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 08/06/24, 11/03/25, 12/29/25, and 05/22/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 23. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 24g and 150. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0041 of the original specification states, “includes a plurality of gas sensors 20d, 20e, 20f, 20h, 20h located therein …” Here, reference 20h is mentioned twice.
Paragraph 0044 of the original specification states, “the probability matrix can include each of the potential fugitive gas sources (e.g., 24c, 24d, 24e, 24f, and 24e) …” Here, reference 24e is mentioned twice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 states, “determine a probability matrix based at least on coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, wherein probability matrix includes probability values associated with each of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources and each of the plurality of gas sensors.” The examiner will construe that the claim should state, “determine a probability matrix based at least on coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, wherein said probability matrix includes probability values associated with each of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources and each of the plurality of gas sensors.” (emphasis mine).
Claim 12 states, “wherein the probability matrix is determined based a distance …” The examiner will construe that the claim should state, “wherein the probability matrix is determined based on a distance …” (emphasis mine).
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 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 significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a system for probability based fugitive gas leak detection, which is a machine. Independent claim 11 is directed to a system for probability based fugitive gas leak detection, which is a machine. Independent claim 19 is directed to a method for probability based fugitive gas leak detection, which is a process. All other claims depend on independent claims 1, 11, and 19. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
A system for probability based fugitive gas leak detection (The probability based gas leak detection is defined by specific mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations. For example, Table 1 in paragraph 0045 of the applicant’s original specification shows mathematical relationships between gas sensors and potential fugitive gas sources. Paragraphs 0057-0058 of the applicant’s original specification shows explicit equations. The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts.)
determine a probability matrix based at least on coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources (The probability matrix represents specific mathematical relationships between coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources. The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts.)
identify, from the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, a potential fugitive gas source as an actual fugitive gas source based on the probability matrix and the time-series data (Identifying a single data result, such as a potential fugitive gas source as an actual fugitive gas source based on mathematical data processing, as a general concept, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind.)
Claim 11
A system for probability based fugitive gas leak detection (The probability based gas leak detection is defined by specific mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations. For example, Table 1 in paragraph 0045 of the applicant’s original specification shows mathematical relationships between gas sensors and potential fugitive gas sources. Paragraphs 0057-0058 of the applicant’s original specification shows explicit equations. The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts.)
determine a probability matrix based at least on coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, wherein said probability matrix includes probability values associated with each of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources and each of the plurality of gas sensors (The probability matrix represents specific mathematical relationships between coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources. The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts.)
based on the probability values in the probability matrix and the detected gas concentrations, identify at least one potential fugitive gas source of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources as an actual fugitive gas source (Identifying a single data result, such as a potential fugitive gas source as an actual fugitive gas source based on mathematical data processing, as a general concept, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind.)
Claim 19
A method for probability based fugitive gas leak detection in an environment (The probability based gas leak detection is defined by specific mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations. For example, Table 1 in paragraph 0045 of the applicant’s original specification shows mathematical relationships between gas sensors and potential fugitive gas sources. Paragraphs 0057-0058 of the applicant’s original specification shows explicit equations. The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts.)
determining a probability matrix for each equipment group of the plurality of equipment groups, wherein the probability matrix is determined based at least on coordinates of the gas sensors and coordinates of the potential fugitive gas source, and wherein the probability matrix includes probability values that correspond to combinations of an individual gas sensor and an individual potential fugitive gas source and indicate a probability that a gas concentration detected by the individual gas sensor originated from the individual potential fugitive gas source (The probability matrix represents specific mathematical relationships between coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources. The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts.)
based at least on the gas concentrations detected by the plurality of gas sensors and the probability values the probability matrix for an equipment group of the plurality of equipment group, identifying the individual potential fugitive gas source as an actual fugitive gas source (Identifying a single data result, such as a potential fugitive gas source as an actual fugitive gas source based on mathematical data processing, as a general concept, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind.)
quantifying a volume of fugitive gas emitted by the actual fugitive gas source (Quantification establishes a specific mathematical relationship between volume of fugitive gas and actual fugitive gas emissions. The limitation therefore recites an abstract mathematical concept.)
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 depend on independent claims 1, 11, and 19. They also recite the independent claims’ abstract limitations, by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the claims also recite their own abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
For example, claim 8 discloses identifying the potential fugitive gas source as an actual fugitive gas source responsive to a fugitive gas value associated with the potential fugitive gas source exceeding a fugitive emission threshold, being a highest fugitive gas value, or both (Identifying a value based on a single data result is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind.)
Claim 12 defines the variables that are mathematically processed by the probability matrix determination. It recites an abstract mathematical concept.
Claim 13 discloses a “sum of the gas concentrations.” This is an abstract mathematical concept.
Claim 14 discloses filtering the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources prior to identifying the at least one potential fugitive gas sources as the actual fugitive gas source. At a general level, “filtering” is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 15 further discloses filtering, which is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. For example, claim 15 mentions a minimum number of events filter. The human mind could make a mental note of a minimum number of events (for example, two events) and then accordingly group its decisions based on whether this minimum number of events has been reached.
Claim 16 discloses, “highest fugitive leak value.” This claim discloses a mathematical relationship for a source that has a higher fugitive leak value than all other sources. The claim recites an abstract mathematical concept.
Claim 17 discloses quantifying a volume of fugitive gas based on certain variables, such as distance and detected gas concentrations. This claim therefore recites specific mathematical relationships.
Claim 18 discloses quantifying the volume of fugitive gas based on certain variables, such as historical wind data. This reflects specific mathematical relationships and/or calculations.
Claim 20 discloses general identification of the potential fugitive gas source as the actual fugitive gas source in the absence of real-time weather data for the environment. This is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
an equipment group (The mere mention of an equipment group is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).) including:
a plurality of potential fugitive gas sources (The mere mention of a plurality of potential fugitive gas sources is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
a plurality of gas sensors positioned at respective locations in proximity to the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, wherein each of the plurality of gas sensors is configured to detect gas concentrations over a time period (The disclosure of gas sensors are present for the routine data gathering needed for the abstract mathematical data processing steps (which is considered “the solution” of the invention). The sensor limitations, that are used to gather the data that is processed, are therefore considered to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). They are not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
a supervisor communicatively coupled to the equipment group (The mere presence of a supervisor is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)), the supervisor being configured to:
receive time-series data indicative of the detected gas concentrations over the time period (Receiving data that is processed by the abstract mathematical data processing steps is considered to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). They are not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
Claim 11
an equipment group (Not indicative of integration into a practical application for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above)
a plurality of potential fugitive gas sources (Not indicative of integration into a practical application for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above)
a plurality of gas sensors positioned at respective locations in proximity to the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, wherein each of the plurality of gas sensors is configured to detect gas concentrations over a time period (Not indicative of integration into a practical application for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above)
a gateway communicatively coupled to the plurality of gas sensors, the gateway configured to receive time-series data indicative of the detected gas concentrations (The general mention of a gateway merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation of “configured to receive time-series data …” merely serves to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.)
a supervisor communicatively coupled via the gateway to the equipment group (The general mention of a supervisor merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
receive, via the gateway, the time-series data indicative of the detected gas concentrations (Receiving data to be processed merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).)
Claim 19
including a plurality of equipment groups, each of the plurality of equipment groups including a plurality of gas sensors and at least one potential fugitive gas source (The general mention of equipment groups, gas sensors, and at least one potential fugitive gas source, merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
remediating the actual fugitive gas source (The claims do not disclose the nature of the remediation. Paragraph 0065 of the applicant’s original specification states, “Examples of remediation include altering a process variable … changing or servicing component (e.g., a seal, a valve, a pipe, etc.) …” Altering a process variable appears to simply be a computer processing operation that merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Changing or servicing a component, such as a seal, a valve, or a pipe, may be indicative of integration into a practical application. However, such specific details are not positively recited in the claim.)
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 depend on independent claims 1, 11, and 19. They also recite the independent claims’ limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application, by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the claims also recite their own limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 2 discloses the type of gases that the plurality of gas sensors are configured to detect. However, this limitation merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))). Also, as discussed above, the sensor limitations are directed to the routine data gathering of data for the abstract mathematical data processing steps. They are considered to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 3-7 are directed to the plurality of gas sensors. However, as discussed above, the plurality of gas sensors, via the data they collect, are considered to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claims 9-10 are directed to real-time measurements and/or periodic measurements. These are part of the routing data gathering that is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandt et al (US PgPub 20220357232). Please note that this reference was filed in the IDS of 11/03/25.
With respect to claim 1, Brandt et al discloses:
A system for probability based fugitive gas leak detection (figures 6 and 15A, paragraphs 0134, 0150, 0152-0153, 0164), the system comprising:
an equipment group (abstract) including:
a plurality of potential fugitive gas sources (abstract states, “Multiple low-cost sensor units can be used to monitor gas concentrations at multiple locations across a site (e.g., a well pad or other oil or natural gas facility).” The multiple locations represent the claimed plurality of potential fugitive gas sources.)
a plurality of gas sensors positioned at respective locations in proximity to the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, wherein each of the plurality of gas sensors is configured to detect gas concentrations over a time period (abstract states, “Multiple low-cost sensor units can be used to monitor gas concentrations at multiple locations across a site (e.g., a well pad or other oil or natural gas facility).” The multiple low-cost sensor units anticipate the claimed plurality of gas sensors.)
a supervisor communicatively coupled to the equipment group (figure 3A; paragraph 0085 states, “The processing subsystem 330 includes a controller 332 …”), the supervisor being configured to:
receive time-series data indicative of the detected gas concentrations over the time period (paragraph 0111 states, “the gas leak detection model 430 may be generated by extracting a time series from a moving time window of sensor data 300 …”)
determine a probability matrix based at least on coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources (paragraph 0134 states, “A leak location probability array 1590 identifying the most probable leak location is generated in the process …”; paragraph 0153 states, “the leak location probability array 1590 is generated by calculating the variance between the emissions rates 1440 for each grid cell 740 …”; paragraph 0164 states, “the color-coded grid cells 740 also include leak location probability array 1590 …” The examiner broadly construes Brandt’s probability array to anticipate the claimed probability matrix. The examiner also broadly construed Brandt’s disclosure of “grid cells” and/or “leak location” to broadly read on the claimed “coordinates.”)
identify, from the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, a potential fugitive gas source as an actual fugitive gas source based on the probability matrix and the time-series data (abstract states, “enabling the gas leak detection system … to reveal the most likely origin of the gas leak.”)
With respect to claim 2, Brandt et al discloses:
wherein the plurality of gas sensors are configured to detect hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane, carbon monoxide, or any combination thereof (figure 3A, reference 395 discloses a carbon monoxide sensor)
With respect to claim 3, Brandt et al discloses:
wherein the plurality of gas sensors are located external to and a distance away from the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources (figure 1, reference 120 shows multiple sensor units located external to the object of their sensing, such as references 18 and 42)
With respect to claim 4, Brandt et al discloses:
wherein the plurality of gas sensors are a hazardous area certified (paragraph 0125 states, “the full results of the testing and evaluation suggest that the gas leak detection system 100 can quantify emission rates with a reasonable accuracy in typical conditions. Given these results, the objective conclusion is that the gas leak detection system 100 excels as a continuous emissions monitoring platform, far exceeding minimum detection limits (MDL) as set forth by the EPA (10 kg/hour MDL) and MiQ Certification (25 kg/hour as MDL).”)
With respect to claim 5, Brandt et al discloses:
wherein the plurality of gas sensors are located a distance away from the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources (figure 1, references 120)
With respect to claim 7, Brandt et al discloses:
wherein the distance is a fixed distance (paragraph 0123 states, “Both the primary sensor unit 120P and the primary sensor unit 121P were approximately 130 feet from the source 501.” “130 feet” is a fixed distance.)
With respect to claim 8, Brandt et al discloses:
wherein the supervisor is configured to identify the potential fugitive gas source as an actual fugitive gas source responsive to a fugitive gas value associated with the potential fugitive gas source exceeding a fugitive emission threshold, being a highest fugitive gas value, or both (see threshold teachings of figure 17, reference 1780 and paragraphs 0147, 0150, 0156, 0159, and 0161; Please note also paragraph 0148, which states, “which sensor units 120 tend to observe the highest gas concentrations …”)
With respect to claim 9, Brandt et al discloses:
wherein the detected gas concentrations are real-time gas concentrations detected over a rolling time window during on-line operation of one or more of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources (paragraph 0064 states, “That approach can be extended to combine a network of mobile sensor units 120 with readings available in real time.”; Paragraph 0111 states, “the gas leak detection model 430 may be generated by extracting a time series from a moving time window of sensor data … the neural network 420 can be applied to each new observation in near real-time.”)
With respect to claim 10, Brandt et al discloses:
wherein the real-time gas concentrations are detected periodically (figure 6, reference 1600; Moving time window of paragraph 0111 suggests periodic. Paragraph 0118 states, “the local controller 332 may generate a number of measurements and periodically output the maximum and average measured gas concentrations 490 generated over a predetermined time interval.” Please also note “time period” teachings throughout the disclosure of Brandt.)
With respect to claim 19, Brandt et al discloses:
A method for probability based fugitive gas leak detection in an environment including a plurality of equipment groups, each of the plurality of equipment groups including a plurality of gas sensors and at least one potential fugitive gas source (figures 6 and 15A, abstract; paragraphs 0134, 0150, 0152-0153, 0164), the method comprising:
receiving, via a network, time-series data indicative of gas concentrations of one or more gas events detected by the plurality of gas sensors during a rolling time window (paragraph 0009 states, “The sensor units can autonomously and continuously monitor potential gas sources, even in remote locations without access to power, and select the best available communication network …”; paragraph 0111 discloses time series.)
determining a probability matrix for each equipment group of the plurality of equipment groups, wherein the probability matrix is determined based at least on coordinates of the gas sensors and coordinates of the potential fugitive gas source, and wherein the probability matrix includes probability values that correspond to combinations of an individual gas sensor and an individual potential fugitive gas source and indicate a probability that a gas concentration detected by the individual gas sensor originated from the individual potential fugitive gas source (paragraph 0134 states, “A leak location probability array 1590 identifying the most probable leak location is generated in the process …”; paragraph 0153 states, “the leak location probability array 1590 is generated by calculating the variance between the emissions rates 1440 for each grid cell 740 …”; paragraph 0164 states, “the color-coded grid cells 740 also include leak location probability array 1590 …” The examiner broadly construes Brandt’s probability array to anticipate the claimed probability matrix. The examiner also broadly construed Brandt’s disclosure of “grid cells” and/or “leak location” to broadly read on the claimed “coordinates.”)
based at least on the gas concentrations detected by the plurality of gas sensors and the probability values the probability matrix for an equipment group of the plurality of equipment group, identifying the individual potential fugitive gas source as an actual fugitive gas source (abstract states, “enabling the gas leak detection system … to reveal the most likely origin of the gas leak.”)
quantifying a volume of fugitive gas emitted by the actual fugitive gas source (paragraph 0076 states, “the sensor unit 120 takes advantage of the temperature-dependent responsiveness of each metal oxide sensor 220 to collect even more datapoints that can be used by the system 100 to identify, quantify, and locate natural gas leaks.”)
remediating the actual fugitive gas source (suggested by paragraph 0064, which states, “to direct sensor unit 120 operators to different locations to help pinpoint leak sources …”)
With respect to claim 20, Brandt et al discloses:
further comprising identifying the potential fugitive gas source as the actual fugitive gas source in the absence of real-time weather data for the environment (abstract states, “enabling the gas leak detection system to model gas leak emission rates in two- or three-dimensional space to reveal the most likely origin of the gas leak.” While Brandt et al accounts for real time data, its model does not appear to be dependent on it.)
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al (US PgPub 20220357232) in view of Alkadi et al (US Pat 11649782).
With respect to claim 6, Brandt et al discloses:
The system of claim 5 (as applied to claim 5 above)
With respect to claim 6, Brandt et al differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the distance is in a range from about 1 meter to about 20 meters
With respect to claim 6, Alkadi et al discloses:
wherein the distance is in a range from about 1 meter to about 20 meters (column 6, lines 10-13 state, “Clients 125A and 125C can be configured as Far-Field sensors which can be positioned 30 to 100 feet away from potential emission sources 115A and 115C, respectively.” 30 feet is about 9 meters.)
With respect to claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Alkadi et al into the invention of Brandt et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of using a variety of sensors, including far-field sensors.
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkadi et al (US Pat 11649782) in view of Brandt et al (US PgPub 20220357232).
With respect to claim 11, Alkadi et al discloses:
A system for probability based fugitive gas leak detection (column 5, lines 30-35 state, “Gas emissions 120 occurring during unexpected, anomalous operating conditions can be referred to as fugitive emissions …“; column 6, lines 59-61 state, “so as to monitor and detect a gas leak that may emanate from one or more of the gas transport devices …”), the system comprising: an equipment group (figure 1A) including:
a plurality of potential fugitive gas sources (figure 1A, references 115A-D; column 4, lines 37 – 49 state, “The clients 125 can also include one or more sensors which can be configured to detect sensor data associated with the gas emissions or leaks 120 … The emission analyzer 135 and the modules configured therein can receive the sensor data from one or more clients 125 and can generate emission data used in determining a gas emission or leak from one or more gas sources 115.”); and
a plurality of gas sensors positioned at respective locations in proximity to the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, wherein each of the plurality of gas sensors is configured to detect gas concentrations over a time period (figure 1A, references 125A-F; column 4, lines 37 – 49 state, “The clients 125 can also include one or more sensors which can be configured to detect sensor data associated with the gas emissions or leaks 120 … The emission analyzer 135 and the modules configured therein can receive the sensor data from one or more clients 125 and can generate emission data used in determining a gas emission or leak from one or more gas sources 115.”)
a gateway communicatively coupled to the plurality of gas sensors, the gateway configured to receive time-series data indicative of the detected gas concentrations (figure 6; column 17, lines 26-45; Column 8, line 67 – column 9, line 3 states, “Far-Field wind sensor 215 can generate sensor data as time-series data …”); and
a supervisor communicatively coupled via the gateway to the equipment group (figure 6; column 17, lines 26-45), the supervisor being configured to:
receive, via the gateway, the time-series data indicative of the detected gas concentrations (column 8, line 67 – column 9, line 21; column 10, lines 13-33 further disclose time-series data processing);
and wherein the system is anemometer-free (There is no mention of an anemometer in Alkadi et al.)
With respect to claim 11, Alkadi et al differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
determine a probability matrix based at least on coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, wherein said probability matrix includes probability values associated with each of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources and each of the plurality of gas sensors; and
based on the probability values in the probability matrix and the detected gas concentrations, identify at least one potential fugitive gas source of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources as an actual fugitive gas source
With respect to claim 11, Brandt et al discloses:
determine a probability matrix based at least on coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources, wherein said probability matrix includes probability values associated with each of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources and each of the plurality of gas sensors (paragraph 0134 states, “A leak location probability array 1590 identifying the most probable leak location is generated in the process …”; paragraph 0153 states, “the leak location probability array 1590 is generated by calculating the variance between the emissions rates 1440 for each grid cell 740 …”; paragraph 0164 states, “the color-coded grid cells 740 also include leak location probability array 1590 …” The examiner broadly construes Brandt’s probability array to anticipate the claimed probability matrix. The examiner also broadly construed Brandt’s disclosure of “grid cells” and/or “leak location” to broadly read on the claimed “coordinates.”); and
based on the probability values in the probability matrix and the detected gas concentrations, identify at least one potential fugitive gas source of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources as an actual fugitive gas source (abstract states, “enabling the gas leak detection system … to reveal the most likely origin of the gas leak.”)
With respect to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Brandt et al into the invention of Alkadi et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of accurately and inexpensively determining the most likely origin of a leak.
With respect to claim 12, Alkadi et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the probability matrix is determined based on a distance between the coordinates of the plurality of gas sensors and the coordinates of the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources (obvious in view of combination; Please note probability array teachings of Brandt et al, as discussed with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-10 above.)
With respect to claim 13, Alkadi et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the at least one potential fugitive gas source is identified based on a sum of the gas concentrations detected by at least one gas sensor of the plurality of gas sensors over the time period (obvious in view of combination; Brandt et al figure 16, reference 1600 states, “SUM EMISSIONS TOTALS FOR USER-SELECTED TIME PERIOD/LOCATION”)
With respect to claim 14, Alkadi et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the supervisor is configured to filter the plurality potential fugitive gas sources prior to identifying the at least one potential fugitive gas sources as the actual fugitive gas source (obvious in view of combination; It is not entirely clear whether the claimed filtering is a data filter, or a physical gas filter. However, the combination of Alkadi and Brandt accounts for both. Alkadi et al figure 5, reference 515 discloses filtering received sensor data. Brandt et al paragraph 0068 discloses, “any filter (e.g., a charcoal filter) that filters air samples …” Brandt also discloses threshold conditions that effectively serve as data filters (figure 5C; figure 17, reference 1780; paragraph 0150).)
With respect to claim 15, Alkadi et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the supervisor is configured to filter the plurality of potential fugitive gas sources using a minimum number of events filter, a minimum duration filter, a minimum event density filter, or any combination thereof (obvious in view of combination; Brandt paragraph 0150 states, “If the background-adjusted concentration 1020 or emission rate 1440 meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold … which includes the number of leak events 1584 in each grid cell 740 or at each potential emission source 750 meeting or exceeding that predetermined threshold.”)
With respect to claim 16, Alkadi et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the actual fugitive gas source is a potential fugitive gas source that has a highest fugitive leak value (obvious in view of combination; paragraph 0150 of Brandt et al states, “a leak location probability array 1594 identifying the most probable leak location …” The most probable leak location suggests the highest fugitive leak value.)
With respect to claim 17, Alkadi et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the supervisor is configured to quantify a volume of fugitive gas emitted during a fugitive gas event based at least on:
a distance between a gas sensor of the plurality of gas sensors and the actual fugitive gas source; and
the detected gas concentrations (obvious in view of combination; Brandt et al paragraph 0125 states, “Finally, the full results of the testing and evaluation suggest that the gas leak detection system 100 can quantify emission rates with a reasonable accuracy …” As seen in the full disclosure of Brandt et al, as a whole, Brandt et al considers many factors in its determination methodology, including distance between sources and sensors, as well as gas concentrations (figure 6, reference 700; figure 7B, reference 752; paragraph 0128 states, “Measuring gas concentrations from a single location is insufficient to identify the likely source of a gas leak because the gas concentration at the location of a sensor also depends on the distance from the emission source to the sensor …”)
With respect to claim 18, Alkadi et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising quantifying the volume of fugitive gas emitted during the fugitive gas event based on historical wind data of an environment of the system (obvious in view of combination; Alkadi et al figure 5, references 525 and 530 disclose determining emission rate based on mapping wind sensor data to sensor location wind conditions. Brandt et al figure 6, reference 900 and 1000 discloses calculating background concentrations from off-site winds and then adjusting sensor unit concentration using that data. Both Alkadi et al and Brandt el al discloses using wind data throughout their disclosures.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eichenlaub et al (US PgPub 20230304981) discloses an emissions detection system and methods.
Alden et al (US PgPub 20240053265) discloses systems and methods for characterizing atmospheric emissions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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 at (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 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 08/22/26
Prosecution Insights