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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: various modules and determining units in claims 5-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method for predicting a diffusion range of a hazardous gas, comprising: gridding a space area of a public scene to obtain a gridded space; performing a leakage source analysis according to the gridded space to determine a leakage feature; determining a hazardous gas prediction manner according to the leakage feature and an early warning condition, wherein the hazardous gas prediction manner includes a hazardous gas existence mode and a protective gas coexistence mode; determining a diffusion circle coverage according to the hazardous gas prediction manner and a wall barrier action; determining a hazardous gas concentration in grids covered by a diffusion circle according to the diffusion circle coverage; and determining a hazardous gas distribution according to the hazardous gas concentration, a leakage outlet and a ventilation opening,
Claim 5 recites a system for predicting a diffusion range of a hazardous gas, comprising: a gridding module configured to grid a space area of a public scene to obtain a gridded space; a leakage source analyzing module configured to perform leakage source analysis according to the gridded space to determine a leakage feature; a hazardous gas prediction manner determining module configured to determine a hazardous gas prediction manner according to the leakage feature and an early warning condition, wherein the hazardous gas prediction manner comprises a hazardous gas existence mode and a protective gas coexistence mode; a diffusion circle coverage determining module configured to determine a diffusion circle coverage according to the hazardous gas prediction manner and a wall barrier action; a hazardous gas concentration determining module configured to determine a hazardous gas concentration in grids covered by the diffusion circle according to the diffusion circle coverage; and a gas distribution determining module configured to determine a hazardous gas distribution according to the hazardous gas concentration, a leakage outlet and a ventilation opening,
Claim 9 recites an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a storage device storing one or more programs thereon; wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors for: gridding a space area of a public scene to obtain a gridded space; performing a leakage source analysis according to the gridded space to determine a leakage feature; determining a hazardous gas prediction manner according to the leakage feature and an early warning condition, wherein the hazardous gas prediction manner includes a hazardous gas existence mode and a protective gas coexistence mode; determining a diffusion circle coverage according to the hazardous gas prediction manner and a wall barrier action; determining a hazardous gas concentration in grids covered by a diffusion circle according to the diffusion circle coverage; and determining a hazardous gas distribution according to the hazardous gas concentration, a leakage outlet and a ventilation opening…
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory, computer readable medium having computer program instructions tangibly stored on the computer readable medium, wherein the computer readable instructions are executable by a processor to perform a method, the method comprising: gridding a space area of a public scene to obtain a gridded space; performing a leakage source analysis according to the gridded space to determine a leakage feature; determining a hazardous gas prediction manner according to the leakage feature and an early warning condition, wherein the hazardous gas prediction manner comprises includes a hazardous gas existence mode and a protective gas coexistence mode; determining a diffusion circle coverage according to the hazardous gas prediction manner and a wall barrier action; determining a hazardous gas concentration in grids covered by a diffusion circle according to the diffusion circle coverage; and determining a hazardous gas distribution according to the hazardous gas concentration, a leakage outlet and a ventilation opening.…
and thus grouped as Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claims 1, 5, 9 and 13) “gridding a space area of a public scene to obtain a gridded space” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements (claims 5, 9 and 13) the “modules, one or more processors and executable by a processor” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see “Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4/ Monday, January 7, 2019 / Notices” – page 55, second column).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the data gathering steps are mere data collect steps which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the modules, one or more processors and executable by a processor are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nottrott et al. [US Patent Number 10,962,437 B1; hereinafter “Nottrott”].
Regarding claim 1, Nottrott teaches a method for predicting a diffusion range of a hazardous gas (leak indication search area (LISA) indicators – figure 32 – C40L3-28), comprising:
gridding a space area of a public scene to obtain a gridded space (survey includes multiple measurement runs performed along a common path and/or in a common area - C40L3-28);
performing a leakage source analysis according to the gridded space to determine a leakage feature (spatial aggregation of quality controlled leak detections is performed using machine learning and data mining techniques, e.g. clustering - C40L3-28);
determining a hazardous gas prediction manner according to the leakage feature and an early warning condition, wherein the hazardous gas prediction manner includes a hazardous gas existence mode and a protective gas coexistence mode (statistical analysis of spatial concentration profiles and wind data is performed for the aggregated group of leak detections - C40L3-28);
determining a diffusion circle coverage according to the hazardous gas prediction manner and a wall barrier action (figure 33-D, collection for leak detection instances … slightly larger circles … slightly smaller circles – C40L48-60);
determining a hazardous gas concentration in grids covered by a diffusion circle according to the diffusion circle coverage (spatial variability of gas concentrations - C39L30-39) (figures 33-A to 33-H show gas concentrations and gas distributions – C40L29 – C42L26); and
determining a hazardous gas distribution according to the hazardous gas concentration, a leakage outlet and a ventilation opening (methane and ethane concentration during a plume detection are used to calculate the distribution of ethane/methane ratio values for each indication – C43L33-37) (figures 33-A to 33-H show gas concentrations and gas distributions – C40L29 – C42L26).
Regarding claim 5, Nottrott teaches a system for predicting a diffusion range of a hazardous gas, comprising:
a gridding module configured to grid a space area of a public scene to obtain a gridded space (survey includes multiple measurement runs performed along a common path and/or in a common area - C40L3-28);
a leakage source analyzing module configured to perform leakage source analysis according to the gridded space to determine a leakage feature (spatial aggregation of quality controlled leak detections is performed using machine learning and data mining techniques, e.g. clustering - C40L3-28);
a hazardous gas prediction manner determining module configured to determine a hazardous gas prediction manner according to the leakage feature and an early warning condition, wherein the hazardous gas prediction manner comprises a hazardous gas existence mode and a protective gas coexistence mode (statistical analysis of spatial concentration profiles and wind data is performed for the aggregated group of leak detections - C40L3-28);
a diffusion circle coverage determining module configured to determine a diffusion circle coverage according to the hazardous gas prediction manner and a wall barrier action (figure 33-D, collection for leak detection instances … slightly larger circles … slightly smaller circles – C40L48-60);
a hazardous gas concentration determining module configured to determine a hazardous gas concentration in grids covered by the diffusion circle according to the diffusion circle coverage (spatial variability of gas concentrations - C39L30-39) (figures 33-A to 33-H show gas concentrations and gas distributions – C40L29 – C42L26); and
a gas distribution determining module configured to determine a hazardous gas distribution according to the hazardous gas concentration, a leakage outlet and a ventilation opening (methane and ethane concentration during a plume detection are used to calculate the distribution of ethane/methane ratio values for each indication – C43L33-37) (figures 33-A to 33-H show gas concentrations and gas distributions – C40L29 – C42L26).
Regarding claim 9, Nottrott teaches an electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors; and a storage device storing one or more programs thereon; wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors for:
gridding a space area of a public scene to obtain a gridded space (survey includes multiple measurement runs performed along a common path and/or in a common area - C40L3-28);
performing a leakage source analysis according to the gridded space to determine a leakage feature (spatial aggregation of quality controlled leak detections is performed using machine learning and data mining techniques, e.g. clustering - C40L3-28);
determining a hazardous gas prediction manner according to the leakage feature and an early warning condition, wherein the hazardous gas prediction manner includes a hazardous gas existence mode and a protective gas coexistence mode (statistical analysis of spatial concentration profiles and wind data is performed for the aggregated group of leak detections - C40L3-28);
determining a diffusion circle coverage according to the hazardous gas prediction manner and a wall barrier action (figure 33-D, collection for leak detection instances … slightly larger circles … slightly smaller circles – C40L48-60);
determining a hazardous gas concentration in grids covered by a diffusion circle according to the diffusion circle coverage (spatial variability of gas concentrations - C39L30-39) (figures 33-A to 33-H show gas concentrations and gas distributions – C40L29 – C42L26); and
determining a hazardous gas distribution according to the hazardous gas concentration, a leakage outlet and a ventilation opening (methane and ethane concentration during a plume detection are used to calculate the distribution of ethane/methane ratio values for each indication – C43L33-37) (figures 33-A to 33-H show gas concentrations and gas distributions – C40L29 – C42L26).
Regarding claim 13, Nottrott teaches a non-transitory, computer readable medium having computer program instructions tangibly stored on the computer readable medium, wherein the computer readable instructions are executable by a processor to perform a method, the method comprising:
gridding a space area of a public scene to obtain a gridded space (survey includes multiple measurement runs performed along a common path and/or in a common area - C40L3-28);
performing a leakage source analysis according to the gridded space to determine a leakage feature (spatial aggregation of quality controlled leak detections is performed using machine learning and data mining techniques, e.g. clustering - C40L3-28);
determining a hazardous gas prediction manner according to the leakage feature and an early warning condition, wherein the hazardous gas prediction manner includes a hazardous gas existence mode and a protective gas coexistence mode (statistical analysis of spatial concentration profiles and wind data is performed for the aggregated group of leak detections - C40L3-28);
determining a diffusion circle coverage according to the hazardous gas prediction manner and a wall barrier action (figure 33-D, collection for leak detection instances … slightly larger circles … slightly smaller circles – C40L48-60);
determining a hazardous gas concentration in grids covered by a diffusion circle according to the diffusion circle coverage (spatial variability of gas concentrations - C39L30-39) (figures 33-A to 33-H show gas concentrations and gas distributions – C40L29 – C42L26); and
determining a hazardous gas distribution according to the hazardous gas concentration, a leakage outlet and a ventilation opening (methane and ethane concentration during a plume detection are used to calculate the distribution of ethane/methane ratio values for each indication – C43L33-37) (figures 33-A to 33-H show gas concentrations and gas distributions – C40L29 – C42L26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 2, 6, 10 and 14 are objected to because the closest prior art, Nottrott et al. [US Patent Number 10,962,437 B1], fails to anticipate or render obvious determining whether the public scene meets the early warning condition to obtain a first determination result, wherein the early warning condition is that the hazardous gas reaches a security alert or a protective gas valve has been turned on; if the first determination result is yes, determining that the hazardous gas prediction manner is the protective gas coexistence mode; and if the first determination result is no, determining that the hazardous gas prediction manner is the hazardous gas existence mode, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Claims 3, 7, 11 and 15 are objected to because the closest prior art, Nottrott et al. [US Patent Number 10,962,437 B1], fails to anticipate or render obvious determining whether an action with a wall barrier takes place to obtain a second determination result; if the second determination result is yes, determining the diffusion circle coverage according to the hazardous gas existence mode of the hazardous gas prediction manner and a gas diffusion rule with a barrier; and if the second determination result is no, determining the diffusion circle coverage according to the hazardous gas existence mode of the hazardous gas prediction manner, a wind velocity, and the gas diffusion rule without a barrier, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Claim 4, 8, 12 and 16 are objected to because the closest prior art, Nottrott et al. [US Patent Number 10,962,437 B1], fails to anticipate or render obvious determining whether an action with the ventilation opening takes place to obtain a third determination result; if the third determination result is yes, determining the hazardous gas distribution according to a size and a position of the ventilation opening, the hazardous gas concentration and the leakage outlet; and if the third determination result is no, determining the hazardous gas distribution according to the hazardous gas concentration and the leakage outlet, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogiso et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0232741 A1) discloses a fluid leakage detection system that respectively detect values of detection target amounts based on distributions of the values of detection target amounts acquired;
Muralidhar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0285504 A1) discloses heuristic-based techniques for gas leak source identification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. 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.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857