DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
2/2/2026. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 2, and 17 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 9-10 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims do not merely involve a mathematical concept, but that the claims require the diverting of a flow of gas from the gas sales line to a flare using a flare control valve, as well as a particular arrangement of other mechanical components, such as the static pressure gauge and the flowmeter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, such as the mechanical components. Applicant’s claimed “determining the lost gas sales volume as a function of the difference between the actual gas sales rate during the high static pressure event and the baseline gas sales rate; determining the estimated flare volume as the lost gas sales volume” expressly recite mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations. The mechanical components do not prevent a Prong One finding that the claims recite mathematical concepts.
Applicant argues on p. 10-13 that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, stating “As amended, and viewed as a whole, Claims 1, 2, and 17 integrate the alleged abstract idea into practical application via the use of a particular machine. The particular machine for Claims 1, 2, and 17 would at least be the flare control valve, the flare, the static pressure gauge, and the flowmeter. Viewing the claims as a whole, the flare control valve, the flare, the static pressure gauge, and the flowmeter are "particular machine[s] integral to the claim," MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I), because the method would not function without these components. The method essentially determines the amount of gas that was flared during a high static pressure situation, (Application, 17), and this would not be possible without the flare control valve, the flare, the static pressure gauge, and the flowmeter. Furthermore, the use of these components is not a case of the machine or apparatus implementing the steps of the method, MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II), as the particular machines "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than functioning solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly." Versata Dev. Grp., 793 F.3d at 1335. Instead, these particular machines are required for the method to function. As previously discussed, the method requires the flare control valve and flare to function. Furthermore, the flowmeter and static pressure gauge are required for the method to accurately estimate the volume of flared gas. These particular machines must act in conjunction to enact the method”. Applicant additionally asserts that the limitation of diverting natural gas to the flare by a flare control valve does not apply the alleged abstract idea to a field of use but amounts to an improvement.Examiner respectfully disagrees. The static pressure gauge provides the pressure input, the flowmeter provides the rate input, the valve creates or responds to the pressure event. However, none of these components/additional elements use the calculated estimated flare volume. The calculated estimated flare volume is not used to control anything, it is merely determined and output. The additional elements provide the environment and inputs for the abstract calculation. Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the claimed method is tied to a particular machine because it ‘would not be necessary or possible without the Internet.’ . . . Regardless of whether "the Internet" can be viewed as a machine, it is clear that the Internet cannot perform the fraud detection steps of the claimed method"), MPEP 2106.05(b)(II).Regarding the assertion that the limitation of diverting natural gas to the flare by a flare control valve does not apply the alleged abstract idea to a field of use but amounts to an improvement: The well, gathering system, gas-sales line, and flare limit the mathematical estimate to gas operations. The valve operation does not alter how the lost volume calculation itself is performed, but provides the physical environment in which the sales rate decline occurs. Providing the physical environment for the abstract idea does not automatically integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to an improvement. The asserted improvement to the calculated volume of natural gas flared is an improvement to the judicial exception itself, which does not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues on p. 13-15 that the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception, drawing similarity to Diamond v. Diehr and Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co.. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims are not analogous to the claim in Diehr. Diehr recited a particular computerized method of operating a rubber molding press, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art. Claim 1 does not recite a comparable process of constant measurement, continuous sampling, repetitive recalculation, repetitive comparing at defined frequencies, and real-time integration for manufacturing a product. Claim 1 requires several determinations before the final estimated flare volume that is output as a result.Regarding the particular machines in a particular arrangement: The components arrangement appears to be the gauge connected to the gas-sales line, flowmeter connected to the gas-sales line, valve routing gas between sales-line and flare path, and computerized control system receiving information. There does not appear to be a claimed unconventional arrangement comparable to BASCOM’s filtering tool installed at a particular network location. The requirement for several physical components does not establish a non-generic or particular arrangement.
Applicant argues on p. 15 “First, Applicant does not "[a]dd[] the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer." (MPEP § 2106.05(T)(A)). Instead, the claimed method requires the use of tangible, physical components and measured values to estimate the flare volume. These amended claims are a step beyond merely stating "apply it." Second, Applicant does not "[s]imply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception," id., as the method does not claim at a high level of generality, instead requiring specific components placed in a particular arrangement to accurately estimate the flare volume. Third, as discussed above, Applicant does not "[a]dd[] insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception," id., as these claimed components are required for the method to function. Fourth, as discussed above, Applicant does not "[g]enerally link[] the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use," id., as these claimed components are not merely incidental or token additions to the claim.”Examiner respectfully submits the claimed calculation limitations themselves remain result oriented. The physical components restrict the data source and environment without supplying a particular technical solution for performing the calculation. The components are recited at a high functional level: a gauge measures pressure; flowmeter measures rate; valve diverts gas; control system receives information; computer calculates and outputs a value. Further, Applicant’s specification at paragraph 18 states, “A number of commercially available computer programs are capable of automatically determining the lost gas sales volume 140 based on the decrease in the baseline gas sales rates 134 during the high static pressure event 138,” supporting the conventionality of the computer implemented calculation. The gauge and flowmeter gather the pressure and flow data required as inputs for the abstract analysis. The valve operation is not controlled by nor does it use the calculated estimate. The result is a calculated flare volume that is output.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive to overcome the rejection. In particular, see Applicant’s Remarks on p. 16-17.
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 1-20 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method). Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-20 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 2 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting determining a baseline static pressure for the gathering system with … reporting the baseline static pressure to … determining a baseline gas sales rate with … reporting the baseline gas sales rate to … identifying an onset of a high static pressure event with … reporting the high static pressure event to … identifying a decline in the gas sales rate that correlates to the onset of the high static pressure event; reporting the decline in the gas sales rate to … identifying a conclusion of the high static pressure event with … reporting the conclusion of the high static pressure event to … determining the lost gas sales volume as a function of the difference between the actual gas sales rate during the high static pressure event and the baseline gas sales rate; determining the estimated flare volume as the lost gas sales volume; and outputting the estimated flare volume (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations and mental processes. The claims recite steps to determine lost gas sales volume as a function of differences in rates and duration, which are mathematical concepts. The claims also recite steps identifying the onset and conclusion of high static pressure events and reporting events, which are mental processes including observations and evaluations. Applicant’s disclosure recites the particular problem the claimed steps aim to solve is the requirement of several inputs before an estimation of flare gas volumes can be made (Applicant’s Specification, [005]). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations and mental processes common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., “method” for calculating flare volumes).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a well connected to a gathering system through a gas sales line; a static pressure gauge connected to the gas sales line; a computerized control system; a gas sales line flowmeter connected to the gas sales line; automatically diverting a flow of gas from the gas sales line using a flare control valve to a flare; automatically diverting a flow of natural gas from the flare to the gas sales line using a flare control valve) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 3-16 and 18-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps to collect and report information used to calculate and output an estimated flare volume (Example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2018/0195889 A1: Gas flow metering apparatus for obtaining flow measurements in respect of gas in a conduit is provided. The apparatus includes an ultrasonic mass flow meter including a first, upstream ultrasonic transducer, a second, downstream transducer, and a first calculation module for receiving data representative of an ultrasonic transit time between said transducers and calculating, using said data, a first flow velocity of said gas. The apparatus including at least one measurement device for measuring a flow parameter of said flow of gas through said conduit, a second calculation module for calculating, using said flow parameter, a second flow velocity of said gas, a verification module configured to select a preferred flow velocity from said first and second calculated flow velocities dependent upon expected accuracy in current gas flow conditions, and an output module for calculating, using said selected preferred flow velocity, a volumetric flow in respect of said gas flow.
WO 2023/076862 A1: Systems and methods include a computer-implemented method for monitoring emissions in real time. Flaring emissions are determined in real time for a flare stack based on: 1) a flaring volume in conjunction with heat and material balances of systems that discharge to a flare system, and 2) a composition of each relief source that discharges to the flare system. A molar balance around the flare stack is performed in real time using the flaring emissions to determine the emissions.
Faruolo et al., Gas Flaring: A Review Focused On Its Analysis From Space, 2020: This article represents the current state of the art in analyzing gas flaring (GF) from space. GF is a prominent source of air pollution, with significant global and local impacts. Its emissions contribute to climate change and air pollution, and its practice is a waste of a valuable energy source. A key barrier in evaluating the status of this phenomenon is the incomplete and inconsistent availability (or lack) of public information. In the last few decades, satellite-based methodologies have shown considerable potential for bridging this gap. They have been employed for 1) detecting flaring sites, globally or regionally; 2) characterizing them; 3) computing the volumes of gas they flare; and 4) assessing air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. Long-term archives of multispectral satellite imagery, dating to the 1990s, also provide the ability to follow the spatiotemporal evolution of GF. This work, which collects literature papers through July 2019 starting with background information on satellites' capabilities to observe gas flares, describes satellite-based methododologies used to derive independent, reliable data on GF.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights