DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 09/12/2025 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1, 6 and 11 has been amended and claims 3, 8 and 13: cancelled
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-2, 4-7, 9-12 and 14-17 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claim 6-12 and 14-17 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); each of claims 1-2 and 4-5 fall within category of process.
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 4-5
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of validating physical flare flowmeter readings..
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A computer-implemented method for validating physical flare flowmeter readings using virtual flare flowmeter predictions, the method comprising:
receiving physical gas flare flow measurement data from a physical flare flowmeter coupled upstream from a flare stack;
receiving predicted gas flare flow measurement data from a virtual flare flowmeter,
wherein the predicted gas flare flow measurement data is generated by one or more predictive models;
calculating a quantitative deviation value between the physical gas flare flow measurement data and the predicted gas flare flow measurement data; and
responsive to determining that the quantitative deviation value is greater than or equal to a threshold deviation value;
receiving, from an imaging device, a first image set of a gas flare from a first time period and a second image set of the gas flare from a second time period earlier than the first time period;
calculating a magnitude of change between the first image set and the second image set based on an aggregation of differences between pixel values of the first image set and the second image set: and responsive to determining that the magnitude of change is greater than or equal to a threshold image deviation magnitude, indicating that the imaging device is faulty:
determining that the physical gas flare flow measurement data is accurate;
and issuing a maintenance ticket for the virtual flare flowmeter..
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “calculating a quantitative deviation [..];calculating a magnitude of change [..] ” are mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
For example, the limitations “determining that the quantitative deviation [..]; quantitative deviation values less than a threshold deviation value, determining [..];determining that the physical gas flare flow measurement data is accurate; issuing a maintenance ticket for the virtual flare flowmeter” is mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2).
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “receiving physical gas flare flow measurement data from a physical flare flowmeter coupled upstream from a flare stack” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “receiving predicted gas flare flow measurement data from a virtual flare flowmeter, wherein the predicted gas flare flow measurement data is generated by one or more predictive models; ” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The 3rd additional element is “receiving, from an imaging device, a first image set of a gas flare from a first time period and a second image set of the gas flare from a second time period earlier than the first time period” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In view of the above three, the “additional elements” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic computer with generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 is an additional element that is, i.e. “a physical flare flowmeter coupled upstream from a flare stack”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2 and 4
Dependent claims 2 and 4 fails to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2 and 4-5 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claim 2 are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering).
For example, the limitations of Claim 4 are mental steps.
Claims 6--7, 9, 11-12 and 14, 16-17
Claims 6--7, 9, 11-12 and 14, 16-17 contains language similar to claims 1-2 and 4 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above. Furthermore, regarding claims 16-17:Calims limtaions to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent Claims 5, 10 and 15
Claims contain a language which are patent eligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12 and 14-17, specifically claims 1, 6 and 11, there is no prior art rejection, however claims 1, 6 and 11 are allowable if overcome current 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of claim 1 is allowable because the closest prior art (see attached PTO-892) fails to disclose or render obvious the limitations of “ for quantitative deviation values greater than or equal to the threshold deviation value: receiving a first image set of a gas flare from a first time period from an imaging device; receiving a second image set of the gas flare from a second time period earlier than the first time period; comparing the first image set and the second image set; determining, from comparing the first image set and the second image set, a magnitude of change between the first image set and the second image set; and for a magnitude of change between the first image set and the second image set greater than or equal to a threshold image deviation magnitude: determining that the imaging device is faulty”
Regarding Interview, the Examiner tried to contact with undersigned attorney to solve the 101 issues. No response was received.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it., see pages 8-13.
The Applicant argus that “The Office asserts that the limitation of "determining a quantitative deviation value between the physical gas flare flow measurement data and the predicted gas flare flow measurement data" represents a mental step. However, when the claim is considered as a whole, this calculation is not a mental process; As shown, the claimed method provides a practical application of generating accurate gas flare flow measurements and initiating maintenance actions of the VFF or PFF when malfunctions are identified, thereby improving the technical field of gas flare monitoring.”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because current amended claim limitations above represent a combination of a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. For example, the limitations “calculating a quantitative deviation [..];calculating a magnitude of change [..] ” are mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2). For example, the limitations “determining that the quantitative deviation [..]; quantitative deviation values less than a threshold deviation value, determining [..];determining that the physical gas flare flow measurement data is accurate; issuing a maintenance ticket for the virtual flare flowmeter” is mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Step 2A – Prong 2: Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, additional first element is “receiving physical gas flare flow measurement data from a physical flare flowmeter coupled upstream from a flare stack” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).The 2nd additional element is “receiving predicted gas flare flow measurement data from a virtual flare flowmeter, wherein the predicted gas flare flow measurement data is generated by one or more predictive models; ” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The 3rd additional element is “receiving, from an imaging device, a first image set of a gas flare from a first time period and a second image set of the gas flare from a second time period earlier than the first time period” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In view of the above three, the “additional elements” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic computer with generic system with extra solution activity. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Step 2B: Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 is an additional element that is, i.e. “a physical flare flowmeter coupled upstream from a flare stack”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)). The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II); As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 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 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857