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 .
Summary
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-17, and 19-25 are pending. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-17, and 19-25 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 29 Dec 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-15, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by ARMITAGE (US 20200232959).
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, ARMITAGE discloses: A system for detecting and quantifying methane in an ambient atmosphere (FIG. 40; para. 69), the system comprising: a detector (FIG. 40) comprising a housing (outside of unit 670), a methane sensor (202 in FIG. 7 with other sensors such as methane sensors as described in para. 80), a temperature sensor (260 in FIG. 16; para. 96), a relative humidity sensor (260 in FIG. 16; para. 96), and a data memory device (para. 100, 156; part of logic controller 190 in FIG. 15) operably interfaced with the methane sensor (FIG. 15, 40); the temperature sensor, and the relative humidity sensor (FIG. 15, 40); a data server (420 in FIG. 32); a telemetry module (204 in FIG. 15) adapted to establish a connection between the detector and the data server (through communications tower 422) and communicate sensed data to the data server (para. 109); a power source (196 in FIG. 15) operably interfaced with the methane sensor, the temperature sensor, the relative humidity sensor, the data memory device, and the telemetry module (FIG. 15; and an energy storage device (198 in FIG. 15) operably interfaced with the power source (FIG. 15); wherein the telemetry module is operably interfaced with the data server and the data memory device (FIG. 15); the data memory device is operably interfaced with the data server for storing sensor data (FIG. 15, 32; para. 109, 112); and methane concentration is calculated using data from the methane sensor (para. 159), stored calibration coefficients (para. 159), and at least one of data from the temperature sensor (para. 159) or data from the relative humidity sensor (para. 159), and wherein the methane sensor is a metal semiconductor (MOS) sensor (para. 84, 114, 143) or an electrochemical cell (ECC) sensor (para. 84).
Regarding claim 2: ARMITAGE discloses: the detector further comprises one or more of a carbon monoxide sensor, a hydrogen sulfide sensor (para. 80), or a total volatile organic compounds sensor (para. 83, 89) operably interfaced with the data memory device and with the power source.
Regarding claim 3: ARMITAGE discloses: the detector further comprises a sensor capable of sensing wind speed and wind direction operably interfaced with the data memory device and with the power source (702 in FIG. 40; para. 135).
Regarding claim 6: ARMITGAGE discloses: the data server is a cloud-based data server (para. 143).
Regarding claim 7: ARMITAGE discloses: the power source comprises a renewable power source deriving energy from solar (solar panel 140 in FIG. 3; para. 74) or wind .
Regarding claim 8: As best understood, ARMITAGE discloses: the renewable power source comprises a photovoltaic cell (140 in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 9: ARMITAGE discloses: the energy storage device comprises a battery (para. 74).
Regarding claim 10: ARMITAGE discloses: two or more detectors (102, 104, 106, 108 in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 13: ARMITAGE discloses: A method for detecting and quantifying methane in an ambient atmosphere (FIG. 40;para. 69), the method comprising: sensing methane (202 in FIG. 7 with other sensors such as methane sensors as described in para. 80) in the ambient atmosphere using a metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) sensor (para. 84, 114, 143) or an electrochemical cell (ECC) sensor (para. 84); sensing temperature of the ambient atmosphere using a temperature sensor (260 in FIG. 16; para. 96); sensing relative humidity of the ambient atmosphere using a relative humidity sensor (260 in FIG. 16; para. 96); saving the methane sensor data, the temperature sensor data, and the relative humidity sensor data to a data memory device (para. 100, 156; part of logic controller 190 in FIG. 15); transmitting the sensor data from the data memory device to a data server via cellular or wireless communication (para. 109); and calculating methane concentration using the methane sensor data, stored calibration coefficients, and at least one of the temperature sensor data, or the relative humidity sensor data (para. 159).
Regarding claim 14: ARMITAGE discloses: sensing one or more of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide (para. 80), or total volatile organic compounds (para. 83, 89) in the ambient atmosphere using MOS or ECC sensors (para. 84, 114, 143).
Regarding claim 15: ARMITAGE discloses: sensing ambient wind speed and wind direction (with 702 in FIG. 40; para. 135).
Regarding claim 23: ARMITAGE discloses: the temperature dependence of the methane sensor is removed by multiplying the sensed temperature by a calibration coefficient, subtracting the resulting value from the methane sensor raw output voltage, and using the corrected output voltage to calculate the methane concentration (offset in para. 159).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARMITAGE in view of SCOTT et al. (US 20220091026).
Regarding claim 4: As best understood, ARMITAGE does not disclose that the wind sensor is an ultrasonic sensor.
SCOTT however does teach an ultrasonic wind sensor (para. 386) on their air quality monitoring system (abstract) that also detects methane concentration (para. 387).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the ultrasonic wind sensor of SCOTT as the wind sensor of ARMITAGE because it has less moving parts than other types of wind sensors, and will therefore be less susceptible to mechanical failure.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARMITAGE.
Regarding claim 16: As best understood, ARMITAGE teaches most aspects of the instant invention. However, ARMITAGE does not explicitly teach a sampling rate of 1-50 times per second. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the rate at which measurements are taken would determine how precise the data is as well the type of hardware required to process the sensor output.
The specific claimed rate, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” rate disclosed by ARMITAGE that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired granularity of the data, available processing and storage hardware, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the rate is used, as already suggested by ARMITAGE.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the rate stated and since such rate are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of ARMITAGE.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed rate or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 17 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARMITAGE in view of NOTTROTT et al. (US 10,962,437).
Regarding claims 17 and 19: As best understood, ARMITAGE discloses: ambient wind speed and wind direction data are collected about once per second (This limitation is obvious as discussed in the rejection of claim 16.), and wind speed and direction are calculated and transmitted every one to 15 minutes to the data server (para. 146).
ARMITAGE does not disclose that the wind data is averaged or that standard deviations are taken.
NOTTROTT however does teach averaging wind data and taking the standard deviation (col. 8 lines 18-51; col. 11 line 59-col. 12 line 5). NOTTROTT also teaches using a plume dispersion model (col. 9 lines 47-67), thus meeting the limitations of claim 19.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the average and standard deviation calculations of NOTTROTT on the data of ARMITAGE because it helps to identify the source of a methane leak (col. 8 lines 52-67 of NOTTROTT).
Regarding claim 20: As best understood, ARMITAGE discloses: two or more sets of sensors (102, 104, 106, 108 in FIG. 1.) having a known location (para. 7-8) are used, each set comprising a metal- semiconductor (para. 84, 114), a temperature sensor (260 in FIG. 16; para. 89), a relative humidity sensor (260 in FIG. 16; para. 89).
Regarding claim 21: As best understood, ARMITAGE discloses: three or more sets of sensors (102, 104, 106, 108 in FIG. 1.) having a known location (para. 7-8) are used.
Regarding claim 22: As best understood, ARMITAGE discloses: one of the sets of sensors further comprises a sensor to detect wind speed and wind direction (702 in FIG. 40; para. 135).
Claim(s) 17 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARMITAGE in view of STAMBAUGH (US 20190137391).
Regarding claim 24: 24. ARMITAGE discloses two or more sets of sensors (102, 104, 106, 108 in FIG. 1) having a known location (para. 7-8) are used, each set comprising a metal-oxide semiconductor (para. 84), a temperature sensor (para. 96), and a relative humidity sensor (para. 96)
ARMITAGE discloses sensing many different gases (para. 80) but does not specify carbon monoxide.
STAMBAUGH however does specify detecting carbon monoxide (para. 18-19).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to sense carbon monoxide with the invention of ARMITAGE because it is a dangerous gas.
Regarding claim 25: ARMITAGE discloses: the methane concentration is calculated continuously (Monitoring for fugitive emissions as discussed in para. 69 means that methane is calculated and monitored continuously.).
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are acknowledged and said rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (page 8 of the Response) that ARMITAGE does not disclose calibration coefficients that compensate for drift over time, therefore claims 1, 3, 8, and 15 are novel over ARMITAGE. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. There is no language in the claims that pertain to sensor drift. Claim 1 only recites “methane concentration is calculated using data from the methane sensor, stored calibration coefficients, and at least one of data from the temperature sensor or data from the relative humidity sensor.” It is inherent that using temperature and humidity sensor data to adjust methane sensor data will require calibration coefficients. These are the stored numbers/function/algorithm that convert a particular temperature or humidity measurement to a particular adjustment to the methane sensor data. Therefore the adjustment algorithm in para. 159 of ARMITAGE cited by the Applicant meets this limitation. See also, “calibration constants” in para. 98 of ARMITAGE. Furthermore, the specification of the current application is completely silent as to any calibration coefficients being used to compensate for sensor drift. Calibration is mentioned ten times in the specification (para. 5, 17, 23, 32, 35, 50, 51, 57, 64, and 74 of the specification as published). Sensor drift is not mentioned in any of them, and almost every time that a specific reason is given for the calibration, it explicitly states that it is to compensate for temperature and humidity. This is explicit in claim 23 which states that the calibration coefficient is used for temperature compensation. Therefore, the Applicant’s assertion that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that metal oxide sensors in addition to being sensitive to changes in temperature and humidity also have signal drift over time” is unpersuasive. Furthermore, AMITAGE actually does discuss sensor drift. Para. 157 of ARMITAGE states that large quantities of data can be used to identify when sensors have drifted out of calibration. Then para. 164 states that this data science may be used to “facilitate remote re-calibration of various components.” Furthermore, if “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that metal oxide sensors…drift over time when they are continuously deployed in the environment” (page 8 of the Response), then again, ARMITAGE meets this limitation since ARMITAGE discloses metal oxide sensors in para. 84. 114.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896