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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/31/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1 and 11 now share a common technical feature after the amendment to claim 1. This is found persuasive because of said claim amendment.
The requirement is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “the gateway device” should be changed to “the edge gateway device” in each claim in accordance with the amendment to claim 11 (see line 6 of claim 11, and line 2 of claim 16). Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-18 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.
Regarding claims 17-18, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 15-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230128536 to Garzon et al.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Garzon discloses a system for monitoring methane emissions at one or more industrial facilities, the system comprising: a network of emissions detectors 100 spaced from one another at different locations within an industrial facility; an edge gateway device 570 operably coupled to the network of emissions detectors; and a cloud computing environment operably coupled to the gateway device (see at least paragraphs 0042 and 0048-0052); wherein the network of emissions detectors is configured to perform time-series measurements at the different locations within the industrial facility and wirelessly communicate (paragraph 0054) time-series sensor data representing such measurements to the edge gateway device, wherein each emissions detector of the network of emissions detectors is in direct communication with the edge gateway device; wherein the edge gateway device is configured to, in conjunction with interface 780, process the time-series sensor data to derive time-series operational data and communicate the time-series operational data to the cloud computing environment and operational equipment at the industrial facility (see at least paragraphs 0010-0011, 0056-0058, and 0067); and wherein the cloud computing environment is configured to receive and process the time- series operational data to detect and characterize the methane emissions at the industrial facility (paragraphs 0059-0068).
Regarding claims 15 and 22, the system of claims 11 and 19, wherein, the cloud computing environment is further configured to generate data related to the methane emission and process such data to automatically generate an alert characterizing the methane emission at the industrial facility (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 16, the system of claim 11, wherein: the gateway device is configured to collect and process time-series sensor data measured by emissions detector networks at multiple industrial facilities; and the cloud computing environment is configured to process operational data derived from the time-series sensor data measured by the emissions detector networks at the multiple industrial facilities to characterize methane emission at the respective industrial facilities (paragraph 0031 mentions detecting emissions at production plants and oil rigs; while fig. 4 and paragraphs 0048 show that there is a plurality of detectors and various locations/facilities).
Regarding claims 17-18, as best understood with respect to the 112 rejection above, the industrial facility/facilities comprises oil and gas (paragraph 0031).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garzon et al in view of US 20220065834 to Gadot et al.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Garzon teaches the cloud computing environment from claims 11 and 19 above, but it is not specifically taught that the environment is configured to process the time-series operational data in conjunction with a computational model to determine a location of the methane emission at the industrial facility and an associated rate of methane emission at the industrial facility; and the computational model comprises a Gaussian plume dispersion model.
Gadot also teaches a cloud computing environment associated with methane detection (paragraph 0007), wherein the environment is configured to process the time-series operational data in conjunction with a computational model to determine a location of the methane emission at the industrial facility and an associated rate of methane emission at the industrial facility; and the computational model comprises a Gaussian plume dispersion model (paragraph 0033). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Gaussian plume dispersion model as taught by Gadot with the cloud computing environment of Garzon. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a Gaussian plume dispersion model was a well-known means for determining the timing, location, and magnitude of gas emissions, as taught by Gadot.
Regarding claim 14, Garzon teaches the system from claim 11, but it is not specifically taught that the system further comprises the time-series operational data represents methane concentration at specific locations within the industrial facility and environmental conditions at specific location(s) within the industrial facility as a function of time; and wherein the cloud computing environment is configured to process such time-series operational data in conjunction with a computation model that simulates methane emission at the industrial facility based on environmental conditions within the industrial facility.
Gadot also teaches a cloud computing system associated with methane detection (paragraph 0007), wherein the system further comprises the time-series operational data represents methane concentration at specific locations within the industrial facility and environmental conditions at specific location(s) within the industrial facility as a function of time; and wherein the cloud computing environment is configured to process such time-series operational data in conjunction with a computation model that simulates methane emission at the industrial facility based on environmental conditions within the industrial facility (see at least paragraphs 0006-0008, 0033, and 0058). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the computational model as taught by Gadot with the cloud computing environment of Garzon. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a computational model that simulates methane emissions was a well-known means for determining the timing, location, and magnitude of gas emissions, as taught by Gadot.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200333307 to Armitage in view of US 20230128536 to Garzon et al.
Regarding claim 1, Armitage teaches an emissions detector 108 for monitoring methane emissions at one or more industrial facilities 100, the emissions detector comprising: a pole 130; an enclosure 110 mounted on the pole, wherein the enclosure houses at least one sensor, wherein the at least one sensor includes a gas sensor 202 configured to measure concentration of methane in atmospheric gas that flows into the enclosure (paragraph 0080); and means 132/133 for removably securing the pole to ground without the use of concrete (figs. 1-7).
However, it is not specifically taught that there is a communication system configured to directly communicate with an edge gateway at the one or more industrial facilities to provide the concentration of methane to a cloud server and operational equipment at the one or more industrial facilities.
As shown in the rejection of claims 11 and 19 above, Garzon teaches an emissions detector similar to that of Armitage, wherein it is further taught that there is a communication system configured to directly communicate with an edge gateway at the one or more industrial facilities to provide the concentration of methane to a cloud server and operational equipment at the one or more industrial facilities (see at least paragraphs 0010-0011, 0042-0058, and 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Armitage and Garzon before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detector taught by Armitage to include the cloud communication system of Garzon, in order to obtain the predictable result of giving the system a cloud-agnostic capability that can interact with different cloud architectures and push/pull data as needed (paragraph 0052 of Garzon).
Regarding claim 6, the emissions detector of claim 1, wherein: the at least one sensor of the enclosure further includes at least one atmospheric sensor configured to measure properties of the atmospheric gas that flows into the enclosure (paragraph 0082 of Armitage).
Regarding claim 7, the emissions detector of claim 1, further comprising: acquisition and communication electronics 652 mounted on the pole, wherein the acquisition and communication electronics are operably coupled to the enclosure by at least one cable 658 (fig. 37 and paragraph 0123 of Armitage, wherein the module acquires a sample and is communicated with remotely).
Regarding claim 8, the emissions detector of claim 1, further comprising: at least one solar panel mounted on the pole (fig. 2 and paragraph 0070 of Armitage).
Regarding claim 9, the emissions detector of claim 1, further comprising: an anemometer mounted on the pole (paragraph 0097 of Armitage).
Regarding claim 10, the emissions detector of claim 1, further comprising: a camera device mounted on the pole (figs. 7 and 15; paragraph 0148 of Armitage); and a gateway device 204 mounted on the pole (figs. 7 and 15; paragraph 0085 of Armitage).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armitage in view of Garzon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4858876 to Moreno.
Regarding claim 2, Armitage in view of Garzon teaches the means for securing the pole to the ground, but it is not specifically taught that the means comprises a ground anchor with an exterior thread.
Moreno also teaches a means for securing pole 10 to the ground, wherein the means comprises a ground anchor with an exterior thread B (figs. 4 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Armitage/Garzon and Moreno before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bottom of the pole taught by Armitage to include the exterior thread of Moreno, in order to obtain the predictable result of stabilizing the post against external forces (col. 1, lines 43-49 of Moreno).
Regarding claim 3, the emissions detector of claim 2, wherein: the ground anchor has an interior hollow channel that receives and surrounds a bottom section of the pole (fig. 4 of Moreno shows that the bottom of the pole is inside of the hollow member C).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armitage in view of Garzon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 212433106 to Lin (provided by Applicant in the IDS dated 02/04/2025).
Regarding claim 4, Armitage in view of Garzon teaches the means for securing the pole to the ground, but it is not specifically taught that the means comprises a tripod base and a plurality of ground screws that interface to the tripod base, wherein the plurality of ground screws each have an exterior thread that removably screw into the ground.
Lin also teaches a means for securing a pole to the ground, wherein the means comprises a tripod base and a plurality of ground screws that interface to the tripod base 1, wherein the plurality of ground screws (unlabeled but clearly seen in fig. 1) each have an exterior thread that removably screw into the ground. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tripod base as taught by Lin as the anchoring means for the pole of Armitage. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a tripod base was a well-known means for supporting a post with greater stability as taught by Lin.
Regarding claim 5, the emissions detector of claim 4, wherein: the ground anchor has an interior hollow channel 12 that receives and surrounds a bottom section of the pole (fig. 1 of Lin).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240193617 has many terms that are similar to the current claim terms, but this reference does not qualify as prior art. US 20250147491 teaches a cloud computing environment 10-9 for methane detection (fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE BOMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7026. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-3:30pm EST M-Th.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/SHANE BOMAR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights