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, 14, 16, 17, and 19-25 are pending. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-25 are rejected herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection after the amendment, arguments, and Request for Continued Examination (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 22 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 16 and 17: These claims use the word “about” to describe values making them indefinite. Please note that no special definition of “about” was found in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13, 14, 16-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARMITAGE (US 20200232959) in view of NOTTROTT et al. (US 10962437).
Regarding claim 1: ARMITAGE discloses: A system for detecting and quantifying a methane leak 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 (pollution sensor 202 in FIG. 7 with other sensors such as a methane sensor as described in para. 80), a temperature sensor (260 in FIG. 16; para. 96), a relative humidity sensor (260 in FIG. 16; para. 96), a sensor for sensing ambient wind speed and wind direction variability (702 in FIG. 40; para. 135), 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, the relative humidity sensor (FIG. 15, 40), and the sensor for sensing ambient wind speed and wind direction variability (FIG. 15, 40; “The meteorological module 200, if provided, includes one or more sensors for monitoring environment [e.g. wind speed, direction, temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, rainfall, lighting, etc.]. The meteorological module 200 may be interfaced with the logic control system 190;” para. 82); a data server (420 in FIG. 32); a telemetry module 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 sensor for sensing ambient wind speed and wind direction variability, 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); wherein the data memory device is operably interfaced with the data server for storing sensor data (FIG. 15, 32; para. 109, 112); wherein the data server calculates a methane concentration 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 (para. 159)
ARMITAGE does not disclose that the data server estimates a methane leak rate for the methane leak with an atmospheric plume dispersion model based on the methane concentration, the ambient wind speed, and the wind direction variability.
NOTTROTT however does teach estimating a methane leak rate for the methane leak with an atmospheric plume dispersion model based on the methane concentration, the ambient wind speed, and the wind direction variability (Specific calculations for leak rate based on a plume model using concentration, wind speed, and wind direction are explicitly set forth in col. 28 lines 9-44.).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use plume calculations of NOTTROTT on the data of ARMITAGE because it helps to identify the amount of methane leaking from a source (606 in FIG. 27) based on the calculations as set forth in col. 28-29, which is important in determining how serious a leak is and what the environmental impact is.
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 methane sensor is a metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) sensor (para. 84, 114, 143) or an electrochemical cell (ECC) sensor (para. 84).
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: 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 a methane leak 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); sensing an ambient wind speed and a wind direction variability (with wind sensor 702 in FIG. 40; para. 135) saving methane sensor data, temperature sensor data, relative humidity sensor data, the ambient wind speed, and the wind speed direction variability to a data memory device (para. 100, 156; part of logic controller 190 in FIG. 15); transmitting the methane sensor data, the temperature sensor data, the relative humidity sensor data, the ambient wind speed, and the wind direction variability 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, and the relative humidity sensor data (para. 159).
ARMITAGE does not disclose estimating a methane leak rate for the methane leak with an atmospheric plume dispersion model based on the methane concentration, the ambient wind speed, and the wind direction variability.
NOTTROTT however does teach estimating a methane leak rate for the methane leak with an atmospheric plume dispersion model based on the methane concentration, the ambient wind speed, and the wind direction variability (Specific calculations for leak rate based on a plume model using concentration, wind speed, and wind direction are explicitly set forth in col. 28 lines 9-44.).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use plume calculations of NOTTROTT on the data of ARMITAGE because it helps to identify the amount of methane leaking from a source (606 in FIG. 27) based on the calculations as set forth in col. 28-29, which is important in determining how serious a leak is and what the environmental impact is.
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 16: 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).
Regarding claims 17 and 19: ARMITAGE discloses: ambient wind speed data 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 determining a threshold for wind speed or when a 15-minute-average wind-direction variability exceeds a second threshold (col. 12 line 63-col. 13 line 14), and determining values are unreliable if they are below a predetermined threshold (col. 36 lines 13-33), such as a wind speed threshold of <.2 mph, and excluding data under these conditions (col. 43 line 57-col. 44 line 4), 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: 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, 114), a temperature sensor (260 in FIG. 16; para. 89), a relative humidity sensor (260 in FIG. 16; para. 89).
Regarding claim 21: 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: In determining the leak rate as described in the rejection of claim 13, NOTTROTT teaches deriving a ±15-minute-averaged methane leak rate (col. 31 lines 15-40) using the ambient wind speed, the wind direction variability, and derived atmospheric stability parameters (col. 10 lines 1-26); and generating an overhead representation of facility component locations, detector box locations, and a calculated upwind footprint for the methane leak (as shown in FIG. 4).
Please note that NOTTROTT teaches a ±15-minute time window in col. 25 lines 1-26 which is a 30 minute average instead of a 15 minute average. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that time window for averaging would affect how much the average accounts for variability while still maintaining the accuracy of the data.
The specific claimed time window, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” time window disclosed by NOTTROTT 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 accuracy of the output based on the accuracy of the model used, processing resources, 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 time window is used, as already suggested by NOTTROTT (“the span of time used to calculate the normalization is chosen to be large enough that individual leak signatures do not significantly impact the result, but reflect the time-scale over which significant changes in atmospheric variability take place” in col. 25 lines 1-26).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the time window stated and since these ranges 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 invention of ARMITAGE as modified by NOTTROTT.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed time window 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).
Regarding claim 23: ARMITAGE discloses: a temperature dependence of a methane sensor is removed by multiplying the sensed temperature by a calibration coefficient to obtain a resulting value, subtracting the resulting value from raw output voltage of the methane sensor to obtain a corrected output voltage, and using the corrected output voltage to calculate the methane concentration (offset in para. 159).
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.).
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) 24 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.
Response to Amendment/Argument
The Applicant has argued (pages 2-3 of the Response) that ARMITAGE does not teach all of the limitations of the independent claims and cannot therefore be the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. The Examiner agrees with this statement and NOTTROTT has been incorporated into the rejection of the independent claims to address the added limitations.
The Applicant has argued (pages 5-6 of the Response) that claim 19 is not obvious based on the combination of ARMITAGE and NOTTROTT. Specifically, the Applicant has argued that NOTTROTT does not teach that “the data server estimates a methane leak rate for the methane leak with an atmospheric plume dispersion model based on the methane concentration, the ambient wind speed, and the wind direction variability.” This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. This argument has bearing on the current claim set because the previous limitations of claim 19 have been incorporated into the independent claims and are the basis for the Applicant’s assertion of patentability. However NOTTROTT clearly teaches this limitation as set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 13 above. NOTTROTT teaches that “a physical model is employed that relates the measured gas concentration peak at the location of the vehicle 24 (in ppm, for example) to the emission rate of the potential gas leak source (in g/sec, for example) and the distance between the source and the detection point” (col. 9 lines 34-46). Different specific ways of determining leak rate are discussed in col. 24 line 41-col. 25 line 14. Statistical treatment of possible leak rates is discussed in col. 25 line 47-col. 6 line 61. Specific calculations for leak rate based on a plume model using concentration, wind speed, and wind direction are explicitly set forth in col. 28 lines 9-44.
Conclusion
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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 2855
Prosecution Insights