DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 15, 2026 has been entered.
2. Claim 7 is canceled.
3. Claims 19-20 have been added.
4. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
a) In regard to 101 rejection, the Applicant has provided arguments, “… Here, the independent claims define a specific system and method of emissions metrology in which first georeferenced data representative of amounts of a first gas and second georeferenced data representative of amounts of a second tracer gas are obtained from atmospheric measurements performed by sensors carried on a drone at a distance from the source along a trajectory. A correlation coefficient is calculated from these measured gas amounts, a computed flow of the second tracer gas is obtained from a material balance of the chemical reaction, and a flow of the first gas emitted by the source is computed using the computed tracer-gas flow and the correlation coefficient. The claimed method is tied to real atmospheric plume measurements, one or more sensors carried on a drone, georeferenced gas measurement data, a tracer-gas flow constrained by a material balance of a chemical reaction, and the determination of a real-world physical parameter, namely a flow of gas emitted by a source into the atmosphere. It is therefore respectfully submitted that because the intendent claims are not directed to any abstract idea, the inquiry under § 101 need not proceed any further. Claims 1 and 17 are eligible subject matter” (pages 6-10).
In response to argument:
a) In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to Alice vs CLS Bank is succinctly discussed as follows. In their decision, Supreme Court has stated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as algorithms) into a patent eligible invention. Because the algorithm was an abstract idea, the claim had to supply a “new and useful" application of the idea in order to be patent eligible (Alice, Page 12). Furthermore, the additional limitations had to be significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself (Alice, page 7, 15).
Regarding independent Claim 1, we recognize that the limitations “calculating at least one coefficient of correlation between the amounts of the first gas and the amounts of the second gas using the first representative data and the second representative data; obtaining a measured or computed flow of the second gas emitted by the source; computing a flow of the first gas emitted by the source using the measured or computed flow of the second gas emitted by the source and the correlation coefficient, wherein emissions of the first gas and second gas from the source result from a chemical reaction, the measured or computed flow of the second gas being calculated from a material balance of the chemical reaction”, as abstract ideas. The abstract idea of claim 1 can be characterized as processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Beyond the abstract idea, we next look at additional elements that can be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the claim limitations “obtaining first georeferenced data representative of amounts of first gas measured in the atmosphere by a first gas measuring sensor on a drone flying at a distance from the source along a trajectory, obtaining second georeferenced data representative of amounts of a second tracer gas emitted by the source together with the first gas, the second representative data being measured in the atmosphere a second gas measuring sensor on a drone flying at a distance from the source along the trajectory” are additional elements.
The claim limitation “obtaining first georeferenced data representative of amounts of first gas measured in the atmosphere by a first gas measuring sensor on a drone flying at a distance from the source along a trajectory,
obtaining second georeferenced data representative of amounts of a second tracer gas emitted by the source together with the first gas, the second representative data being measured in the atmosphere a second gas measuring sensor on a drone flying at a distance from the source along the trajectory”, are recited at a high level of generality, and are considered to be insignificant data gathering steps using a generic measuring sensors. As shown in the prior art, McGonigle et al., “Unmanned aerial vehicle measurements of volcanic carbon dioxide fluxes,” (hereinafter, McGonigle), ([6], [7], and Fig. 1 (pages 1-2)), Pitt et al., “Novel Method to Constrain Regional Greenhouse Gas Fluxes using Aircraft Data”, 2016 (hereinafter, Pitt), (Abstract, page 4, and Fig. 1), and/or Risk et al. US 2016/0161456 (hereinafter, Risk), (Abstract, [0089]-[0090], Fig. 1), both show that obtaining first georeferenced data representative of amounts of first gas measured in the atmosphere by a first gas measuring sensor on a drone flying at a distance from the source along a trajectory, obtaining second georeferenced data representative of amounts of a second tracer gas emitted by the source together with the first gas, the second representative data being measured in the atmosphere a second gas measuring sensor on a drone flying at a distance from the source along the trajectory are nothing more than data collection activity for gathering parameters using a well-known conventional gas measuring sensors on a drone and activity previously known in the industry in order to execute an abstract idea, which does not further limit and integrate the abstract idea in practical application, and as such, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the combination of these additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A method to compute a flow of at least one first gas emitted by a source into the atmosphere, implemented by a computer, comprising:
obtaining first georeferenced data representative of amounts of first gas measured in the atmosphere by a first gas measuring sensor on a drone flying at a distance from the source along a trajectory,
obtaining second georeferenced data representative of amounts of a second tracer gas emitted by the source together with the first gas, the second representative data being measured in the atmosphere a second gas measuring sensor on a drone flying at a distance from the source along the trajectory;
calculating at least one coefficient of correlation between the amounts of the first gas and the amounts of the second gas using the first representative data and the second representative data;
obtaining a computed flow of the second gas emitted by the source;
computing a flow of the first gas emitted by the source using the computed flow of the second gas emitted by the source and the correlation coefficient,
wherein emissions of the first gas and second gas from the source result from a chemical reaction, the computed flow of the second gas being calculated from a material balance of the chemical reaction without using a measured flow of the second gas emitted by the source.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a computer, comprising: obtaining first georeferenced data representative of amounts of first gas measured in the atmosphere by a first gas measuring sensor on a drone flying at a distance from the source along a trajectory, obtaining second georeferenced data representative of amounts of a second tracer gas emitted by the source together with the first gas, the second representative data being measured in the atmosphere a second gas measuring sensor on a drone flying at a distance from the source along the trajectory. However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using sensors on a drone) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic measuring sensors.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as gathering or collection data using generic measuring sensors). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, McGonigle (see, [6], [7], Fig. 1(pages 1-2)), Pitt et al. (page 4 and Fig. 1), and/or Risk, (Abstract, [0089]-[0090], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10, and 11, 14, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9, recites addition element of “wherein the source is a flare…”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a source of a combustion) such that it amounts no more than a generic source of a combustion. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Risk, ([0232], [0243]). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12, recites addition element of “wherein the second gas is carbon dioxide”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a known gas) such that it amounts no more than a generic gas. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, McGonigle (page 1), and Pitt, (Abstract). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 13, recites addition element of “wherein the first gas is methane benzene, and/or a volatile organic compound”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a known gases) such that it amounts no more than a generic gas. Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, McGonigle (page 1), and Pitt, (Abstract). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 15, recites addition elements of “collecting first data representative of amounts of at least one first gas in the atmosphere at a distance from the source, by a drone along a trajectory; simultaneously collecting by the drone, second data representative of amounts of a second tracer gas emitted by the source together with the first gas, along the same trajectory; transferring the collected first and second representative data to a compute”. However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a drone) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, McGonigle, ([7], [10], Fig. 1 (page 2)), and Risk, ([0090]). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16, recites addition element of “…the drone being flown based on the predetermined plume configuration”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a drone) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, McGonigle, ([7], [10], Fig. 1 (page 2)), Pitt (Abstract), and Risk, ([0090]). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 17, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1 as explained above.
Dependent claims 18 and 20, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 15 as explained above.
Dependent claim 19, recites addition element of “wherein the first gas measuring sensor and the second gas measuring sensor are carried together on the drone”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using sensors) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, McGonigle, ([7], [10], Fig. 1 (page 2)), Pitt (Abstract and page 4), and Risk, ([0090]). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground rejection necessitate by applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
10. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112, first paragraph, as falling to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to mention or teach the computed flow of the second gas being calculated from a material balance of the chemical reaction without using a measured flow of the second gas emitted by the source as claimed in independent claims 1 and 17. Applicant cited paragraphs [0125]-[0130] for describing this feature. However, Examiner believes these paragraphs teach only measurements are carried out by a drone. Further, [0026] and [0145], only describe the computed flow of the second gas being calculated from a material balance of the chemical reaction. The applicant should explicitly explain how the specification support the claim limitation such as the computed flow of the second gas being calculated from a material balance of the chemical reaction without using a measured flow of the second gas emitted by the source.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
12. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGonigle et al., “Unmanned aerial vehicle measurements of volcanic carbon dioxide fluxes,” March 2008, cited in the IDS (hereinafter, McGonigle), in view of Pitt et al., “Novel Method to Constrain Regional Greenhouse Gas Fluxes using Aircraft Data”, 2016 (hereinafter, Pitt).
13. Regarding claim 1, McGonigle discloses a method to compute a flow of at least one first gas emitted by a source into the atmosphere, implemented by a computer, comprising:
obtaining first georeferenced data representative of amounts of first gas measured in the atmosphere by a first gas measuring sensor on a [UAV] flying at a distance from the source along a trajectory (pages 1-2, [1], [8], [10], Fig. 1: performing the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) remotely sensed…The results of these surveys are shown in Figure 3, detailing CO2 vs. SO2 concentrations for each measurement), wherein CO2 is interpreted as equivalent to a first gas. McGonigle discloses obtaining data using a UAV. McGonigle does not disclose obtaining data using a drone. However, obtaining data by a drone would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of McGonigle as disclosed above,
obtaining second georeferenced data representative of amounts of a second tracer gas emitted by the source together with the first gas, the second representative data being measured in the atmosphere by a second gas measuring sensor on the [UAV] flying at a distance from the source along the trajectory (pages 2-3, [7], [9], [10], Figs. 1, 3: performing the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) remotely sensed…SO2 concentration were determined);
calculating at least one coefficient of correlation between the amounts of the first gas and the amounts of the second gas using the first representative data and the second representative data (pages 2-3, [10], Fig. 3: CO2/SO2 concentration);
obtaining a computed flow of the second gas emitted by the source (page 2, [7], [9]: measuring SO2 flux);
computing a flow of the first gas emitted by the source using the computed flow of the second gas emitted by the source and the correlation coefficient (pages 1-2, [1], [5], [10]);
wherein emissions of the first gas and second gas from the source result from a chemical reaction (pages 1 and 3, [5], [11]: performing the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) remotely sensed… The methodology involves firstly traversing beneath the plume to spectroscopically determine the volcano’s SO2 flux, then flying into the plume to sample its CO2/SO2 ratio (see Figure 1); combining these data results in the CO2 flux…In addition, helicopter UAVs also show promise for other, e.g., thermal camera, volcanic measurements, for remote deployment of instrumentation on volcanoes, and for studies of the chemical evolution of volcanic plumes as they advect from source…, thereby improving our understanding of the impacts of these volatile upon the atmosphere and climate…[Further], [10], [13] and Fig. 3 (pages 2 and 3): The results of these surveys are shown in Figure 3, detailing CO2 vs. SO2 concentrations for each measurement. By computing the line of best fit to this plot, and accounting for uncertainty in this process, we estimate the bulk plume CO2/SO2 ratio at 30 ± 5, and therefore the CO2 flux….The capability to remotely monitor volcanic CO2 fluxes is significant, given the deep exsolution of this species, and its low solubility in hydrothermal systems; in these respects carbon dioxide data show far greater potential for eruption forecasting, that the SO2 fluxes currently monitored to this end);
the computed flow of the second gas being calculated from the chemical reaction (page 2, [7], [9], Fig. 1: spectrometer assembly for measuring SO2 fluxes… was traversed below the plume, capturing georeferenced spectra every 2s, from which overhead SO2 concentrations were determined, and integrated across a plane perpendicular to the plume transport vector. This integrated column amount was then multiplied by the plume transport speed.. to output the SO2 flux).
In summary, McGonigle discloses measurement of CO2 and SO2 concentration and determine the mean CO2/SO2 ratio from the gradient of the line of best fit to these data. In other words, the best fit line shows the concentration (accumulation) and relationship between CO2 and SO2 as explained above. The combination method of determining the ratio and finding the best representation of the overall trend between the concertation of CO2 and SO2 using the best fit line is used to analyze and compute the flow of the second gas being calculated from the material entering and leaving during a chemical reaction.
McGonigle does not disclose:
wherein the computed flow of the second gas being calculated from a material balance of the chemical reaction without using a measured flow of the second gas emitted by the source.
However, Pitt discloses:
wherein the computed flow of the second gas being calculated from a material balance of the chemical reaction without using a measured flow of the second gas emitted by the source (pages 2, 6, 11-12, sections 2.3 and 3.2: a case study of CO2, CH4 and CO net fluxes from the London conurbation and its neighbouring urban areas, relative to surrounding semi-rural areas…. mass balance (i.e., material balance) technique in the context of measuring urban GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions are provided by many sources… [Further], page 3: all sources of anthropogenic CO2 and CO emissions are associated with fuel combustion. For CO2, the main sources are domestic and commercial combustion and road transport. Emissions of CO are comprised of a range of combustion sources, with road transport emissions constituting the largest category).
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 modify the system of McGonigle to use wherein the computed flow of the second gas being calculated from a material balance of the chemical reaction without using a measured flow of the second gas emitted by the source as taught by Pitt. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the computing flow of gas from a material balance methodology of a gas emission measuring system as known in the art and as taught by Pitt in a gas concentration measuring system such as that of McGonigle, thereby determining emissions rate efficiently (Pitt, pages 2-3).
14. Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
15. Regarding claim 2, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 1 as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein the correlation coefficient is a constant, representative of a ratio between the amounts of the first gas along the trajectory and the amounts of the second gas along the trajectory (page 2, [10]).
16. Regarding claim 5, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein the trajectory comprises a plurality of lines ([5], [7], [9]-[10], and Fig.1: measurements of volcanic gases with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The data were collected with a helicopter UAV….distance traversed perpendicular to the plume transport direction). McGonigle does not disclose a plurality of parallel lines. However, having a trajectory of a parallel lines would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of McGonigle as disclosed above.
17. Regarding claim 8, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein the emissions of the first gas and second gas from the source result from a combustion, the computed flow of the second gas being calculated from a combustion balance ([1], [5], [7], [10], and Fig. 3).
18. Regarding claim 10, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein the second gas is a product of the chemical reaction using the first gas as reagent ([1], [10], and Figs. 1, 3). McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose the first gas being a residual reagent which has not reacted during implementation of the chemical reaction producing the second gas. However, the first gas being a residual reagent which has not reacted during implementation of the chemical reaction producing the second gas would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of McGonigle in view of Pitt as disclosed above.
19. Regarding claim 12, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein the gas is carbon dioxide ([1]). Further, Pitt discloses wherein the second gas is carbon dioxide (Abstract, page 2).
20. Regarding claim 13, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
McGonigle does not disclose:
wherein the first gas is methane, benzene and/or a volatile organic compound.
However, Pitt discloses:
wherein the first gas is methane, benzene and/or a volatile organic compound (Abstract, page 2).
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 modify the system of McGonigle to use wherein the first gas is methane, benzene and/or a volatile organic compound as taught by Pitt. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the computing flow methodology of a gas emission measuring system as known in the art and as taught by Pitt in a gas concentration measuring system such as that of McGonigle, thereby detecting of emissions for a different types of gases (Pitt, Abstract).
21. Regarding claim 15, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose a method for measuring emissions of a source into the atmosphere, comprising:
McGonigle further discloses collecting first data representative of amounts of at least one first gas in the atmosphere at a distance from the source, by a [unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)] along a trajectory (page 1, [1], [10], Fig. 1). McGonigle discloses collecting data by a unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as disclosed above. McGonigle does not disclose collecting data by a drone. However, collecting data by a drone would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of McGonigle in view of Pitt as disclosed above,
collecting by the [UVA], second data representative of amounts of a second tracer gas emitted by the source together with the first gas, along the same trajectory (pages 1-2, [1], [7], [8], Figs. 1, 3: We report the first measurements of volcanic gases
with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)… Two payload modules were used; the first of which was a 1.5 kg ultraviolet spectrometer assembly for measuring
SO2 fluxes… The second, Multi-GAS, payload module weighed 3 kg, and consisted of an Edinburgh Instruments Gascard II IR spectrometer, for CO2 concentration measurements (detection limit: 1 ppm; error: 2%), and an electrochemical
sensor (Membrapor, SO2-S-100; detection limit: 0.5 ppm; error: 2%) for SO2 concentrations…. [Further], [10], [12]: Our UAV was..off the shelf radio controlled model, which fared remarkably well in this context, given its non-purpose-build design; e.g., the flight performance was not diminished following exposure to the
acidic plume gases. This work opens the way for the implementation of scaled helicopters of larger fuel tanks (to allow _50 minutes flight time) and carrying capacity
(e.g., able to simultaneously porter both payload modules described here), petrol or turbine engines (providing enhanced performance at altitude), autonomous flight capability). Further, Pitt discloses figure 1 shows the flight track from an aerial perspective; between points A and B we flew repeated horizontal transects at various altitudes across the London emission plume (pages 4-5). McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose simultaneously collecting data by the drone. However, simultaneously collecting data by the drone would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of McGonigle in view of Pitt as disclosed above,
transferring the collected first and second representative data to a computer (page 2, [7], [10], Figs. 1, 3); the computer implementing the computing method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
22. Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 15.
23. Regarding claim 19, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein the first gas measuring sensor and the second gas measuring sensor are carried together on the [UAV] ([7]-[8], [12]). McGonigle discloses collecting data by a unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as disclosed above. Further, Pitt discloses figure 1 shows the flight track from an aerial perspective; between points A and B we flew repeated horizontal transects at various altitudes across the London emission plume (pages 4-5). McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose a drone. However, a drone would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of McGonigle in view of Pitt as disclosed above.
24. Regarding claim 20, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein obtaining the first georeferenced data representative of amounts of first gas measured in the atmosphere by a first gas measuring sensor on a [UAV] (page 1, [1], [8], [10], Fig. 1), McGonigle discloses obtaining data by a UAV as disclosed above. Further, Pitt discloses figure 1 shows the flight track from an aerial perspective; between points A and B we flew repeated horizontal transects at various altitudes across the London emission plume (pages 4-5). McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose a drone. However, a drone would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of McGonigle in view of Pitt as disclosed above,
and obtaining the second georeferenced data representative of amounts of a second tracer gas emitted by the source together with the first gas and measured in the atmosphere by a second gas measuring sensor on the [UAV] are carried out in the same flight of the drone (pages 1-2, [1], [7], [8], Figs. 1, 3: We report the first measurements of volcanic gases with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)… Two payload modules were used; the first of which was a 1.5 kg ultraviolet spectrometer assembly for measuring SO2 fluxes… The second, Multi-GAS, payload module weighed 3 kg, and consisted of an Edinburgh Instruments Gascard II IR spectrometer, for CO2 concentration measurements (detection limit: 1 ppm; error: 2%), and an electrochemical sensor (Membrapor, SO2-S-100; detection limit: 0.5 ppm; error: 2%) for SO2 concentrations…. [Further], [10], [12]: Our UAV was an...off the shelf radio controlled model, which fared remarkably well in this context, given its non-purpose-build design; e.g., the flight performance was not diminished following exposure to the acidic plume gases. This work opens the way for the implementation of scaled helicopters of larger fuel tanks (to allow _50 minutes flight time) and carrying capacity (e.g., able to simultaneously porter both payload modules described here), petrol or turbine engines (providing enhanced performance at altitude), autonomous flight capability). Further, Pitt discloses figure 1 shows the flight track from an aerial perspective; between points A and B we flew repeated horizontal transects at various altitudes across the London emission plume (pages 4-5). McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose measuring carried out simultaneously in the same flight of the drone. However, measuring carried out simultaneously in the same flight of the drone would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of McGonigle in view of Pitt as disclosed above.
25. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGonigle, in view of Pitt, in further view of Monster et al. “Quantifying methane emission from fugitive sources by combining tracer release and downwind measurements-A sensitivity analysis based on multiple field surveys”, April 2014 (hereinafter, Monster).
26. Regarding claim 3, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 2, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein the calculation of the correlation coefficient comprises the first representative data along at least part of the trajectory so as to obtain a first overall amount, the second representative data along at least a second part of the trajectory so as to obtain a second overall amount, the correlation coefficient being calculated from the first overall amount and the second overall amount (page 2, [7], [9]-[10], Fig. 3).
McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose:
integrating the first representative data along at least part of the trajectory so as to obtain a first integrated overall amount, integrating the second representative data along at least a second part of the trajectory so as to obtain a second integrated overall amount, the correlation coefficient being calculated from the first integrated overall amount and the second integrated overall amount.
However, Monster discloses:
integrating the first representative data along at least part of the trajectory so as to obtain a first integrated overall amount, integrating the second representative data along at least a second part of the trajectory so as to obtain a second integrated overall amount, the correlation coefficient being calculated from the first integrated overall amount and the second integrated overall amount (Abstract, page 1417, Equations 1, 2 and page 1422: using the ratio of the integrated plume concentrations of tracer gas and methane).
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 modify the system of McGonigle in view of Pitt to use integrating the first representative data along at least part of the trajectory so as to obtain a first integrated overall amount, integrating the second representative data along at least a second part of the trajectory so as to obtain a second integrated overall amount, the correlation coefficient being calculated from the first integrated overall amount and the second integrated overall amount as taught by Monster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the integrating methodology of gas emission measuring system as known in the art and as taught by Monster in a gas concentration measuring system such as that of McGonigle and Pitt, thereby determining the flow of gas accurately (Monster, Abstract).
27. Regarding claim 4, McGonigle in view of Pitt in view of Monster disclose the method according to claim 3, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses the first representative data over a plurality of parts of the trajectory so as to obtain a first overall amount corresponding to each part of the trajectory, then the second representative data over the same plurality of parts of the trajectory; for each part of the trajectory, calculating an amount ratio between the first overall amount and the second overall amount over the part of the trajectory, the correlation coefficient being calculated as the mean of the calculated amount ratios (pages 2-3, [7], [9]-[10], Fig. 3).
McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose:
integrating the first representative data over a plurality of parts of the trajectory so as to obtain a first integrated overall amount corresponding to each part of the trajectory, then integrating the second representative data over the same plurality of parts of the trajectory; for each part of the trajectory, calculating an amount ratio between the first integrated overall amount and the second integrated overall amount over the part of the trajectory.
However, Monster discloses:
integrating the first representative data over a plurality of parts of the trajectory so as to obtain a first integrated overall amount corresponding to each part of the trajectory, then integrating the second representative data over the same plurality of parts of the trajectory; for each part of the trajectory, calculating an amount ratio between the first integrated overall amount and the second integrated overall amount over the part of the trajectory (Abstract, page 1417, Equations 1, 2, and page 1422: using the ratio of the integrated plume concentrations of tracer gas and methane).
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 modify the system of McGonigle in view of Pitt to use integrating the first representative data over a plurality of parts of the trajectory so as to obtain a first integrated overall amount corresponding to each part of the trajectory, then integrating the second representative data over the same plurality of parts of the trajectory; for each part of the trajectory, calculating an amount ratio between the first integrated overall amount and the second integrated overall amount over the part of the trajectory as taught by Monster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the integrating methodology of gas emission measuring system as known in the art and as taught by Monster in a gas concentration measuring system such as that of McGonigle and Pitt, thereby determining the flow of gas accurately (Monster, Abstract).
28. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGonigle, in view of Pitt, in view of Galle et al. “Measurements of Methane Emissions from Landfills Using a Time Correlation Tracer Method Based on FTIR Absorption Spectroscopy” 2001, Cited in the IDS (hereinafter, Galle).
29. Regarding claim 6, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein the flow of the first gas emitted by the source is also computed using the ratio between the first gas and the second gas (page 2, [10], Fig. 3).
McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose:
wherein the flow of the first gas emitted by the source is also computed using the ratio between the molar mass of the first gas and the molar mass of the second gas.
However, Galle discloses:
“QM = QT . CM.MM/CT.MT” (page 21, 2nd col., Equation 1).
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 modify the system of McGonigle in view of Pitt to use wherein the flow of the first gas emitted by the source is also computed using the ratio between the molar mass of the first gas and the molar mass of the second gas as taught by Galle. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the computing flow methodology of a gas emission measuring system as known in the art and as taught by Galle in a gas concentration measuring system such as that of McGonigle and Pitt, thereby detecting of emissions rate based on molecular weights of the respective gases (Galle, page 21).
30. Regarding claim 14, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein the flow is computed using the correlation coefficient ([5], [10], and Fig. 3).
McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose:
wherein the flow is computed using the equation Q1=C×M1/M2×Q2, where C is the correlation coefficient, M1 the molar mass of the first gas, M2 the molar mass of the second gas, and Q2 the measured or computed flow of the second gas emitted by the source.
However, Galle discloses:
“QM = QT . CM.MM/CT.MT” (page 21, 2nd col., Equation 1).
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 modify the system of McGonigle in view of Pitt to use wherein the flow is computed using the equation Q1=C×M1/M2×Q2, where C is the correlation coefficient, M1 the molar mass of the first gas, M2 the molar mass of the second gas, and Q2 the measured or computed flow of the second gas emitted by the source as taught by Galle. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the computing flow methodology of a gas emission measuring system as known in the art and as taught by Galle in a gas concentration measuring system such as that of McGonigle in view of Pitt, thereby detecting of emissions rate based on molecular weights of the respective gases (Galle, page 21).
31. Claims 9, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGonigle, in view of Pitt, in view of Risk et al. US 2016/0161456 (hereinafter, Risk).
32. Regarding claim 9, McGonigle in view of Pitt disclose the method according to claim 8, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses emissions of the first gas and second gas from the source result from a combustion, and the gas being carbon dioxide ([1], [10], and Fig. 1).
McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose:
wherein the source is a flare implementing a combustion of a methane flow, the second gas being carbon dioxide produced by the combustion methane within the flare.
However, Risk discloses:
wherein the source is a flare implementing a combustion of a methane flow, the second gas being carbon dioxide produced by the combustion methane within the flare (Abstract, [0232], [0243]).
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 modify the system of McGonigle in view of Pitt to use wherein the source is a flare implementing a combustion of a methane flow, the second gas being carbon dioxide produced by the combustion methane within the flare as taught by Risk. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the flare implementing combustion methodology of gas emission measuring system as known in the art and as taught by Risk in a gas concentration measuring system such as that of McGonigle and Pitt, thereby detecting of gas emissions from different sources, such as a flare (Risk, [0002]).
33. Regarding claim 11, McGonigle in view of Pitt in view of Risk disclose the method according to claim 7, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses wherein the second gas is produced by the chemical reaction, the computed flow of the second gas being calculated using the [first] representative data ([1], [10], and Fig. 3).
McGonigle in view of Pitt does not disclose:
a third gas being produced together with the second gas by the chemical reaction, the method comprising obtaining third data representative of amounts of the third gas, the measured or computed flow of the second gas being calculated using the third representative data.
However, Risk discloses:
a third gas being produced together with the second gas by the chemical reaction, the method comprising obtaining third data representative of amounts of the third gas, the measured or computed flow of the second gas being calculated using the third representative data ([0238], [0232], [0240]).
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 modify the system of McGonigle in view of Pitt to use a third gas being produced together with the second gas by the chemical reaction, the method comprising obtaining third data representative of amounts of the third gas, the measured or computed flow of the second gas being calculated using the third representative data as taught by Risk. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the computing flow methodology of a third gas emission measuring system as known in the art and as taught by Risk in a gas concentration measuring system such as that of McGonigle and Pitt, thereby detecting of emissions for a plurality of gases (Risk, [0238]).
34. Regarding claim 16, McGonigle discloses the method according to claim 15, as disclosed above.
McGonigle further discloses hovering the helicopter 10-100m downwind of the crater rim ([1], [10], and Fig. 1).
McGonigle does not disclose:
preliminarily determining a wind direction and/or a configuration of an emission plume downstream of the source, the drone being flown based on the predetermined plume configuration.
However, Risk discloses:
preliminarily determining a wind direction and/or a configuration of an emission plume downstream of the source, the drone being flown based on the predetermined plume configuration ([0067]).
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 modify the system of McGonigle to use preliminarily determining a wind direction and/or a configuration of an emission plume downstream of the source, the drone being flown based on the predetermined plume configuration as taught by Risk. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the measuring wind direction methodology of gas emission measuring system as known in the art and as taught by Risk in a gas concentration measuring system such as that of McGonigle, thereby determining the location of the gas emission event based on the measured wind direction (Risk, [0067]).
Conclusion
35. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
36. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights