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 .
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 07/30/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeder (US 9,182,751) in view of Rhee (US 2011/0298598) and further in view of Trikha et al. (US 2022/0214652)
Regarding claim 1: Reeder disclose a system for monitoring carbon dioxide (CO2) in a subsurface reservoir, comprising:
a plurality of CO2sensing devices (Fig. 1, item 120), each CO2 sensing device comprising a CO2sensor (Col. 4, Lines 1-11 and Col. 13, Lines 11-17),
a base station (Fig. 1, item 110), a plane function entity (Fig. 1, item 112), and a radio unit (Fig. 1, item 114), the base station operable to communicate over the radio area network; and
wherein each of the plurality of CO2sensing devices is operable to transmit a CO2 measurement to the base station over the radio area network (Col. 4, Lines 50-58).
Even thou Reeder disclose that the CO2 sensor transmit wireless information, Reeder does not explicitly disclose the sensor comprising a radio unit and a microprocessor. However, such configuration of a sensor is well known in the art as evidence by Rhee where it teaches a CO2 sensor (¶0103) comprising a radio unit (Fig. 4, item 418, ¶0070, ¶0125) and a microprocessor (Fig. 4, 414, ¶0070 and ¶0120)). Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a radio unit and a microprocessor, as disclose by Rhee, to the system of Reeder. The motivations is to make the sensor more capable and smarter hence adding functionality to the sensor.
Furthermore, even thou Reeder disclose dealing with latency (Col. 22, Lines 10-27) but does not explicitly disclose the base station comprising a low latency unit, wherein the low latency unit is operable to receive data from at least one of the plurality of CO2sensing devices and the plane function data is operable to receive data from the low latency unit. However, Rhee disclose low latency system (Abstract) a base station (Fig. 3, item 320) comprising a low latency unit (Fig. 1, item 321), wherein the low latency unit is operable to receive data from at least one of the plurality of sensing devices and a plane function data (Fig. 3, item 324) is operable to receive data from the low latency unit. (¶0085)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a low latency unit, wherein the low latency unit is operable to receive data from at least one of the plurality of CO2sensing devices and the plane function data is operable to receive data from the low latency unit, as disclose by Rhee, to the base station of Reeder. The motivation is to reduce latency hence making the system more efficient and reliable.
The combination of Reeder and Rhee does not explicitly disclose peer communications.
In analogous art regarding monitoring networks, Trikha disclose a CO2 sensor monitoring network comprising peer communications.(¶0009)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of peer communications, as disclose by Trikha, to the system of the combination of Reeder and Rhee. The motivations is to allow multiple channel of communication hence making the data gathering more reliable and robust.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Reeder, Rhee and Trikha disclose the system of claim 1, comprising a server configured to process the CO2 measurement, wherein the plane function entity is operable to transmit the CO2 measurement to the local server after receipt from the low latency unit. (Reeder: Fig. 1, item 160, Col. 5, Lines 5-10)
The combination of Reeder, Rhee and Trikha does not explicitly disclose that the server is a local server. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to make the server local since having a limited universe of potential options (servers), the selection of any particular option (local servers) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (process the CO2 measurement), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Furthermore, Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the server and make it local since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Reeder, Rhee and Trikha disclose the system of claim 1, comprising a server (Fig. 1, item 160) configured to communicate with a cloud computing service over a network (Trikha: ¶0041), wherein the plane function entity is operable to transmit the CO2 measurement to the server after receipt from the low latency unit (Reeder: Col. 4, Lines 50-58).
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Reeder, Rhee and Trikha disclose the method of claim 1, wherein each CO2 sensing device of the plurality of CO2sensing devices comprises a battery.(Reeder: Col. 9, Lines 22-28)
Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Reeder, Rhee and Trikha disclose the method of claim 7, comprising transmitting the CO2 data from the CO2 sensing device to the base station (Reeder: Col. 4, Lines 50-58) but it does not explicitly the CO2 sensing device disposed in the subsurface reservoir. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to the CO2 sensing device disposed in the subsurface reservoir, since the patented structure disclose the CO2 sensing device. Selecting a specific use such as disposing the CO2 sensing device in a particular place to monitor said place would amount to a recitation of the intended use of the patented invention, without resulting in any structural difference between the claimed invention and the structure disclosed by The combination of Reeder, Rhee and Trikha, and therefore fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Reeder, Rhee and Trikha disclose the method of claim 7, comprising a server (Reeder: Fig. 1, item 160, Col. 5, Lines 5-10) but does not explicitly disclose that the server is a local server. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to make the server local since having a limited universe of potential options (servers), the selection of any particular option (local servers) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (process the CO2 measurement), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Furthermore, Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the server and make it local since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Reeder, Rhee and Trikha disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the local server configured to communicate with a cloud computing service over a network (Trikha: ¶0041).
Regarding claim 14: rejected for the same reason of claim 6.
Regarding claim 15: rejected for the same reason of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16: rejected for the same reason of claim 8.
Regarding claim 17: rejected for the same reason of claim 10.
Regarding claim 19: rejected for the same reason of claim 12.
Claim(s) 5, 13 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeder (US 9,182,751) in view of Rhee (US 2011/0298598) and further in view of Trikha et al. (US 2022/0214652) and further in view of Kelly (US 2024/0339026).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Reeder, Rhee and Trikha disclose the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the CO2 sensor comprises a non-dispersive infrared CO2 sensor. However, non-dispersive infrared CO2 are well know option for CO2 sensor as evidence by Kelly where it teaches non-dispersive infrared CO2 (¶0145).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the CO2 sensor comprises a non-dispersive infrared CO2 sensor since having a limited universe of potential options (CO2 sensors), the selection of any particular option (non-dispersive infrared) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (gather CO2 measurement), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Furthermore, Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the server and make it local since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 13: rejected for the same reason of claim 5.
Regarding claim 20: rejected for the same reason of claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, 11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689