DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 19 October 2023 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “11. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 12.” Claim 11 does not refer to a preceding claim. This appears to be typographic error for depending from claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 1:
a data acquisition unit configured to … (Specification page 26 lines 28-30 “The data acquisition unit 11 includes a data interface 111, […], sensors 113, signal conditioning circuitry 114, and an analog-to-digital converter 115.” See further Specification page 28)
a vapor cloud explosions (VCE) forecasting engine … configured to forecast … (No corresponding structure found!)
a ruptures of high-pressure equipment (HPR) simulation engine, … (No corresponding structure found!)
a thermal radiation (TR) forecast engine configured to … (No corresponding structure found!)
Claim 8:
a simulation engine configured to: provide … (No corresponding structure found!)
Each ‘unit’ and ‘engine’ is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) fourth to last paragraph.
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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 limitation “a vapor cloud explosions (VCE) forecasting engine … configured to forecast …” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specification page 12 lines 16-18 state “the forecasting process of the vapor cloud explosions (VCE) forecasting engine can e.g. be based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD).” However, a CFD process is not a structure or material for performing the claimed function of the claimed system.
Specification page 28 shows “12 Vapor cloud explosions (VCE) forecasting engine” with an indented “121 Material database.” A database corresponds with either software or hardware and in the case of hardware does denote a structure. However, MPEP §2181 requires corresponding structure or material to be clearly linked to performing the function. A material database is not clearly linked to forecast values for drift of vapor cloud explosions based on geometrical details of obstacles as claimed.
Claim 1 limitation “a ruptures of high-pressure equipment (HPR) simulation engine, …” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specification page 28 recites “13 Ruptures of high-pressure equipment (HPR) simulation engine.” However, merely repeating the same claim language fails to disclose the corresponding structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim 1 limitation “a thermal radiation (TR) forecast engine configured to …” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specification page 28 states “14 Thermal radiation (TR) forecast engine” with indented “141 TR simulation unit” and “142 UI adjustment module.” Neither the simulation ‘unit’ nor adjustment ‘module’ denote any specific structure or material.
Claim 8 limitation “a simulation engine configured to: provide …” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specification page 28 states “15 Simulation engine.” Merely repeating the same claim language fails to disclose the corresponding structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 11 recites “the refrigerated, high vapor pressure hydrocarbons.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner suggests amending claim 11 to depend from claim 10.
Claim 16 recites “extra data/exchange rates.” The term “extra” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “extra” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Dependent claims 2-20 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract includes language which can be implied.
Examiner suggests amending the abstract to recite:
An automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system for measuring an impact of an explosion of an explosive in open steel and/or concrete and/or reinforced concrete structures, wherein at least loading and/or resistance measuring parameter values are measured and/or captured by the automated forecasting system.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-15, and 17
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Q., et al. “Risk evaluation and analysis of a gas tank explosion based on a vapor cloud explosion model: A case study” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 101, pp. 22-35 (2019) [herein “Zhang”] in view of US 11,766,294 B1 Gooding, et al. [herein “Gooding”] and Tauseef, S.M., et al. “A method for simulation of vapour cloud explosions based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD)” J. Loss Prevention in Process Industries, vol. 24, pp. 638-647 (2011) (cited in IDS dated 19 October 2023) [herein “Tauseef”].
Claim 1 recites “1. An automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system for measuring an impact of an explosion.” Zhang title discloses “Risk evaluation and analysis of a gas tank explosion based on a vapor cloud explosion model.” A gas tank explosion is an explosion.
Zhang abstract discloses “First, a TNT-equivalent explosion model, quantitative risk analysis and FLACS software are used to quantitatively analyze the explosion consequences.” A quantitative risk analysis of the explosion consequences corresponds with a forecast measurand of the impact.
Claim 1 further recites “the system comprising: a data acquisition unit configured to capture loading and resistance parameters from measuring and sensory devices and/or internal or external databases, the loading parameters characterizing an explosive in terms of at least an amount of explosive and/or a TNT equivalent of explosive and/or a diameter and/or a height ratio and/or an ignition point position and/or a geomaterial as casing and/or a geomaterial as cover of plate.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a TNT equivalent of explosive.”
Zhang page 23 section 2.1 “TNT-equivalent explosion model” discloses “The TNT-equivalent explosion model was used to describe the energy of the vapor cloud explosion (VCE), that is, to convert the energy released by a combustible gas involved in an explosion into the amount of TNT that could release the same energy.” Converting the energy released into an equivalent amount of TNT corresponds with a loading parameter of a TNT equivalent of explosive.
Claim 1 further recites “the resistance parameters characterizing an object or structure in terms of a material and/or a material strength and/or a material density/material composition and/or a steel fiber content of concrete and/or a bar diameter and/or a mesh size/bar distance and/or a concrete/steel cover.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “material composition.”
Zhang does not explicitly disclose material composition of structures; however, in analogous art of explosive consequence modeling, Gooding column 14 lines 3-8 teaches:
Each building was generated probabilistically within the model based on input distributions of several characterization parameters including:
The target building structure type;
The materials of construction;
The materials of construction for buildings correspond with a material composition of a structure.
Gooding tables 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 25 disclose “material distribution” parameters for various structures listed at Gooding column 12 lines 52-64.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang and Gooding. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use materials of construction into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose “to estimate physical damage to residential and commercial buildings, as well as schools and other infrastructure.” See Gooding column 14 lines 21-23.
Claim 1 further recites “the loading and resistance parameters at least including object/structure location parameters and explosive location parameters and/or maps/geometry parameters and/or amount of explosive parameters and/or TNT equivalent of explosive parameters.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “maps/geometry parameters.”
Zhang page 30 figure 7 “Geometric Model” shows “(a) Three-dimensional geometric model of gas tank site.” The geometric model of the gas tank site corresponds with maps/geometry parameters.
Claim 1 further recites “the data acquisition unit including an object or structure plan generator configured to generate a site plan of the object or structure.” Zhang page 30 figure 7 “Geometric Model” shows “(a) Three-dimensional geometric model of gas tank site.” The 3D geometric model of the gas tank site corresponds with a site plane of the object or structure.
Claim 1 further recites “the site plan being composed by predefined and adjustable digital shapes representing at least buildings and/or site units and/or tank farms of the object or structure.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “buildings.”
Zhang page 30 figure 7 “Geometric Model” shows “(a) Three-dimensional geometric model of gas tank site.” Zhang page 29 section 4.3.1 disclose “The geometric model of gas tank and its surrounding buildings is built by CASD, the front-end of FLACS software. According to the data obtained, the gas tank is modeled in three dimensions, and the surrounding buildings, equipment and pipelines are simplified appropriately, as shown in Fig. 7 (a).”
Claim 1 further recites “and the adjustable digital shapes at least including digital polygons and/or rectangles and/or circles representing the at least the buildings and/or the site units and/or the tank farms of the object or structure.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “buildings.”
Zhang page 30 figure 7 “Geometric Model” shows “(a) Three-dimensional geometric model of gas tank site.” Zhang page 29 section 4.3.1 disclose “The geometric model of gas tank and its surrounding buildings is built by CASD, the front-end of FLACS software. According to the data obtained, the gas tank is modeled in three dimensions, and the surrounding buildings, equipment and pipelines are simplified appropriately, as shown in Fig. 7 (a).” The surrounding buildings is representing at least the buildings.
Zhang figure 7 shows polygon shapes representing rectangular and circular buildings and structures.
Claim 1 further recites “a vapor cloud explosions (VCE) forecasting engine comprising a material database at least including property parameters of explosives possibly involved in explosions and tank fires.” Zhang page 29 section 4.3.1 disclose “Specific parameters are as follows: gas tank volume is 50,000m3, height of gas tank is 59.786 m, gas composition and volume fraction in gas tank: 60% hydrogen, 27% methane, 4% ethane, 8% carbon monoxide.” The respective composition and volume fraction of the gas tank corresponds with parameters of the explosives possibly involves in the explosion and tank fire. See further Zhang page 26 table 3 (“Main composition, content, and physical and chemical parameters”).
Claim 1 further recites “and configured to forecast values for drift of vapor cloud explosions based on geometrical details of obstacles likely to be encountered by the vapor cloud and forecasted turbulence parameters associated with the obstacles.” Zhang page 30 figure 7 “Geometric Model” shows “(a) Three-dimensional geometric model of gas tank site.” Zhang page 29 section 4.3.1 disclose “The geometric model of gas tank and its surrounding buildings is built by CASD, the front-end of FLACS software. According to the data obtained, the gas tank is modeled in three dimensions, and the surrounding buildings, equipment and pipelines are simplified appropriately, as shown in Fig. 7 (a).” The surrounding buildings correspond with geometric details of obstacles likely to be encountered.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose drift and turbulence parameters; however, in analogous art of simulating vapor cloud explosions, Tauseef page 640 lines 1-2 teaches “The steady state turbulence field was set up and initial wind profile was obtained.” The turbulence field corresponds with forecasted turbulence parameters. The wind profiles correspond with forecast values for drift.
Furthermore, Tauseef abstract teaches “geometrical details of the obstacles.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gooding, and Tauseef. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use wind profiles and turbulence into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose of modeling “the turbulence generated by the obstacles influences flame speed and feeds the process of explosion through enhanced mixing of fuel and oxidant.” See Tauseef abstract.
Claim 1 further recites “a ruptures of high-pressure equipment (HPR) simulation engine, the ruptures at least relating to ruptures associated with high pressure vessels at least based on materials and/or topology and/or process techniques and/or composite lay-up and/or winding angles of the high-pressure vessels.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “topology.”
Zhang page 29 first paragraph discloses “Quantitative risk software was used to quantitatively analyze the impacts of a 50,000m3 gas tank leak and a VCE on the surrounding area, as shown in Fig. 4 and Table 5.” Zhang page 29 table 5 shows “Leakage mode” as “Tank holistic rupture.” The tank rupture corresponds with a simulation of rupture of a high pressure vessel.
Zhang page 30 figure 7 “Geometric Model” shows “(a) Three-dimensional geometric model of gas tank site.” The site geometry being in 3D corresponds with a topology of the simulation.
Claim 1 further recites “and a thermal radiation (TR) forecast engine configured to, for a process of modelling thermal radiation, generate lines of constant heat radiation intensities allowing for an assessment of fire propagation and/or radiation intensity, the lines of constant heat radiation intensities being concentric circles of constant heat radiation intensities.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “radiation intensity.”
Zhang does not explicitly disclose thermal radiation modeling; however, in analogous art of explosive consequence modeling, Gooding column 42 lines 7-8 teach “Thermal Radiation Model 4700.” Thermal radiation modeling corresponds with a thermal radiation (TR) forecast modeling thermal radiation.
Gooding column 43 lines 32-33 teach “the heat flux is calculated. [Equation 35: Heat Flux].” The heat flux corresponds with a radiation intensity. The heat flux equation includes “F(t,x)” which is a view factor of Gooding column 42 lines 59-65:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner observes the view factor equation is an equation for a concentric circle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang and Gooding. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use thermal radiation modeling into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose “to calculate the radiant heat flux from fireballs.” See Gooding column 42 lines 5-10.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the system is configured to provide quantified impact strength measuring parameter values for a defined future time window, the quantified impact strength measuring parameter values at least assessing (i) a blast effect of a potential explosion by the vapor cloud explosions (VCE) forecasting engine and/or the ruptures of high-pressure equipment (HPR) simulation engine and/or (ii) a severity of a potential tank fire by the thermal radiation (TR) forecast engine, and impact strength being measured scenario-specific by varying captured parameters.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “(i) a blast effect of a potential explosion by the vapor cloud explosions (VCE) forecasting engine.”
Zhang title discloses “Risk evaluation and analysis of a gas tank explosion based on a vapor cloud explosion model.” A gas tank explosion is an explosion. A risk analysis of a gas tank explosion based on a VCE model corresponds to assessing a blast effect of a potential explosion by VCE forecasting.
Zhang page 32 figure 10 shows “Overpressure distribution of gas tank explosion.” The overpressure distribution is a specific assessed blast effect of the potential explosion by VCE forecasting. The specific location mapping shows the quantified impact strength at the specified time. Zhang figure 10 shows “Time: 3795.05 ms” identifying a specific time of the impact strength prediction. The respective overpressure values correspond with quantified impact strength measurements.
Zhang section 4.3.1 teaches respective specific scenario modeling and meshing parameters used for respective parameters.
Claim 2 further recites “2. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 1, wherein the material at least includes open steel and/or concrete and/or reinforced concrete and/or wood type and/or brick type and/or stone type.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “wood.”
Zhang page 24 table 1 lists damage effects including “distortion and foundation displacement of buildings with steel structures” and “wood structure facture.”
But Zhang does not explicitly disclose material composition of structures; however, in analogous art of explosive consequence modeling, Gooding column 14 lines 3-8 teaches:
Each building was generated probabilistically within the model based on input distributions of several characterization parameters including:
The target building structure type;
The materials of construction;
The materials of construction for buildings correspond with a material composition of a structure.
Gooding tables 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 25 disclose “material distribution” parameters for various structures listed at Gooding column 12 lines 52-64.
Gooding table 1 lists materials: wood, steel, masonry, concrete which corresponds with wood type, a steel type, a brick or stone type, and a concrete type, respectively.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang and Gooding. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use materials of construction into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose “to estimate physical damage to residential and commercial buildings, as well as schools and other infrastructure.” See Gooding column 14 lines 21-23.
Claim 5 further recites “5. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 1, wherein the object or structure plan generator is configured to scan and import, via a data interface, at least plans or images of the object or structure at least comprising *.dwg and/or *bmp and/or *jpg and/or *tif and/or *.tiff and/or *.gif and/or .kml and/or EML5.0 files.” Zhang pages 28-29 figures 4 and 5 show an image of the site. The displayed image of the site is one of, or equivalent format to *.dwg and/or *bmp and/or *jpg and/or *tif and/or *.tiff and/or *.gif and/or .kml and/or EML5.0 files.
Claim 9 further recites “9. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 1, wherein the forecasting of the vapor cloud explosions (VCE) forecasting engine is calibrated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD).” Zhang page 25 section 2.3 disclose “FLACS is an industry standard for CFD explosion simulation.” Zhang page 34 section 5 discloses “the correctness of the results was verified by FLACS simulation analysis.” Verifying the correctness with FLACS simulation analysis corresponds with calibrating using CFD.
Claim 10 further recites “10. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 1, wherein the forecasting of the vapor cloud explosions (VCE) forecasting engine includes estimating a vapor cloud mass following a spill of refrigerated, high vapor pressure hydrocarbons.” Zhang does not explicitly disclose refrigerated hydrocarbons; however, in analogous art of simulating vapor cloud explosions, Tauseef abstract teaches “a liquid petroleum gas (LPG) tank situated in a refinery.” Tauseef page 641 right column section 3.4 teaches “Propane and Butane are the main components of LPG.” Liquid petroleum gas (LPG) corresponds with a refrigerated high vapor pressure hydrocarbon.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gooding, and Tauseef. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use estimation of LPG VCE simulation into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose of “simulating the dispersion and ignition of a typical vapour cloud.” See Tauseef abstract.
Claim 11 further recites “11. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 12, wherein the refrigerated, high vapor pressure hydrocarbons at least includes propane and/or LNG.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “propane.”
Zhang does not explicitly disclose refrigerated hydrocarbons; however, in analogous art of simulating vapor cloud explosions, Tauseef abstract teaches “a liquid petroleum gas (LPG) tank situated in a refinery.” Tauseef page 641 right column section 3.4 teaches “Propane and Butane are the main components of LPG.” Liquid petroleum gas (LPG) corresponds with a refrigerated high vapor pressure hydrocarbon.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gooding, and Tauseef. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use estimation of LPG VCE simulation into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose of “simulating the dispersion and ignition of a typical vapour cloud.” See Tauseef abstract.
Claim 12 further recites “12. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 1, further comprising a vessel size estimation engine generating estimated vessel size values based on unit throughputs for corresponding projects and construction risks.” Zhang page 29 section 4.3.1 disclose “Specific parameters are as follows: gas tank volume is 50,000m3, height of gas tank is 59.786 m, gas composition and volume fraction in gas tank: 60% hydrogen, 27% methane, 4% ethane, 8% carbon monoxide.” The gas tank volume corresponds with a vessel size value.
Claim 13 further recites “13. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 12, wherein the vessel size estimation engine includes means for generating vessel volume parameter values for spherical, cylindrical vessels with different end covers.” Zhang page 29 section 4.3.1 disclose “Specific parameters are as follows: gas tank volume is 50,000m3, height of gas tank is 59.786 m, gas composition and volume fraction in gas tank: 60% hydrogen, 27% methane, 4% ethane, 8% carbon monoxide.” The gas tank volume corresponds with a vessel size value.
Zhang page 30 figure 7 shows “(c) Cylindrical gas cloud filling gas tank.”
Claim 14 further recites “14. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 13, wherein the vessel size estimation engine includes a thermal radiation modeling structure for data processing.” Zhang does not explicitly disclose thermal radiation modeling; however, in analogous art of explosive consequence modeling, Gooding column 42 lines 7-8 teach “Thermal Radiation Model 4700.” Thermal radiation modeling corresponds with a thermal radiation (TR) forecast modeling thermal radiation.
Gooding column 43 lines 32-33 teach “the heat flux is calculated. [Equation 35: Heat Flux].” The heat flux corresponds with a radiation intensity. The heat flux equation includes “F(t,x)” which is a view factor of Gooding column 42 lines 59-65:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner observes the view factor equation is an equation for a concentric circle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang and Gooding. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use thermal radiation modeling into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose “to calculate the radiant heat flux from fireballs.” See Gooding column 42 lines 5-10.
Claim 15 further recites “15. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 1, wherein the high pressure vessels at least include a metallic vessel and/or a thick metallic liner hoop wrapped with a fiber - resin composite and/or a metallic liner fully wrapped with fiber - resin composite and/or a polymer liner fully wrapped with fiber - resin composite.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a metallic vessel.”
Zhang page 25 section 3.1 disclose “The gas tank analyzed in this study was a thin, oil-sealed, dry gas tank with a straight 20-sided steel structure.” A gas tank steel structure corresponds with a metallic vessel.
Claim 17 further recites “17. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 1, wherein the system is configured to provide value histories and/or time series of recorded values.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “time series.”
Zhang page 31 figure 9 shows four different times of the “explosion process.” Zhang figure 9 corresponds with a time series of recorded values.
Dependent Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Gooding, and Tauseef as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 12,204,820 B2 Demchak, et al. [herein “Demchak”].
Claim 4 further recites “4. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 1, wherein the predefined and adjustable digital shapes are generatable as translucent or transparent digital objects.” Zhang does not explicitly disclose generating translucent or transparent digital objects; however, in analogous art of digital planning of infrastructure projects, Demchak column 7 lines 1-10 teaches:
how much of each to show is based on the position of a movable transparency slider (e.g., only digital content of the first time channel is shown at one extreme of the transparency slider, and only digital content of the second time channel is shown at the other extreme of the transparency slider). Moving the transparency slider causes digital content from one time channel to be shown more or less transparently (obscuring digital content of the other time channel or allowing it to show through more clearly in an inverse relationship).
Having a transparency slider change the respective transparency of digital content corresponds with adjustable digital shapes being generatable as transparent digital objects.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gooding, Tauseef, and Demchak. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use transparent display into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose of comparing digital content of an infrastructure project. See Demchak column 2 lines 14-16 and 40-43.
Dependent Claims 6 and 7
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Gooding, and Tauseef as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0302741 A1 Conner [herein “Conner”].
Claim 6 further recites “6. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 1, wherein the data acquisition unit is configured to process signals measuring real world physical conditions received via a data interface by sampling the signals and converting the resulting samples into digital numeric values which are further processed by the vapor cloud explosions (VCE) forecasting engine and/or the ruptures of high-pressure equipment (HPR) simulation engine and/or the thermal radiation (TR) forecast engine.” Zhang does not explicitly disclose sampling signals converted into digital numeric values; however, in analogous art of control of explosive refinery gases, Conner paragraph 173 teaches “monitoring and responding to the presence of a gas of interest (e.g. an unpleasant, harmful, toxic, noxious, explosive or otherwise undesirable gas) in an industrial process or an industrial setting.” Monitoring for the presence of a gas of interest corresponds to receiving and sampling process signals about the gas.
Conner paragraph 39 teaches “Where analog information is detected initially or required for an action, the method can comprise the additional step of using an analog to digital converter or digital to analog converter to convert the information.” Using an analog to digital converter converts samples into digital numeric values.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gooding, Tauseef, and Conner. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use monitoring of explosive gases into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose of “allow monitoring and control over large distances and for remote or unmanned locations.” See Conner ¶12.
Claim 7 further recites “7. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 6, wherein, for processing the signals received via the data interface, the data acquisition unit further comprises sensors configured to convert physical parameters to electrical signals and/or signal conditioning circuitry configured to convert sensor signals into a form convertible to digital values and/or analog-to-digital converters configured to convert conditioned sensor signals to digital values.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “analog-to-digital converters configured to convert conditioned sensor signals to digital values.”
Zhang does not explicitly disclose sampling signals converted into digital numeric values; however, in analogous art of control of explosive refinery gases, Conner paragraph 173 teaches “monitoring and responding to the presence of a gas of interest (e.g. an unpleasant, harmful, toxic, noxious, explosive or otherwise undesirable gas) in an industrial process or an industrial setting.”
Conner paragraph 39 teaches “Where analog information is detected initially or required for an action, the method can comprise the additional step of using an analog to digital converter or digital to analog converter to convert the information.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gooding, Tauseef, and Conner. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use monitoring of explosive gases into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose of “allow monitoring and control over large distances and for remote or unmanned locations.” See Conner ¶12.
Dependent Claims 8, 16, and 18-20
Claims 8, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Gooding, and Tauseef as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0177500 A1 Swahn [herein “Swahn”].
Claim 8 further recites “8. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 1, wherein the forecasting system further comprises a simulation engine configured to: provide forecasted monetary losses caused by the explosion and forecasted associated maximum possible loss (MPL) values, and generate a cost parameter value for a cover of the forecasted maximum possible loss (MPL) in case of occurrence of an explosive event.” Zhang does not explicitly disclose an estimate of monetary losses and associated MPL; however, in analogous art of loss assessment of large businesses, Swahn paragraph 61 teaches:
the term "Maximum Foreseeable Loss (MFL)" should be interpreted broadly to mean the maximum projected combined property and business interruption dollar loss expected from a single fire occurrence
The maximum foreseeable loss (MFL) corresponds with a forecast maximum possible loss (MPL).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gooding, Tauseef, and Swahn. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use Maximum Foreseeable Loss (MFL) into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose of “determining an overall numerical property loss rating for a plant or other physical property.” See Swahn ¶3.
Furthermore, regarding the specific combination of Swahn and Zhang, the fire risk of Swahn is similar to the explosion risk of Zhang.
Claim 16 further recites “16. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 8, wherein the generated values are assigned to and stored with extra data/exchange rates.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “stored with extra data.”
Swahn paragraph 94 teaches:
Referring now to FIG. 11B, there is illustrated an exemplary storage hazard 542 risk of loss assessment matrix 1102 utilized to assess the severity and probability of a storage hazard occurrence in Area(N) of Property. More specifically, matrix 1102 preferably is utilized to assess the probability of a storage hazard based on Area(N)'s NLE percentage and MFL percentage, as well as classification under definitions 1100 (running across the top row of matrix 1102) to determine storage hazard 542 risk of loss rating under evaluation
The MFL severity corresponds with the generated values. Storing the MFL values in a matrix along with the probability and classification information corresponds with storing the MFL values with extra data.
Claim 18 further recites “18. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 16, wherein the system is configured to generate property damage (PD) and/or business interruption (BI) measure values based on value histories and/or saved times series of the generated values.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “property damage (PD).”
Zhang does not explicitly disclose an estimate of monetary losses and associated MPL; however, in analogous art of loss assessment of large businesses, Swahn paragraph 61 teaches:
the term "Maximum Foreseeable Loss (MFL)" should be interpreted broadly to mean the maximum projected combined property and business interruption dollar loss expected from a single fire occurrence
The property dollar loss corresponds with a property damage.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gooding, Tauseef, and Swahn. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use Maximum Foreseeable Loss (MFL) into the risk evaluation of a gas tank explosion for the advantageous purpose of “determining an overall numerical property loss rating for a plant or other physical property.” See Swahn ¶3.
Furthermore, regarding the specific combination of Swahn and Zhang, the fire risk of Swahn is similar to the explosion risk of Zhang.
Claim 19 further recites “19. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 16, wherein the system is configured to match and/or weight the generated values for different plant types and/or for unit types by providing automated value verification and/or benchmarking against other locations by means of a subset of filters.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “benchmarking against other locations by means of a subset of filters.”
Swahn paragraph 75 teaches “calculate a probable error percentage for each calculation step 390 through 396 as between different Evaluators performing risk of loss assessment of the same or similar Properties.” Evaluating between the same or similar properties corresponds to performing a verification or benchmarking against other locations. The statistical probable error percentage corresponds with using at least a subset of filters.
Claim 20 further recites “20. The automated maximum impact measurand forecasting system according to claim 18 where the BI measure values are represented by a profile at least including a BI impact value within the scenario.” Zhang does not explicitly disclose an estimate of monetary losses and associated MPL; however, in analogous art of loss assessment of large businesses, Swahn paragraph 61 teaches:
the term "Maximum Foreseeable Loss (MFL)" should be interpreted broadly to mean the maximum projected combined property and business interruption dollar loss expected from a single fire occurrence
The business interruption dollar loss corresponds with a BI impact value.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Zhang, Q., et al. “Risk evaluation and analysis of a gas tank explosion based on a vapor cloud explosion model: A case study” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 101, pp. 22-35 (2019) [herein “Zhang”] teaches risk evaluation of gas tank explosion including CFD VCE modeling. Zhang fails to teach thermal radiation modeling.
US 11,766,294 B1 Gooding, et al. [herein “Gooding”] column 42 lines 7-8 teach “Thermal Radiation Model 4700.” Thermal radiation modeling corresponds with a thermal radiation (TR) forecast modeling thermal radiation. Gooding column 43 lines 32-33 teach “the heat flux is calculated. [Equation 35: Heat Flux].” The heat flux corresponds with a radiation intensity. The heat flux equation includes “F(t,x)” which is a view factor of Gooding column 42 lines 59-65:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner observes the view factor equation is an equation for a concentric circle. But Gooding fails to teach safety zone values and access by firefighters generated from the thermal radiation forecast engine.
Tauseef, S.M., et al. “A method for simulation of vapour cloud explosions based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD)” J. Loss Prevention in Process Industries, vol. 24, pp. 638-647 (2011) (cited in IDS dated 19 October 2023) [herein “Tauseef”] abstract teaches simulating VCE based on CFD for a more realistic simulation of VCE phenomena. Tauseef fails to teach thermal radiation modeling.
US patent 8,095,335 B2 Hill, et al. [herein “Hill”] column 6 lines 45-54 teach:
It is preferable that the aerial images of the facility and surrounding community be digitized such that the images can be stored within a searchable electronic database. An example of a digital aerial image is illustrated in FIG. 1. The image can be incorporated into an emergency isolation and response system 100 illustrated below. The use of an electronic database 120 will permit easy retrieval and access of the images when needed for emergency response, planning and other events which require accurate knowledge of each of the components of the facility.
An aerial image of the facility for access by an emergency response system for accurate knowledge of each of the components of the facility fails to disclose thermal radiation forecast information or safety zone values generated from the thermal radiation forecast engine.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “wherein the thermal radiation (TR) forecast engine is configured to provide safety zone parameter values capturing approach and access infrastructure by fire fighters” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220138872 A1 Vaagensmith; Bjorn C. et al.
teaches
Computer-Aided Technique for Assessing Infrastructure Reliability and Resilience
US 6117178 A Whitney; Mark G. et al.
Explosion consequences and siting analysis tool
CN 105761018 A HUANG, Na et al.
A vapor cloud explosion accident risk analysis method of construction and implementation
Barton, R.F. “Fuel Gas Explosion Guidelines – Practical Application” Icheme Symp. Series no. 138 (1995)
Estimated maximum loss (EML) for insurance underwriting of vapour cloud explosions (VCEs).
Baker, Q., et al. “Vapor Cloud Explosion Analysis” Process Safety Progress, vol. 15, no. 2 (1996)
Baker-Strehlow method for estimating pressure and impulse generated by VCE. Analysis of flame speed based on obstacle density.
Bandini, R., et al. “A Comprehensive QRA Model for the Management of Vapour Cloud Explosion Risks in Oil & Gas Installations” Offshore Mediterranean Conf. & Exh. (2009)
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) adopting CFD approaches to explosion risk assessment.
Atkinson, G., et al. “A review of very large vapour cloud explosions: Cloud formation and explosion severity” J. Loss Prevention in Process Industries, vol. 48, pp. 367-375 (2017)
Technology background / review of VCEs.
Risk assessment and emergency planning at petrochemical sites
Bendib, R., et al. “Risk assessment for a steam generator (1050 G1) Skikda refinery Algeria, using HAZOP and RQA methods” IEEE Int’l Conf. on Adv. Sys. & Emergent Tech., IC ASET (2019)
Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) risk assessment for LPG plant.
Safeguard recommendations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 23 September 2026
