are silent about: the open-path sensing equipment further comprises adjustable rods between reflection mirrors of the plurality of reflection mirrors.
In a similar field of endeavor Wang et al. disclose: adjustable rods (fig.1 items 6) between reflection mirrors of the plurality of reflection mirrors (fig.1 items 5 & 12) motivated by the benefits for fine-tuning of the distance between mirrors (Wang et al. para. [0032]).
In light of the benefits for fine-tuning of the distance between mirrors as taught by Wang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mirror system of Wang et al. in the apparatus of Scott et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2022/0091026 A1; pub. Mar. 24, 2022) in view of Prasad et al. (US 2008/0259340 A1; pub. Oct. 23, 2008).
Regarding claim 10, Scott et al. are silent about: the open-path sensing equipment is configured to operate at a frequency in a range of from I Hertz (Hz) to 1000 Hz.
In a similar field of endeavor Prasad et al. disclose: the open-path sensing equipment is configured to operate at a frequency in a range of from I Hertz (Hz) to 1000 Hz (para. [0046], [0060]) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio (para. [0060]).
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio as taught by Prasad et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the laser of Prasad et al. in the apparatus of Scott et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2022/0091026 A1; pub. Mar. 24, 2022) in view of Uno et al. (US 5,726,752; pub. Mar. 10, 1998).
Regarding claim 16, Scott et al. are silent about: each reflection mirror of the plurality of reflection mirrors comprises a transparent coating window that has an anti- reflective coating or wedged surface configured to minimize back reflections, and
wherein the transparent coating window is flat or recessed within the respective reflection mirror.
In a similar field of endeavor Uno et al. disclose: each reflection mirror of the plurality of reflection mirrors comprises a transparent coating window that has an anti- reflective coating or wedged surface configured to minimize back reflections, and
wherein the transparent coating window is flat or recessed within the respective reflection mirror (col.6 L6-20) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio.
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mirror of Uno et al. in the apparatus of Scott et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15, Scott et al. disclose: the open-path sensing equipment further comprises at least one alignment mirror (para. [0134]).
Muraview et al. disclose: each reflection mirror of the plurality of reflection mirrors is attached to a three-axis mirror mount (para. [0031]).
Yoshida discloses: each reflection mirror of the plurality of reflection mirrors is a molybdenum mirror (para. [0027]).
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the open-path sensing equipment further comprises two chambers attached to each other by a plurality of rods,
wherein each chamber of the two chambers comprises a plurality of plates each covered with a cylindrical cowling, and
wherein each rod of the plurality of rods is adjustable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights