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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 9-23 are rejected under 35 USC § 112 Rejection.
Claim 23 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 Rejection.
Claim Analysis – 35 USC § 101
The new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal register (Vol. 84 No.4, Jan 7, 2019, pp 50-57) has been applied and the claims are deemed as being patent eligible. Under Prong 1 analysis claim 9 contains an abstract idea, namely the “determining” steps. However, under Prong 2 analysis this abstract idea is integrated into a practical application by the recited additional elements, because claim 9 comprises a particular machine, namely the mobile measurement system with sensors for particle concentration and wind speed/direction, which is doing a particular useful thing, namely figuring out the position of an emission source. Claim 9 is therefore deemed patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claims 10-22 are dependent claims of claim 9 and they are directed to the practical application of the parent claim, so they are also patent eligible under 35 USC 101, so dependent claims 10-22 are also eligible under 101.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is drawn to “computer program product downloadable from a communication network”. A computer program product which is “downloadable” is a computer program per se, even if it is recited as being recorded on a computer-readable medium. The Examiner suggests the claim recite “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having recorded thereon computer program code instructions …” The Examiner notes that “at least one of processor executable” is worded unclearly because it does not contain a proper list following the phrase “at least one of”. This is presumed to mean that the computer program code instructions are executable on at least one processor.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As a first matter, claim 9 recites “a succession of positions … forming a travel path” with “each of segments between two consecutive positions” forming the angle between 45 and 135 degrees with the wind direction. This is unclear. Is the claim intended to require this for every pair of consecutive positions along the travel path, or would the claim be met if only a few of the pairs along a travel path met this requirement (as would happen by chance if the mobile system was maneuvering randomly)?
The Examiner assumes, for purposes of examination, that the intent is that this angle limitation is required for every pair of consecutive positions at which the data to be used later in the method is measured.
As a second matter, claim 9 recites a limitation about each of the segments between consecutive positions of the mobile measurement system, namely that it should form an angle between 45 degrees and 135 degrees with an instantaneous or average wind direction. The Examiner believes this is meant to indicate the mobile system is moving generally perpendicularly to the wind direction, but the claim’s use of “forms an angle … with … [a] wind direction”, while trying to be precise, might create some confusion. To clarify this point: if the wind direction is from due south so that the wind is blowing due north, and the mobile measurement system is at a first position right now, where could the next position of the mobile measurement system be? The Examiner interprets the claim language as requiring that the next position could be anywhere in the range from NW to W to SW or from NE to E to SE relative to the first position. The system’s next position could not be due north or due south, and more generally it could not be in the range from NW to NE or from SW to SE relative to the first position. Is this correct? The Examiner respectfully asks that this question be answered explicitly, and if it is incorrect, that the Applicant’s intended claim interpretation be spelled out in analogous terms.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims recite using predefined criteria to determine a pair of a consecutive minimum and maximum of the first curve representative of evolution of the gas/particle concentration, and then using that pair, a time gap between the elements of the pair, and average wind speed/direction to determine the position of the emission source. The specification does not clearly explain how this calculation is performed mathematically, nor does it provide explicitly worked examples. The specification shows (in Fig. 2A and Fig. 3) a succession of maximums and minimums of the concentration curve, which presumably correspond to the mobile sensor moving into and out of the gas plume, and the specification provides equations (1) and (2) which are supposed to convert the positions of the mobile sensor at these points, along with the time gap between them and the wind speed and direction, into a position of the emission source (with one answer being illustrated in Fig. 5). One of ordinary skill is familiar with detection of gas plumes and methods for determining the position of their emission sources, but in this situation it appears that they would not be able carry out the recited method based on the disclosure in the specification. The Examiner respectfully requests clarification from the applicant as to how one of ordinary skill is meant to use this data and these specific equations to calculate the emission source, for instance for the simplified case of a Gaussian shaped plume with a constant wind speed and direction.
1) Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
The closest prior art of Steel (US Pat. 9823231), hereinafter Steel discloses A method for determining position of a source emitting at least one of a gaseous compound and particles in a geographical area, using a mobile measurement system comprising at least one sensor for measuring at least one of a concentration of the gaseous compound and the particles(see Fig. 1, 19-21) and a sensor (Col. 15, lines 48-49, where measurements are made using sensors on a moving vehicle) for measuring a wind speed and direction, (see claim 1 and col. 6, lined 23-47, where vehicle 24 such as an automobile may be used to carry at least some client computer systems (e.g. an exemplary client computer system 18b) and associated hardware including a gas analyzer 26, a location/GPS measurement device 30, and a wind measurement device 32… analyzers may be capable of detecting trace amounts of gases such as methane, acetylene, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and/or water. In particular applications suited for detection of natural gas leak); (see col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 7, claim 21) comprising steps of:
a) measuring the concentration of the at least one gaseous compound and the particles, the wind speed and the wind direction for a succession of positions of the mobile measurement system forming a travel path of the mobile measurement system in the geographical zone, each of the positions corresponding to a measurement time of the mobile measurement system, the positions of the succession of positions of the mobile measurement system being determined SO that each of segments between two consecutive positions of the succession of positions of the mobile measurement system form an angle of between 45° and 135° with an instantaneous or average wind direction resulting from the measured wind direction (from the Fig. 8, we can determine angle 45 degree and 90 degree, but we can’t persuasively determine angle of 135 degree, col. 9, line 34 -col. 10, line 33, where the angle A subtended by the sector of the circle is proportional to a standard deviation of the wind direction measurements taken at or nearby the measurement point M3. For example, the angle A may be set to a value that is twice the angular standard deviation of the wind direction measurements, e.g., angle could be change), and
obtaining a first curve representative of evolution of the concentration for each of the at least one gaseous compounds and particles as a function of measurement time of the mobile measurement system, and second and third curves respectively representative of the evolution of the wind speed and direction as a function of the measurement time of the mobile measurement system (see Fig. 8, from the Fig. 8, we can defined the measuring angle 45 degree and 90 degree; and col. 9, line 34 -col. 10, line 33, where Each of the search area indicators 78a, 78b, and 78c has a respective axis 108a, 108b, and 108c indicating a representative wind direction relative to a geo-referenced location of a corresponding gas concentration measurement point M1, M2, and M3. The gas concentration measurement points M1, M2, and M3 are positioned along the path 74 traveled by the vehicle 24 that carries a GPS device, a mobile gas measurement device, and wind measurement device for taking wind direction measurements and wind speed measurements… the angle A subtended by the sector of the circle is proportional to a standard deviation of the wind direction measurements taken at or nearby the measurement point M3. For example, the angle A may be set to a value that is twice the angular standard deviation of the wind direction measurements).
Steel does not disclose steps b) and c).
Tan (US Pat. 9322735), hereinafter Tan discloses a method for determining position of a source emitting at least one of a gaseous compound and particles in a geographical area, using a mobile measurement system comprising at least one sensor for measuring at least one of a concentration of the gaseous compound and the particles and a sensor for measuring a wind speed and direction (Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 30-55), comprising steps of:
a) measuring the concentration of the at least one gaseous compound and the particles, the wind speed and the wind direction for a succession of positions of the mobile measurement system forming a travel path of the mobile measurement system in the geographical zone, each of the positions corresponding to a measurement time of the mobile measurement system, the positions of the succession of positions of the mobile measurement system being determined SO that each of segments between two consecutive positions of the succession of positions of the mobile measurement system form an angle of between 45° and 135° with an instantaneous or average wind direction resulting from the measured wind direction, and obtaining a first curve representative of evolution of the concentration for each of the at least one gaseous compounds and particles as a function of measurement time of the mobile measurement system, and second and third curves respectively representative of the evolution of the wind speed and direction as a function of the measurement time of the mobile measurement system (See Fig. 8, Col. 7, lines 35-Col. 8, line 10).
Tan does not disclose steps b) and c).
Muralidhar (US Pub.20190285504A1), hereinafter Muralidhar discloses:
Abstract, where identifying a location of a gas leak source includes: obtaining gas sensor data and wind data synchronously from a gas leak detection system having a network of interconnected motes comprising gas sensors and wind sensors, with the gas sensors arranged around possible gas leak sources in a given area of interest; identifying the location of the gas leak source using the gas sensor data and wind data; and determining a magnitude of gas leak from the gas leak source using the location of the gas leak source and a distance d between the location of the gas leak source and a select one of the gas sensors from which the gas sensor data was obtained.
Yong Zhang et al., “An indoor gas leakage source localization algorithm using distributed maximum estimation in sensor networks” discloses gas leakage localization based on sensor networks has an important practical significance in many fields…the parameter of gas leakage source were estimated based on the likehood function with the gas concentration measurement in environment.
Wong (US Pub. 20120092649A1) discloses (Para [0055], where the flight path 22 extends beyond the edges of the emission plume 20. The flight path 22 defines a line of a measurement surface along which one or more measurements may be obtained at one or more identified locations).
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of testing having the steps of
“b) from predefined criteria, for each of the first curves, determining at least one pair of a consecutive minimum and maximum of the first curve, and for each of the pairs of each of the first curves, determining a position of the mobile measurement system corresponding to the maximum of the pair and a time gap between a measurement time of the mobile measurement system corresponding to the maximum of the pair and a measurement time of the mobile measurement system corresponding to the minimum of the pair; and
c) for each of at least one of the gaseous compound and the particles, determining the position of the emission source of at least one of the gaseous compound or the particles in the geographical zone from the positions of the mobile measurement system corresponding to the maximum of the pairs being determined for the gaseous compound or the particles, the time gaps between the maximum and minimum of the pairs determined for the gaseous compound or the particles, and of the average wind speeds and the directions between the measurement times of the mobile measurement system corresponding to the minimum and maximum of the pairs.”
Claim 9, as best understood by the examiner, is therefore distinguishable from the prior art of record. Claims 10-23 are similarly distinguishable as being dependent from base claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights