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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2024, 10/02/2024, 11/10/2025, 06/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A gas analysis system comprising:
at least one gas detection sensor; and
a controller component, wherein the controller component is configured to:
obtain first image data corresponding to a first target area of a plurality of target areas;
perform a first gas leak analysis of the first target area of the plurality of target areas using the first image data;
obtain second image data corresponding to a second target area of the plurality of target areas; and
perform a second gas leak analysis of the second target area of the plurality of target areas using the second image data.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (machine).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, a step of “perform a first gas leak analysis of the first target area of the plurality of target areas using the first image data; (is considered to be a mathematical or mental step)
perform a second gas leak analysis of the second target area of the plurality of target areas using the second image data (is considered to be a mathematical or mental step).
These mental steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 12 and 20.
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the additional elements/steps are: gas detection sensor, controller. The above additional elements/steps (hardware) are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A gas analysis system comprising” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps controller … obtain first image… and obtain second image… are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 12, the additional elements/steps recite the similar additional elements/steps as of claim 1. The additional element in the preamble of “A method comprising” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “obtaining first image…” and “obtaining second image…” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 20 the additional element is: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program code. The additional element in the preamble of “a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it is only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use. The storage medium and the program recited are not qualified as particular machines; a generic computer equipment that is well understood and conventional and is significantly insufficient.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 2-11, 13-19 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1, 12 and 20 (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1)/(a) (2) as being anticipated by Patrick et al US 20230194376 A1 herein after “Patrick”
Regarding claim 1, Patrick teaches a gas analysis system (para [0016] FIG. 1 illustrates an example imaging system in operation with a target gas leak (e.g., fugitive emission) in accordance with some example embodiments described herein) comprising:
at least one gas detection sensor (para [0001] Example embodiments of the present disclosure relate generally to imaging systems and, more particularly, to hyperspectral imaging to detect and quantify fugitive emissions. Para [0004] By way of example, the total amount of gas emitted by a fugitive emission (e.g., gas leak) may vary based upon a number of factors (e.g., the size of the leak, the ambient temperature, the ambient pressure, the type of gas, etc.) and may further vary over the time period during which the leak is occurring.);
Examiner views the gas detection sensor include the imaging device or sensor.
and a controller component (Fig. 1 computing device 200 as a controller), wherein the controller component is configured to:
obtain first image data corresponding to a first target area of a plurality of target areas (para [0033] As described hereafter, in some embodiments, the first IR imaging device 102 may be positioned or oriented such that an emission source 10 is physically located within the FOV 103 of the first IR imaging device 102.
para [0050] As shown in operation 305, the apparatus (e.g., computing device 200) includes means, such as processor 202, communications circuitry 208, image processing circuitry 210, or the like, for receiving first infrared (IR) image data from a first IR imaging device 102 associated with a field of view 103 of the first IR imaging device 102.);
Examiner views the first imaging device captures a first image within a field of view (i.e., first target area of a plurality of target areas) of the first imaging device.
perform a first gas leak analysis of the first target area of the plurality of target areas using the first image data (para [0054] Such a spectrum as associated with the spectral absorption data, may be used as described in operation 315 to determine the amount of gas (e.g., fugitive emission 20) is present in a particular set of first IR image data);
Examiner views the spectrum of gas data provide a first gas leak analysis of the first target area using the first image.
obtain second image data corresponding to a second target area of the plurality of target areas (para [0034] The present disclosure contemplates that the second IR imaging device 104 may be positioned at any physical location and at any orientation based upon the intended application of the system 100.
para [0067] For example, the second IR image data may also be indicative of the intensity of the IR radiation received by the second IR imaging device 104 for each pixel captured for the FOV 105.);
Examiner views the second imaging device captures second image within a field of view (i.e., second target area of a plurality of target areas) of the second imaging device.
and
perform a second gas leak analysis of the second target area of the plurality of target areas using the second image data (claim 8. wherein the second IR image data includes one or more data entries associated with the fugitive emission from the emission source and wherein the computing is further configured to determine the gas amount associated with the fugitive emission based upon spectral absorption data generated based upon the second IR image data.).
Examiner views the spectrum of gas data provide a second gas leak analysis of the second target area using the second image.
Regarding claim 2, Patrick teaches the gas analysis system of claim 1, wherein performing the first gas leak analysis comprises the controller component being further configured to: determine that the first image data is indicative of a gas leak alert (para [0059] In some embodiments, as shown at operation 330, the apparatus (e.g., computing device 200) includes means, such as processor 202, communications circuitry 208, image processing circuitry 210, machine learning circuitry 212, or the like, for generating an alert signal comprising the total emission loss.
[0061] As described above, the first IR image data received by the computing device 200 may be analyzed by the computing device 200 to, for example, determine the presence of the fugitive emission 20 (e.g., a gas leak) within the FOV 103.).
Examiner views the computer or a controller determine that the first image data indicating a gas leak alert.
Regarding claim 3, Patrick teaches the gas analysis system of claim 2, wherein performing the first gas leak analysis further comprises the controller component being further configured to:
determine that the gas leak alert corresponds to an active gas leak based at least in part on active gas leak data (para [0059] In other embodiments, such as when the computing device 200 is located remotely from the first IR imaging device 102, the alert signal generated at operation 330 may additionally or alternatively refer to the generation of a transmission that includes the total emission loss for display to an associated user.
[0063] By way of example, an operator or user associated with the emission source may identify that the emission source 10 is currently leaking gas (e.g., emitting a fugitive emission 20)
Examiner views the active gas leak alert is based on the current gas leak (i.e., active gas leak) and
generate updated active gas leak data, wherein generating updated active gas leak data comprises updating at least a portion of active gas leak data (para [0052] Furthermore, in some embodiments, the first IR imaging device 102 may continuously generate first IR image data, and, in response to a detection of a fugitive emission 20 or otherwise, the first IR imaging device 102 may transmit a request containing the first IR image data to the computing device 200.).
Examiner views a continuous generation of gas leak data as updating at least a portion of current or active gas leak.
Regarding claim 6, Patrick teaches the gas analysis system of claim 1, wherein performing the first gas leak analysis comprises the controller component being further configured to:
identify a first active gas leak associated with the first target area based at least in part on active gas leak data (para [0059] In other embodiments, such as when the computing device 200 is located remotely from the first IR imaging device 102, the alert signal generated at operation 330 may additionally or alternatively refer to the generation of a transmission that includes the total emission loss for display to an associated user.
[0063] By way of example, an operator or user associated with the emission source may identify that the emission source 10 is currently leaking gas (e.g., emitting a fugitive emission 20)
Examiner views the active gas leak alert is based on the current gas leak (i.e., active gas leak) from a source (i.e., target area).
determine that a non-leaking status value associated with the first active gas leak exceeds a non-leaking status threshold (para [0030] Similarly, the present disclosure further contemplates that the “closed state” may refer to any instance in which a fugitive emission or gas leak is not present (e.g., an emission event is not occurring) such that the closed state may refer to a completed or time restricted determination of the total loss of the fugitive emission as described herein.
para [0061] In other words, the open state of the emission source 10 may refer to any time at which the computing device 200 detects the presence, based upon a comparison with one or more thresholds or the like, of the fugitive emission 20 within the FOV 103);
Examiner views a non-leaking status as a closed state of a where gas is not leaking (i.e., defined by a comparison of threshold meaning the gas leaking time takes higher that a specific time when the system is closed and the gas is not leaking) and
generate revised active gas leak data, wherein generating the revised active gas leak data comprises deleting at least a portion of active gas leak data (para [0061] In other words, the open state of the emission source 10 may refer to any time at which the computing device 200 detects the presence, based upon a comparison with one or more thresholds or the like, of the fugitive emission 20 within the FOV 103. Similarly, the first time may refer to any instance in time at which the computing device 200 detects the presence of the fugitive gas 20 for which the IR image data generated at the instance in time immediately preceding the first time fails to include the fugitive emission 20 (e.g., prior to a detected gas leak).
Examiner views a continuous generation of gas leak data as updating at least a portion of current or active gas leak which deletes the data before the current gas leak or the first time (i.e., active gas leak)
Regarding claim 7, Patrick teaches the gas analysis system of claim 6, wherein the controller component is further configured to: generate archived gas leak data, wherein the archived gas leak data comprises one or more of an archived gas leak conclusion time indication or an archived gas leak duration indication (para [0046] Image processing circuitry 210 may utilize processing circuitry, such as the processor 202, to perform its corresponding operations, and may utilize memory 204 to store collected information… The machine learning circuitry 212 may also utilize processing circuitry, such as the processor 202, to perform its corresponding operations, and may utilize memory 204 to store collected information.
Para [0055] As such, the present disclosure contemplates that the computing device 200 may operate to determine an amount of gas associated with the first IR image data (e.g., represented by the pixels captured by the first IR imaging device 102 at a particular time) via various techniques, including but not limited to foreground estimations, background estimations, times series analyses, or the like. By way of example, the computing device 200 may determine a gas amount that refers to the path-concentration on a pixel by pixel basis of the first IR image data (e.g., in parts per million per meter (ppm/m) or the like)
Para [0057] Similarly, and as described further hereafter, the iterative capture and analysis of the first IR image data over a period of time (e.g., a time period beginning at the first time) may further operate to determine the leak duration.).
Examiner views the time series analysis of gas leak provides a gas leak duration conclusion time indication, the time duration is archived or stored in memory of a computer.
Regarding claim 8, Patrick teaches the gas analysis system of claim 6, wherein the controller component is further configured to: initiate performance of one or more responsive actions based at least in part on the determination that the non-leaking status value associated with the first active gas leak exceeds the non-leaking status threshold (para [0061] In other words, the open state of the emission source 10 may refer to any time at which the computing device 200 detects the presence, based upon a comparison with one or more thresholds or the like, of the fugitive emission 20 within the FOV 103.
[0063] As such, in some embodiments, the computing device 200 may analyze this intensity (e.g., the first IR image data) as described above with reference to FIG. 3 to determine the presence of the fugitive emission 20. Additionally or alternatively, the computing device 200 may receive a user input indicative of the open or closed state of the emission source 10. By way of example, an operator or user associated with the emission source may identify that the emission source 10 is currently leaking gas (e.g., emitting a fugitive emission 20). As such, the operator or user may, for example, close a valve, redirect a flow, or otherwise cause the emission source 10 to move to a closed state (e.g., stop the fugitive emission 20).
Examiner views closing for valve is initiated when the gas leak or emission status exceeds the nonleaking status (i.e., closed status) threshold.
Regarding claim 9, Patrick teaches the gas analysis system of claim 1, wherein the controller component is further configured to: cause the at least one gas detection sensor to capture the second image data ([0034] In some embodiments, the imaging system 100 may include a second IR imaging device 104 that may comprise a device capable of generating second IR image data and may be a thermal imaging camera, an IR imager, an IR camera, a thermographic camera, and/or the like.).
Examiner views gas detection sensor thermal imagining to capture second image
Regarding claim 11, Patrick teaches the gas analysis system of claim 1, wherein the first image data comprises hyperspectral image data of the first target area ([0001] Example embodiments of the present disclosure relate generally to imaging systems and, more particularly, to hyperspectral imaging to detect and quantify fugitive emissions).
Claim 12 and 20 are rejected as claim 1 having same claim limitations.
Claim 13 is rejected as claim 2 having same claim limitations.
Claim 14 is rejected as claim 3 having same claim limitations.
Claim 17 is rejected as claim 6 having same claim limitations.
Claim 18 is rejected as claim 7 having same claim limitations.
Claim 19 is rejected as claim 8 having same claim limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10, 15 and16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Miranda US 20170284887 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Patrick teaches the gas analysis system of claim 2, wherein performing the first gas leak analysis further comprises the controller component being further configured to:
generate new active gas leak data, wherein the new active gas leak data comprises a new gas leak initiation time indication ([0001] Example embodiments of the present disclosure relate generally to imaging systems and, more particularly, to hyperspectral imaging to detect and quantify fugitive emissions).
[0057] Follow this initial detection, the computing device 200 may iteratively receive first IR image data associated with the FOV 103 so as to generate a time series of spectral absorption data and first IR image data.)
Examiner views the hyperspectral imaging provide different or new type of gas leak data using a time indication in series of spectral data.
Patrick does not teach determine that the gas leak alert is indicative of a new gas leak based at least in part on active gas leak data.
Miranda teaches determine that the gas leak alert is indicative of a new gas leak based at least in part on active gas leak data ([0034] The apparatus 100 can also include peripherals 260 such as a display unit or graphical user interface (GUI) 262, and/or an audio speaker 264. In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the apparatus 100 can be configured to provide an audible sound from the speaker 264 when a gas leak is detected.
[0044] For example, in addition to producing a visible light frame, which is projected and frames the two-dimensional projecting pattern of IR light on a field-of-interest during gas leak detection, the detected gases can include for example, a red image or outline for methane, a blue image or outline for H.sub.2S (hydrogen sulfide), and a green image or outline for a third type of gas, or indication that a dangerous situation has been encountered.)
Examiner views the gas leak alarm reports or indicates different types of gas (that include new gas leak) as a gas leaking or active leak data from a determined probable gas leak location.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated miranda into Patrick for the purpose of determine new gas leak concentration data using an alarm or sound so that the appropriate action can be taken to reduce the dangerous situation.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Patrick and Cornwall teach the gas analysis system of claim 4, wherein the controller component is further configured to: Patrick teaches initiate performance of one or more responsive actions based at least in part on the determination that the gas leak alert is indicative of the gas leak (para [0063] By way of example, an operator or user associated with the emission source may identify that the emission source 10 is currently leaking gas (e.g., emitting a fugitive emission 20). As such, the operator or user may, for example, close a valve, redirect a flow, or otherwise cause the emission source 10 to move to a closed state (e.g., stop the fugitive emission 20).). Cornwall teaches detection of new gases (please see in claim 4)
Examiner views closing valve or redirecting flow of gas as initiating performance of response action based on the determination of gas leak alert that include new leak).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Miranda into Patrick for the purpose of determine new gas leak concentration data using an alarm or sound so that the appropriate action can be taken to reduce the dangerous situation.
Regarding claim 10, Patrick teaches the gas analysis system of claim 9, wherein causing the at least one gas detection sensor to capture the second image data comprises the controller component being further configured to:
Patrick does not teach cause the at least one gas detection sensor to be moved from a first position associated with the first target area to a second position associated with the second target area
Miranda teaches cause the at least one gas detection sensor to be moved from a first position associated with the first target area to a second position associated with the second target area (para [0046] In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, once a leak is identified and the notation is projected, the user in practice may move the apparatus 100 but the projection will stay on the encountered gas leaks (via internal tracking algorithm of the leak features). In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, should the leak move out of the scanning and gas detection field of view, the apparatus 100 can provide audible signals, projected visual signals, or notations on the display 262 to help the user or operator to return to the encountered leak(s). [0051] In addition, the apparatus 100 can be configured to be mounted to vehicles (manned or unmanned), mounted to stationary objects such as infrastructure, poles, buildings, or whether it is actuated by hand or by motors for rotation, pan and tilt. For example, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the apparatus 100 as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 can be mounted, for example, to aerial vehicles, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles and/or drones.).
Examiner views gas leak detection camera or sensor can be moved from one target location to another target location by mounting the sensing system in vehicle or drones.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Miranda into Patrick for the purpose of using a movable sensor system so that leaks can be determined in different parts of a device.
Claim 15 is rejected as claim 4 having same claim limitations.
Claim 16 is rejected as claim 5 having same claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zang et al US 20190078966 A1 discusses detecting gas leak position using IR camera.
Williams US 20030110835 A1 discusses detecting gas leak in a sewer system using camera.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights