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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 22, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 101 rejection and claim objections set forth in the previous Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection using references applied in the prior rejection of record and teaching from Wiklund et al (US PN 10704945) as per rejection below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umay et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0269842 A1) in view of Wiklund et al (US PN 10704945) and further in view Brownscombe et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0295647 .
Regarding Claim 1:
Umay et al. teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: determining, by one or more hardware processors, a flow rate of an emission source in a hydrocarbon production (Paragraph [0035], sensor can measure flow rate)
determining, by the one or more hardware processors, a rate of formation of one or more emission components…; (Paragraph [0017]-[0019], sensor records emissions factors which are greenhouse gas emissions)
determining, by the one or more hardware processors, a prediction indicator tag for the emission source; (Paragraph [0021] and [0023], virtual sensor data is calculated, virtual sensor data can be greenhouse gas emissions from particular sources)
outputting, by the one or more hardware processors, the prediction indicator tag in a user interface; (Paragraph [0024], virtual sensor readouts can be sent to user interface)
and adjusting, by the one or more hardware processors, the hydrocarbon production based on the prediction indicator tag. (Paragraph [0036], hardware control operations can be determined based on greenhouse gas emissions estimate)
Umay et al. does not teach determining ..a flow rate of an emission source.. by converting molar volume to mass flow for each emission component determining, by the one or more hardware processors, a rate of formation of one or more emission components based on a number of moles of carbon for a respective hydrocarbon relative to a combustion efficiency.
However, Wiklund discloses paragraphs col.4, lines 18-67 “discloses flow calculation with saturated water vapor present …users are even assessed fines for amount of the components releases to the atmosphere. Thus, there is a desire to account for the water vapor and reduce the amount of the other components that must be reported. The reporting is generally done in units of lbm/day of these components.” Col. 6, lines 42-57 discloses:
This invention can be implemented using, for example, a configuration software application to compute the curve fit coefficients for the calculation of the gas mixture compressibility factor and molar mass term as a function of pressure and temperature. The fact that the flow calculation requires the square root of density, the parameter to curve fit is:
In Equation 17 the term M.sub.r is the molar mass of the gas mixture and changes as a function of pressure and temperature. The Z term is the compressibility factor which is a function of gas composition, pressure and temperature.
Brownscombe et al. teaches determining, by the one or more hardware processors, a rate of formation of one or more emission components based on a number of moles of carbon for a respective hydrocarbon relative to a combustion efficiency. (Paragraph [0165]-[0166] and [0314] moles of carbon dioxide and other emissions can be determined using the moles of carbon in the feed and moles of carbon in the produced hydrocarbon)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umay et al.’s virtual sensor with Wiklund’s teaching of converting molar volume to mass flow for each emission component to determine the rate of emission. One would be motivated to combine these teaching in order to measure process correlated to flow of the process fluid accounting for water vapor content. See Wiklund col. 2, lines 30-51
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umay et al.’s virtual sensor with Brownscombe et al.’s chemistry of hydrocarbon production in order to determine the emissions generated by a process using the chemistry of the process. One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply a known technique (chemistry of hydrocarbon production) to a known device (virtual sensor for estimating emissions) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (determine the emissions generated by a process using the chemistry of the process)
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Umay et al., Wiklund et al and Brownscombe et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: grouping the flow rate into different categories. (Umay et al. Paragraph [0019], emission factors can be grouped into different scopes)
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Umay et al., Wiklund et al and Brownscombe et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the rate of formation of one or more emission components comprises determining hourly flaring emissions for sulfuric dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). (Umay et al. Paragraph [0023], greenhouse gas emissions can be computed for carbon dioxide, methane, etc.)
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Umay et al., Wiklund et al and Brownscombe et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the hourly flaring emissions for SO2 and CO2 are determined based on combustion stoichiometric coefficients. (Umay et al. Paragraph [0021], each virtual sensor has a model and each model has parameters that are used to weight the emissions factors)
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Umay et al., Wiklund et al and Brownscombe et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the hourly flaring emissions for NO2 and CH4 are determined based on American Petroleum Institute (API) Compendium emission methodologies. (Umay et al. Paragraph [0039], virtual sensor models may include para meters configured by a standards-setting organization)
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Umay et al., Wiklund et al and Brownscombe et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface comprises a chart comprising a contribution of each emissions category. (Umay et al. Paragraph [0024], virtual sensor readouts can be sent to user interface; Additionally, Fig. 3 shows graphs of emissions)
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Umay et al., Wiklund et al and Brownscombe et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the hydrocarbon production based on the prediction indicator tag comprises adjusting pressure control valves, flow control valves, or level control valves. (Umay et al. Paragraph [0035]-[0036], industrial hardware control operation can be based on the virtual sensor readings)
Regarding Claims 8-14:
Claims 8-14 are the device of claims 1-7 and are thus rejected under the same rational as cited above.
Regarding Claims 15-20:
Claims 15-20 are the computer-readable medium of claims 1-6 and are thus rejected under the same rational as cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMINI S SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2279. The examiner can normally be reached 8PM-5PM EST M-F.
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, John Cottingham can be reached on 571-272-1400. 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.
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights