DETAILED ACTION
for
METHANE EMISSION LEAK ATTRIBUTION
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2025 & 06/26/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 04/14/2026 is noted by the Examiner.
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 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 and 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the methane concentration" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the highest attribution" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the same miss angle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the extrusion" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the methane concentration" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the highest attribution" in line 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the same miss angle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the extrusion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the methane concentration" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the highest attribution" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the same miss angle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the same miss angle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bennett et al. (US 2019/0376890).
Regarding claim 1, Bennett discloses a method for attributing fugitive gas emissions receiving imaging data from a methane detection camera (¶0023, lines 2-9; Fig. 1); estimating a location of the fugitive gas emissions within a field of view of the camera based on the received imaging data (¶0023, lines 1-8) and an orientation of the camera (¶0034, lines 2-9); projecting a line-of-sight from the camera to the estimated location of the methane emissions (¶0020, lines 3-8), the line-of-sight is determined based on the orientation of the camera (¶0034, lines 16-19) and the distribution of the methane concentration within the field of view (¶0003 and ¶0020); determining the line-of-sight intersects with a predefined attribution subspaces representing equipment at the monitoring site (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3); calculating an attribution confidence level for each attribution subspace (¶0038, lines 1-5) the calculation attributing the fugitive gas emissions to an equipment or group of equipment with the highest attribution confidence level (¶0027, lines 1-5 & ¶0039, lines 1-3).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Bennett discloses each attribution subspace being defined a 3D object created from a light detection and ranging (“LiDAR”) scan of the equipment (¶0021, lines 16-24).
Regarding claim 8, Bennett discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium containing instructions executed by a hardware-based processor (Step 604; ¶0035, lines 7-5) causes the processor to perform stages for attributing fugitive gas emissions, having receiving imaging data from a methane detection camera (¶0023, lines 2-9; Fig. 1); estimating a location of the fugitive gas emissions within a field of view of the camera (244) based on the received imaging data and an orientation of the camera (¶0034, lines 16-19); projecting a line-of-sight from the camera to the estimated location of the methane emissions (¶0020, lines 3-8), wherein the line-of-sight is determined based on the orientation of the camera and the distribution of the methane concentration within the field of view (¶0003 and ¶0020); determining whether the line-of-sight intersects with one or more predefined attribution subspaces representing equipment at the monitoring site (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3); calculating an attribution confidence level for each attribution subspace (¶0038, lines 1-5), the calculation comprising; and attributing the fugitive gas emissions to an equipment or group of equipment with the highest attribution confidence level (¶0027, lines 1-5 & ¶0039, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Bennett discloses A system for maintaining consistent results in an artificial intelligence (“AI”) pipeline having a memory storage (318) having a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having at least one hardware-based processor that executes the instructions to carry out stages (step 604): receiving imaging data from a methane detection camera (244); estimating a location of the fugitive gas emissions within a field of view of the camera based on the received imaging data and an orientation of the camera (¶0023, lines 2-9; Fig. 1); projecting a line-of-sight from the camera to the estimated location of the methane emissions (¶0020, lines 3-8), wherein the line-of-sight is determined based on the orientation of the camera (¶0034, lines 16-19) and the distribution of the methane concentration within the field of view (¶0003 and ¶0020); determining the line-of-sight intersects with one or more predefined attribution subspaces representing equipment at the monitoring site (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3); calculating an attribution confidence level for each attribution subspace (¶0038, lines 1-5), the calculation comprising; and attributing the fugitive gas emissions to an equipment or group of equipment with the highest attribution confidence level (¶0027, lines 1-5 & ¶0039, lines 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Prior arts made available do not teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination; method for attributing fugitive gas emissions involving estimating a location of fugitive gas emissions within a field of view of the camera based on the received imaging data and an orientation of the camera, the line of sight is projected from the camera to the estimated location of methane emissions, the line of sight is determined based on the orientation of the camera and the distribution of methane concentration in the field of view, determining the line of sight intersects one or more predefined attribution subspaces representing equipment at the monitoring site, the attribution confidence level for each attribution subspace is calculated, the calculating the attribution of fugitive gas emissions to a piece of equipment or group of equipment with the highest attribution confidence level and calculating the attribution confidence level for each attribution subspace identifying direct intersections between the line-of-sight and the attribution subspaces; identifying near misses between the line-of-sight and the attribution subspaces based on proximity; and applying a miss function to adjust the confidence level based on the angle of intersection or near miss.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights