This Office action is in response to application filed on 7/07/2026.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 7/07/2026 to the claims are entered.
Claims 11-12 and 38 have been amended.
Claims 1-10, 18-25, and 31 have been canceled.
Claims 26-30, 32-37 and 39 have been withdrawn.
Claims 11-17 and 38 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/07/2026 to the objections, 101, 112, and prior art rejections have been fully considered.
Applicant amended claims 11, 17, and 38 and overcame the objections. Thus the objections of claims 11, 17, and 38 are withdrawn.
Applicant amended claim 12 and overcame the 112(b) rejection. Thus, the rejection of the 112(b) is withdrawn.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant’s argues that claim 11 has been amended and those claim limitations recite the specific technical implementation of processing real sensor data from a physical sensor network to monitor actual fugitive emission at an industrial facility, not pure a mathematic abstract. Even if the claims were considered to be directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A – Prong One, the claimed method provides a concrete improvement to emissions monitoring technology by enabling facility-wide estimation of fugitive emissions based on continuous sensor network monitoring, rather than periodic component-by-component manual inspection. This approach is faster, safer, and more effective at detecting and tracking total emissions over time. The claimed combination of steps provides an improved technical solution for monitoring fugitive gas emissions. This is analogous to the claims found patent-eligible in Diamond v. Diehr,
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 11 recites limitations that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts (e.g., detecting peaks based on comparison to baseline values, determining a first total emission indicator) (Step 2A, Prong One). The amended limitation of the sensor outputs of sensors, is insignificant extra-solution activity recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the claim into a practical application, see MPEP2106.05(g). The claim amendments do not recite any specific technical implementation. Thus, the claim is not eligible under Step 2A, prong Two.
Applicant’s arguments regarding prior art have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new ground rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13, 16, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 10: “the composition” should read “a composition”.
Claim 11, line 15: “corresponding response factor” should read “
Claim 12 “a response factor” should read “the response factor”.
Claim 13 “modeled baseline” should read “the modeled baselines”.
Claim 16 “a user computing device” should read “the user computing device”.
Claim 38, line 3: “a display device” should read “the display device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-17 and 38 are 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 11 recites “the data comprising sensor outputs from a plurality of sensors at a first facility” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether “the data” refers to “data store” or “archived data” as recited in line 2.
For purpose of examination, it is interpreted as “the archived data”.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as respective parent claim.
Claim 17 recites “the total emission indicator value” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether it refers to “a first, a second, or a third total emission indicator value”
For purpose of examination, it is interpreted as “the first total emission indicator value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 emission indicator values, the detection events including sensor detection peaks in the sensor outputs that exceed modeled baseline values corresponding to the sensor outputs; 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 in light of the specification, fall into the groupings of mathematical concepts.
“determining, based on the one or more emission indicator values and corresponding response factors, a first total emission indicator value for the first facility in the first time interval, wherein the first total emission indicator value comprises a sum of products of corresponding emission indicator values and corresponding response factors for the plurality of sensors; determining a first difference between the first total emission indicator value for the first facility in the first time interval and a second total emission indicator value for the first facility in a second time interval” under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, fall into the groupings of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
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, the data comprising sensor outputs from a plurality of sensors at a first facility” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a plurality of sensors at a first facility), 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 or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more " (see MPEP 2106.05(b); see also MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
“sending, to a user computing device, an indication of the difference on an intuitive graphical user interface”, adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data outputting) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) while appending generic computer components (i.e., a user computing device, an intuitive graphical user interface) used to facilitate the application of the judicial exception, 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 or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (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/outputting) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a plurality of sensors at a first facility), which as recited in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and " Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more " (see MPEP 2106.05(b); and
append conventional computer components (i.e., a data store, a user computing device, an intuitive graphical user interface) used to facilitate the application of the judicial exception (e.g., mere computer implementation), 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 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)).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does 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 mathematical concepts and mental processes, 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 from generic sensors) (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
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.
Claims 11-15 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 (of record), in view of US 2020/0278333 of Bridge et al, hereinafter Bridge (of record), and US 2016/0161456 of Risk et al., hereinafter Risk (of record).
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 emission 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” 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 first total emission indicator value for a first facility in the first time interval (Table 1: WH01 “first”, column 10 “burned rate” considered “total emission indication value”, last column “response factor” PM 2.5, burned rate 3.4 kg per hour considered “a first time interval”, column 3/15: volatile organic compound VOC considered analyzed in the lab or facility, see Analysis Methods, Results and Discussion, Chemical Composition of wood smoke sections), wherein the first total emission indicator value comprises a sum of products of corresponding emission indicator values and corresponding response factorsTable 1, WH01: col 14 “CO” represents “a sum of product” of fuel burned ); and
determining a first difference between the first total emission indicator value in the time interval and a second total emission indicator value in a second time interval (Table 1: WH02 considered “second”, burned rate 6.2 kg per hour considered “a second time interval”, last col “response factor” PM 2.3 “response factor”. It is apparent the one order skill in the art can calculate a first difference between the first and second total emission indicator values by subtracting two values).
McDonald does not explicitly teach the data corresponding to plant operation, the data comprising sensor outputs from a plurality of sensors at a first facility, and sending, to a user computing device an indication of the difference on an intuitive graphical user interface, for the plurality of sensors, the detection events including sensor detection peaks in the sensor outputs that exceed modeled baseline values corresponding to the sensor outputs.
Bridge teaches the data corresponding to plant operation (power plant operation [0121], [0016], [0071]-[0073], Fig 1, 105b), the data comprising sensor outputs from a plurality of sensors at a first facility (Fig 3, sensors 370, see [0094]), 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 having sensors and sending 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]).
McDonald and Bridge do not teach for the plurality of sensors, the detection events including sensor detection peaks in the sensor outputs that exceed modeled baseline values corresponding to the sensor outputs.
Risk teaches for the plurality of sensors (see [0011]), the detection events including sensor detection peaks in the sensor outputs that exceed modeled baseline values corresponding to the sensor outputs (mobile gas survey devices considered equipped with sensors designed to detect peak concentrations of gases, see [0081], [0183], [0188], [0202]-[0203], last 4 lines of [0121], geochemical threshold considered “modeled baseline values”).
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 12, McDonald in view of Bridge and Risk 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 a response factor of the at least one gas species (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 and Risk 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 14, McDonald in view of Bridge and Risk teaches the method of claim 13, McDonald 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 and Risk 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).
As per Claim 17, McDonald in view of Bridge and Risk teaches the method of claim 11, McDonald further teaches further comprising:
determining a third total emission indicator value for a second facility in the time interval (Table 1: VOC at WH02 “second facility”, WH03 “third”, a burn rate considered “a third total emission indicator value” and burn rate 4.4 kg per hour considered “a third 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 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]).
Claims 16 and 38 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McDonald in view of Bridge, Risk, and further US 2015/0184549 of Pamujula et al., hereinafter Pamujula.
As per Claim 16, McDonal in view of Bridge and Risk teaches the method of claim 11. The combination 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, Bridge, and Risk to 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 and Risk teaches the method of claim 11, McDonald teaches the average emission value (Tables 1-2 for the woodstove tests, average 129+/-25 g/kg CO, see p.2083/right column/ last 9 lines), a difference between an average emission value of a first unit at the first facility in the first time interval and the an average emission value of a second unit at the first facility in the first time interval (the value of average firebox under column 12 considered “average key indicator of average emission value, VOC “first facility”, wood stove “ first unit” at WH01 and “second unit” at WH02).
The combination does not teach wherein the user computing device is configured to display, the intuitive graphical user interface of a display device coupled to the user computing device; and wherein the intuitive 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 first facility as an industrial facility.
Pamujula teaches the user computing device is configured to display, the intuitive graphical user interface of a display device coupled to the user computing device (Fig 27- user interface 866 “GUI”, see [0192], [0194])
the graphical user interface 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, Bridge, and Risk 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 PM-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