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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains at least one of the phrases that can be implied, such as the phrase “methods and systems are disclosed”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a memory storing computer-executable instructions” without explaining whether the “computer-executable instructions” refer to (1) transitory form of signal transmission, such as software expressed as a set of instructions detached from any medium, or (2) instructions stored on non-transitory computer-readable medium (see MPEP 2106.03). For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted according to (2). Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “a computer-readable memory storing computer-executable instructions” without explaining whether the “computer-executable instructions” refer to (1) transitory form of signal transmission, such as software expressed as a set of instructions detached from any medium, or (2) instructions stored on non-transitory computer-readable medium (see MPEP 2106.03). For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted according to (2). Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the method steps of “sending” and “causing” without defining the device(s) for sending to a user computing device and initial potential source location and/or for causing one or more of the at least three mobile sensors to be physically moved. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the device(s) for sending to a user computing device and initial potential source location and/or for causing one or more of the at least three mobile sensors to be physically moved. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-6, 8-17, and 19-20 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0176023) (hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a system for refocusing a technician equipped with a network of mobile sensors and a handheld device to detect a gaseous emission at an industrial facility that has physical components that transport one or more gaseous materials, the system comprising:
at least three sensors positioned at the industrial facility (i.e., sensors 12) (see Fig. 1), wherein each of the at least three sensors comprises:
(i) a battery compartment configured to store electrical charge (i.e., mobile platforms) (see paragraph sections [0048]-[0050]); and
(ii) wireless communication circuitry configured to transmit a measurement (i.e., edge device 34) (see paragraph sections [0048]-[0050]);
one or more data stores storing recurring measurements obtained by the at least three sensors; a computing device comprising at least one computer processor (i.e., computing system 50) (see Fig. 2), an interface (i.e., user interface 450) (see paragraph section [0103]) to one or more data stores (i.e., database) (see paragraph section [0124]), and a memory (i.e., memory devices) (see paragraph section [0055]) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one computer processor, cause the computing device to:
(a) at a time t1, provide an initial potential source location (PSL) (i.e., the process may loop for all potential leak sources, pretending as if the potential leak sources (e.g., with index k = 1, 2, 3, ... N.sub.1s) are actual leak sources) (see paragraph section [0118]) in a notification for the technician, who is responsible for operating the handheld device to detect gaseous emissions from a physical component located within the initial PSL at the industrial facility (i.e., when a reading (e.g., gas concentration measurement) of the sensor is above a threshold concentration (e.g., a minimum detectable concentration threshold), the computing system may automatically trigger a gas leak source tracing) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]);
(b) receive through the interface, the recurring measurements obtained between time t1 and a later time t2, by the at least three sensors positioned in a vicinity of the initial PSL (i.e., the computing system may receive a list of effective gas concentration measurements from potential gas leak sources) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]), wherein a time interval from the time t1 to the time t2 has a predetermined time duration (i.e., a certain time period (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 5 hours) after the gas leakage occurred, one or more sensors may generate a reading (e.g., gas concentration measurement) that is above a threshold concentration of the gas at one or more sensor monitoring locations) (see paragraph section [0108]);
(c) based on the recurring measurements, transform the initial PSL into an updated PSL (i.e., the computing system may rank the potential gas leak sources based on the estimation metrics) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]);
(d) cause, after time t2, one or more of the at least three sensors to be physically moved at the industrial facility to positions corresponding to the updated PSL, wherein the updated PSL occupies a smaller area than the initial PSL (i.e., the computing system may generate a recommendation to prompt a user (e.g., a field engineer) or device (e.g., a robotic device) to deploy a detection device (e.g., one of the sensors 12 or OGI cameras 28) to a location based on the recommendation) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]); and
(e) provide the updated PSL to a user computing device of the technician to refocus the technician to operate after time t2 the handheld device on or near the physical components located within an overlap region of the updated PSL and the initial PSL (i.e., the user or the device may carry the detection device to each location to perform data measurement and validate the gas leakage based on the data measurement) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches a computing device for refocusing a technician equipped with a network of mobile sensors (i.e., sensors 12) (see Fig. 1) and a handheld device (i.e., electronic device 451) (see paragraph section [0103]) to detect a gaseous emission at an industrial facility, the computing device comprising:
at least one computer processor; an interface (i.e., user interface 450) (see paragraph section [0103]) to one or more data stores (i.e., database) (see paragraph section [0124]) storing recurring measurements obtained by at least three sensors positioned at the industrial facility that has physical components that transport one or more gaseous materials (i.e., oil and gas worksite 10) (see Fig. 1), wherein each of the at least three sensors comprises: (i) a battery compartment configured to store electrical charge (i.e., mobile platforms) (see paragraph sections [0048]-[0050]); and (ii) a wireless communication circuitry configured to transmit a measurement (i.e., edge device 34) (see paragraph sections [0048]-[0050]); and
a computer-readable memory (i.e., memory devices) (see paragraph section [0055]) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one computer processor, cause the computing device to:
(a) at a time t1, provide an initial potential source location (PSL) (i.e., the process may loop for all potential leak sources, pretending as if the potential leak sources (e.g., with index k = 1, 2, 3, ... N.sub.1s) are actual leak sources) (see paragraph section [0118]) in a notification for the technician, who is responsible for operating the handheld device to detect gaseous emissions from a physical component located within the initial PSL at the industrial facility (i.e., when a reading (e.g., gas concentration measurement) of the sensor is above a threshold concentration (e.g., a minimum detectable concentration threshold), the computing system may automatically trigger a gas leak source tracing) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]);
(b) receive through the interface, the recurring measurements obtained between time t1 and a later time t2, by the at least three sensors positioned in a vicinity of the initial PSL (i.e., the computing system may receive a list of effective gas concentration measurements from potential gas leak sources) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]), wherein a time interval from the time t1 to the time t2 has a time duration of at least 30 seconds (i.e., a certain time period (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 5 hours) after the gas leakage occurred, one or more sensors may generate a reading (e.g., gas concentration measurement) that is above a threshold concentration of the gas at one or more sensor monitoring locations) (see paragraph section [0108]);
(c) based on the recurring measurements, transform the initial PSL into an updated PSL (i.e., the computing system may rank the potential gas leak sources based on the estimation metrics) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]);
(d) cause, after time t2, each of the at least three sensors to be physically moved at the industrial facility to positions corresponding to the updated PSL, wherein the updated PSL occupies a smaller area than the initial PSL (i.e., the computing system may generate a recommendation to prompt a user (e.g., a field engineer) or device (e.g., a robotic device) to deploy a detection device (e.g., one of the sensors 12 or OGI cameras 28) to a location based on the recommendation) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]); and
(e) provide the updated PSL to a user computing device of the technician to refocus the technician to operate after time t2 the handheld device on or near the physical components located within an overlap region of the updated PSL and the initial PSL (i.e., the user or the device may carry the detection device to each location to perform data measurement and validate the gas leakage based on the data measurement) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches a method comprising:
(a) at a time t1, sending to a user computing device of a technician, an initial potential source location (PSL) (i.e., the process may loop for all potential leak sources, pretending as if the potential leak sources (e.g., with index k = 1, 2, 3, ... N.sub.1s) are actual leak sources) (see paragraph section [0118]) in a notification, wherein the technician is responsible for operating a handheld device to detect gaseous emissions from a physical component located within the initial PSL (i.e., when a reading (e.g., gas concentration measurement) of the sensor is above a threshold concentration (e.g., a minimum detectable concentration threshold), the computing system may automatically trigger a gas leak source tracing) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]) at an industrial facility that has physical components that transport one or more gaseous materials (i.e., oil and gas worksite 10) (see Fig. 1);
(b) receiving, at a computing device from a data store, recurring measurements obtained between time t1 and a later time t2, by at least three mobile sensors positioned in a vicinity of the initial PSL (i.e., the computing system may receive a list of effective gas concentration measurements from potential gas leak sources) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]) at the industrial facility and stored in the data store, wherein a time interval from the time t1 to the time t2 has a time duration of at least thirty seconds (i.e., a certain time period (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 5 hours) after the gas leakage occurred, one or more sensors may generate a reading (e.g., gas concentration measurement) that is above a threshold concentration of the gas at one or more sensor monitoring locations) (see paragraph section [0108]);
(c) based on the recurring measurements, transforming by the computing device, the initial PSL into an updated PSL (i.e., the computing system may rank the potential gas leak sources based on the estimation metrics) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]);
(d) causing, after time t2, one or more of the at least three mobile sensors to be physically moved at the industrial facility to positions corresponding to the updated PSL, wherein the updated PSL occupies a smaller area than the initial PSL (i.e., the computing system may generate a recommendation to prompt a user (e.g., a field engineer) or device (e.g., a robotic device) to deploy a detection device (e.g., one of the sensors 12 or OGI cameras 28) to a location based on the recommendation) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]); and
(e) sending to the user computing device by the computing device, the updated PSL to refocus the technician to operate after time t2 the handheld device on or near the physical components located within an overlap region of the updated PSL and the initial PSL (i.e., the user or the device may carry the detection device to each location to perform data measurement and validate the gas leakage based on the data measurement) (see paragraph sections [0112]-[0140]).
Claims 2-6, 8-17, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent on the rejected base claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights