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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quigley et al. (US 11623256) in view of Bartling et al. (US 10931304).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 16 and 17, Quigley discloses and system and method for monitoring extraction of landfill gas from a landfill having a plurality of wells by using a computer-based communication system configured to communicate with a plurality of sensors and determine if methane concentrations are outside of a desired local range for said concentrations, then adjusting the flow rate of the landfill gas being extracted from the well via a command from the computer-based communication system [Summary].
Quigley fails to disclose the computer-based communication system is specifically a low-power wide area networking (LPWAN).
Bartling discloses the use of a low-power wide area networking (LPWAN) protocol, the communication system comprising one or more gateway devices capable of communicating with a plurality of node devices (e.g. wells and/or sensors) to encode information packets, send said packets, receive, said packets, decode said packets [Column 5, lines 29-49; Column 13, Line 65 to Column 17, Line 23; Column 21, Lines 36-41; Column 22, Lines 11-16].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Quigly by substituting the computer-based communication system for specifically the LPWAN system as described by Bartling to utilize an encryption system that provides security from hackers, government agencies, foreign agencies and the like.
Regarding claim 2, Bartling further teaches determining whether to perform an action comprises comparing the set of one or more measurements of the one or more landfill gas characteristics to at least one threshold [Column 16, Lines 3-18, Column 17, Lines 7-19].
Regarding claim 3, Quigley further discloses transmitting an alert indicating that at least one of the landfill gas characteristics is outside of a target range, below a first threshold value, and/or above a second threshold value [Column 35, Line 54 to Column 36, Line 3].
Regarding claim 4, the action comprises transmitting a command to the first communication node device that is to be provided by the first communication node device to the first control system, the command instructing the first control system to adjust a flow rate of landfill gas being extracted from the first well [obvious that a command to adjust the well flow rate must be given to perform the action].
Regarding claim 5, transmitting the command comprises: encoding the command in a second set of one or more packets in accordance with the LPWAN protocol; transmitting the second set of one or more packets from the at least one server to the first gateway device ;transmitting the second set of one or more packets from the first gateway device to the first communication node device; decoding, using the first communication node device, the second set of one or more packets to obtain the command instructing the first control system to adjust the flow rate of landfill gas being extracted from the first well; and providing the command to the first control system [obvious the command should be encoded/decoded just like the sensor information to protect the encryption].
Regarding claim 7, although Quigley mentions complying with State/Federal/Local guidelines for gas extraction and emissions, it would have been obvious to output some sort of compliance record of this (e.g. via a printer) should it be asked for, needed and/or required to be displayed.
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 18, Quigley further discloses the gas to be monitored is methane [Summary].
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Although the combination is silent as to the specific packet size, it would have been obvious to utilize a size of 1-242 bytes depending on a number of factors including regulations, bandwidth capabilities, amount of information to be transferred/encrypted/communicated etc. Subsequently, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding 11, 15 and 20, Bartling further teaches the LPWAN protocol is LoRaWAN, and the packets could be sent via cellular device [Column 3, Line 63 to Column 4, Line 35].
Regarding claim 13, although not explicitly detailed, it would have been obvious to reduce the obtaining frequency based on the transmission bandwidth of the node device as there would be no need to utilize a high frequency should the node transmission come in low, and/or it would have been obvious to continue with the same frequency of the incoming transmission for ease and simplicity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14 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 art of record fails to disclose, teach, or suggest – either alone or in combination – sending/receiving packets based on a priority level.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vicat-Blanc et al. (FR 3126795) discloses a system/method for monitoring landfill gas collection operations via a LPWAN.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619