0This Office action is in response to communication filed on 01/20/2026.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election invention I, claims 11-17 and 38 without traverse in the reply filed 01/20/2026, is entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed 3/10/2026, 8/26/2025, and 6/25/2024 have been considered.
Response to Amendment
4. The claims filed 01/20/2026 are accepted and entered.
Claims 1-10, 18-25, and 31 have been canceled.
Claims 26-30, 32-37, and 39 have been withdrawn from consideration due to non-election.
Claims 11-17 and 38 have been examined.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 11, 17 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “mission” in claim 11, line 6 missed spelling, should it be “emission”?
Further in claim 11: “a second total emission” and “second time interval” that lack antecedent basis. It is suggested to amend “a total emission” as “a first total emission” and “a time interval” as “a first time interval” and amend to other applicable claims.
Furthermore, in lines 7-9, “determining, a response factor associated with the archived data for a gas stream based on the composition of the gas stream and response factors of species of any gases in the gas stream” is not clear. Should it be
“determining, a response factor associated with the archived data for a gas stream based on the composition of the gas stream,
Claim 17 recites “a second difference” lacks antecedent basis. It is suggested to amend claims 1 and 14 and/or applicable claims as “a first difference”.
Claim 38 recites “the average emission value”, “the first unit”, “the second unit”, and “the industrial facility” should read “an average emission value”, “a first unit”, “a second unit”, and “a first industrial facility”, and “the graphical user interface” should be “the intuitive graphical interface”.
Further, “the first unit” and “the second unit” are not clear, whether “the first unit and the second unit” refer to the units of the industrial facility OR the first unit and the second unit refer to different facilities, i.e., a first facility and a second facility? Please clarify these terms and be consistent.
Furthermore, the word “and” or “or” is missing before the word “wherein” in line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 12 recites “wherein determining the response factor for the gas stream comprises determining at least one gas species in the gas stream and its response
factor” is indefinite. It is unclear what “its” refers to, whether “a response factor associated with the archived data for a gas stream based on the composition of the gas stream” OR “response factors of species of any gases in the gas stream”, as recited in claim 11.
For purpose of examination, it is interpreted “its” referring to ‘the response factor associated with the archived data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 11-17 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 11, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font) of:
for the archived data: “determining, based on detection events in the archived
data, one or more mission indicator values; and determining, a response factor associated with the archived data for a gas stream based on the composition of the gas stream and response factors of species of any gases in the gas stream,” under broadest interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind or mental processes (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), (i.e., determining one or more mission indicator values, determining a response factor).
determining, based on the one or more emission indicator values and
corresponding response factors, a total emission indicator value for a first facility in the time interval,” under broadest interpretation, covers concepts performed by applying mathematical concepts (i.e., determining a total emission indicator value).
“determining a difference between the total emission indicator value for the first
facility in the time interval and a second total emission indicator value for the first facility in second time interval,” under broadest interpretation, covers concepts performed by applying mathematical concepts and mental processes (e.g., determining a difference between the total emission indication value at different times).
Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“receiving, from a data store, archived data corresponding to plant operation
associated with gas plume detections in a time interval,” is data gathering performed as insignificantly extra-solution activity, also recited at a high level of generality, and using an append generic computer implementation (i.e., data store), which as indicated in the MPEP: "Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer “data store” after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05(f), item 2).
sending, to a user computing device, an indication of the difference on an
intuitive graphical user interface”, is recited at a high level of generality, and using a computing device as a tool, i.e., using a computing device to perform transmitting or sending data. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in
combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claims do not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering), using generic,
conventional computer components/implementation (i.e., a data store, a user computing device) specified at a high level of generality, which as indicated in the MPEP: "Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step) would not provide significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05(b), section III); and "Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05(f), item 2).
The claim, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims 11-17 and 38, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim by additional
limitations (claims 11-17), that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or
mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered
individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering) (claims 15-16), and/or generic computer components (i.e., user computing device, a graphical user interface) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (Claims 16-17 and 38), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. Claims 11-13 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over “Fine Particle and Gaseous Emission Rates from Residential Wood Combustion” of McDonald et al., hereinafter McDonald, in view of US 2020/0278333 of Bridge et al, hereinafter Bridge.
As per Claim 11, McDonald teaches a method comprising: receiving, from a data store, archived data associated with gas plume detections (Tables 1-2 shows data in rows and columns is a form of a data store, “a mass concentration is considered a gas plume”, see p.2081/right column/para 2. “Ambient air mutagenicity and the concentration of PAHs were positively correlated with wood smoke-impacted areas” considered gas plume, see p.2080/right column/para 1) in a time interval (Table 1 shows burn rate for sample WH02 is 6.2 kg/ “per hour” considered in the time interval)
for the archived data: determining, based on detection events in the archived data, one or more mission indicator values (Table 1 shows measured burn rate or fuel burned considered a total emission indicator value and PM 9.0 measured from fuel burned pinion wood is considered a detected event of emission);
determining, a response factor associated with the archived data for a gas stream based on the composition of the gas stream and response factors of species of any gases in the gas stream (Table 1 shows “PM” in the last column is “response factor” calculated in g/kg, i.e. softwood for fireplace having response factor of 5.8 g/kg, see Introduction section);
determining, based on the one or more emission indicator values and corresponding response factors, a total emission indicator value for a first facility in the time interval (Table 1 shows column 14 “CO” represents a total emission indicator value, i.e., sample WH02 showing CO measured 178.6 g/kg and response factor PM 2.5 of mixed hardwoods for wood stove, while burn rate for WH02 is 6.2 kg/hr. See Analysis Methods, Results and Discussion, Chemical Composition of wood smoke sections); and
determining a difference between the total emission indicator value in the time interval and a second total emission indicator value in a second time interval (Table 1 shows samples FS01 having a first total emission indicator value of burn rate 2.6 kg/hr, per hour considered “a first time interval” and FS02 having a second total emission indicator value of burn rate 3.2 kg/hr, per hour considered in a second time interval. It is apparent the one order skill in the art can calculate a difference between the first and second total emission indicator values by subtracting two values).
McDonald does not explicitly teach corresponding to plant operation, a first facility and sending, to a user computing device an indication of the difference on an intuitive graphical user interface.
Bridge teaches corresponding to plant operation, a first facility corresponding to plant operation (i.e., power plant operation [0121], [0016], [0071]-[0073], Fig 1, 105b), sending, to a user computing device (see [0153]), an indication of the difference on an intuitive graphical user interface (Fig 4, step 412 shows the emission offset measurement indicates the change in the total emissions generated by the entity between the first time and the second time, see [0192], Fig 5 shows emission offset measurement 528. It is obvious the change in total emission can be displayed on Interface unit 502 “GUI”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of McDonald to send an indication of difference on the GUI in the facility as taught by Bridge that would determine the amount of gas emissions from each one of these entities (Bridge, [0181]).
As per Claim 12, McDonald in view of Bridge teaches the method of claim 11, McDonald further teaches wherein determining the response factor for the gas stream comprises determining at least one gas species in the gas stream and its response factor (Table 1 shows Ponderosa pine considered a species, i.e., sample FS01 having VOC “volatile organic compounds” considered “emitted during wood burning” also considered part of the gas stream and response factor “PM” of 5.8 g/kg).
As per Claim 13, McDonald in view of Bridge teaches the method of claim 11, McDonald further teaches comprising determining, for the archived data, the detection events based on modeled baseline values corresponding to the archived data (wood
stove stack velocity was calculated based on “a model developed for the U.S. EPA” considered “modeled baseline values”. The model is based on a carbon stoichiometric relationship between carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and the fuel consumption, see p.2081/right column/para 1).
As per Claim 17, McDonald in view of Bridge teaches the method of claim 11, McDonald further teaches further comprising:
determining a third total emission indicator value in the time interval (Table 1 shows sample FS03 having a burn rate considered “a third total emission indicator value” and burn rate 2.8 kg/hr considered in a time interval); and
determining a second difference between the total emission indicator value and the third total emission indicator value (It is apparent the one order skill in the art can calculate a difference between the second total emission indicator values and the third total emission indicator value by subtracting two values).
McDonald does not teach a second facility, and sending, to the user computing device, an indication of the second difference.
Bridge teaches a second facility and sending, to the user computing device, an indication of the second difference (a second facility corresponding to plant operation (Fig 1, power generation entity 105d “second facility”, [0016], [0071], [0073]), sending, to a user computing device (see [0153]), an indication of the difference on an intuitive graphical user interface (Fig 4, step 412 shows the emission offset measurement indicates the change in the total emissions generated by the entity between the first time and the second time, see [0192]. It is obvious the change in the total emissions generated by the entity can be applied to the second and the third time. Fig 5 shows emission offset measurement 528. It is obvious the change in total emission can be displayed on Interface unit 502 “GUI”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of McDonald to send an indication of difference on the GUI in the facility as taught by Bridge that would determine the amount of gas emissions from each one of these entities (Bridge, [0181]).
12. Claims 14-15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over
McDonald in view of Bridge and further US 2016/0161456 of Risk et al., hereinafter Risk.
As per Claim 14, McDonald in view of Bridge teaches the method of claim 13, McDonald further teaches comprising determining a detection event, among the detection events, at a first time (Tl) based on a difference between the modeled baseline value at the first time (Table 1 shows one or more detection event, i.e., PM values in samples lines 1, 2 and so on). McDonald in view of Bridge does not teach a value of a sensor detection peak at the first time based on the archived data exceeding a threshold. Risk teaches a value of a sensor detection peak at the first time (mobile gas survey devices considered equipped with sensors designed to detect peak concentrations of gases, see [0081], [0183], [0188]) based on the archived data exceeding a threshold (see [0202]-[0203], last 4 lines of [0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of McDonald and Bridge having a sensor to detect peak exceeding a threshold as taught by Risk that would monitor emission and apply detecting the presence of a gas emission event of detecting the presence of a gas emission event (Risk, Abstract).
As per Claim 15, McDonald in view of Bridge teaches the method of claim 11, McDonald teaches wherein determining the one or more emission indicator values for the archived data (see Table 1 as stated in claim 11 above).
McDonald in view of Bridge does not teach comprises determining the emission indicator value based on aggregating peak amplitude associated with the detection events in the archived data.
Risk teaches determining the emission indicator value based on aggregating peak amplitude associated with the detection events in the archived data (a total concentrations measured for CO2 and CH4. CO2 measured considered emission indicator value, see [0132], [0228], [0231]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of McDonald and Bridge determining the emission indicator value based on aggregating peak as taught by Risk that would monitor emission and apply detecting the presence of a gas emission event of detecting the presence of a gas emission event (Risk, Abstract).
13. Claims 16 and 38 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McDonald in view of Bridge and further US 2015/0184549 of Pamujula et al., hereinafter Pamujula.
As per Claim 16, McDonald in view of Bridge teaches the method of claim 11,
McDonald in view of Bridge does not teach wherein the detection events exclude one or more detection events, corresponding to a maintenance activity, in the archived data, the method further comprising: receiving, from a user computing device, indications of a maintenance time interval and a location associated with the maintenance activity;
determining, based on the location, the archived data associated with the maintenance time interval; and determining, based on the time interval, the one or more detection events in the archived data associated with the maintenance time interval at the location.
Pamujula teaches wherein the detection events exclude one or more detection events (“detecting harmful shutdown variations detected by power plants” is considered the detection events exclude the detection events, see [0213], Fig 21, i.e., emission limits 703, shutdown emission 702 ), corresponding to a maintenance activity (detecting one or more observable conditions, or operating [0111], [0121], [0045], maintenance actions “maintenance activity” [0006], Fig 27 shows outage maintenance planner 866, i.e., to perform scheduled maintenance ), in the archived data (Fig 29- retrieve historical data 924, [0215], [0190], [0201], [0215] ), the method further comprising:
receiving, from a user computing device, indications of a maintenance time interval (receives power plant monitoring instrument data [0103], [0086], [0201], maintenance at a given time [0109], maintenance routine [0006], are considered “maintenance time interval”, Fig 21, step 2104 and a location associated with the maintenance activity (i.e., various locations in the power plant 12 [0092] );
determining, based on the location, the archived data associated with the maintenance time interval (Fig 1 shows a various power plants 12 in different locations [0042], compare various plant turndown operating modes for the selected operating period [0179]); and
determining, based on the time interval, the one or more detection events in the archived data associated with the maintenance time interval at the location (see [0006], [0213], Fig 21, steps 701-703).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of McDonald and Bridge determining one or more detection events, maintenance routine as taught by Pamujula that would provide advantages of such functionality include: increased life and performance of the gas turbines; improved life prediction, efficiency, and performance (Pamujula, [0206], [0143]).
As per Claim 38, McDonald in view of Bridge teaches the method of claim 11, McDonald teaches the average emission value (CO emission shown in Table 1 and table 2 for the woodstove tests, average 129+/-25 g/kg CO, see p.2083/right column/ from last 9 lines). Bridge teaches wherein the user computing device is configured to display, on the graphical user interface of a display device coupled to the user computing device, see Fig 5, difference between the emission value of the first unit in the time interval and the average emission value of the second unit in the time interval (see claim 11 above, but a first unit and a second unit are considered “a first facility and a second facility”, see [0192], [0181]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of McDonald to display a difference of the first and second emission values as taught by Bridge that would display and determine the amount of gas emissions from each one of these entities (Bridge, [0181]).
McDonald in view of Bridge does not teach wherein the graphical user interface is used to allow evaluation of improvement across operations lifecycle by combining emissions data with plant information (PI) data across operation, safety, and emission control of the industrial facility.
Pamujula teaches the graphical user interface (Fig 27- user interface 866 “GUI”) is used to allow evaluation of improvement across operations lifecycle (optimizing process and improve efficiency and performance, see [0143], [0182], monitoring and predicting the rate of degradation and scheduling/conducting maintenance procedures effectively [0205], are considered “evaluation of improvement across operations lifecycle) by combining emissions data with plant information (PI) data across operation, safety, and emission control of the industrial facility (accumulated emission of one or more power plant pollutants during the regulatory period “safety”, see [0180], [0178]-[0179], [0098], [0110]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of McDonald and Bridge to evaluate the improvement across operation lifecycle and emission control as taught by Pamujula that would provide advantages of such functionality include: increased life and performance of the gas turbines; improved life prediction, efficiency, and performance (Pamujula, [0206], [0143]).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- US 2013/0268325 of Dembo (System and method for benchmarking environmental data).
- US 2010/0091267 of Wong (Fugitive emission flux measurement).
- US 2011/0099489 of Glenn et al. (Systems and methods for computing emission values).
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights