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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 08/07/2026, with respect to objection to the title and drawing have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification and drawing has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 08/07/2026 with respect to rejection of claims 3, 35 USC 112 1st has been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claim has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 08/07/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, and 20 under 35 USC 112 2nd have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/07/2026 with regards to claim 19 rejected under 35 USC 112 2nd have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument states that "the life of a plugged and abandoned well is hypothesized to be one thousand years," it is well settled that a patent cannot be granted for an applicant’s discovery of a result, even though it may be unexpected, good, which would flow logically from the teaching of the prior art. In re Arau, 117 USPQ (CCPA 1958).
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/07/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1, 4, 7-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 2020/0123894 A1) and further in view of Potyrailo et al. (US 2020/0400635 A1 )have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made set forth below.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007
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.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “an at least one or more predefined performance envelope under downhole conditions; “ Even though the specification recites the word performance as in ¶ [0011, 0015, 0020, & 0021] nor the paragraphs nor the specification describe what a” redefined performance envelope under downhole conditions.“ Therefore, subject matter is considered a new matter.
All the claims dependent of claim 1 are also rejected.
Claim 18 recites “an additive configured to expand upon setting and reduce gas migration.” The specification recites ¶ [0094] Barrier materials comprise Portland cement or other hardenable material with sufficient durability, adhesion, and Impermeability to arrest methane migration. Therefore, there is nothing in the specification that suggest “an additive configured to expand upon setting and reduce gas migration”, therefore, the subject matter is considered new matter.
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 and 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.
Claims 1 and 18 recites the limitation that are not supported by the specification, “an at least one or more predefined performance envelope under downhole conditions” and “an additive configured to expand upon setting and reduce gas migration” therefore, it is unclear what the boundaries of the claim limitation would be, making the claim indefinite.
All the claims dependent of claim 1 are also rejected.
Claim 19 is 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.
It is unclear how the applicant intent to enforce or had tested in laboratory one more permanent barrier designed to remain effective for one thousand (1000) years. Per applicant’s argument "the life of a plugged and abandoned well is hypothesized to be one thousand years," furthermore, there is nothing on the specification and claim that would provide and / or suggest how the long term has been determined, therefore, a person of ordinary in the art would now know the boundaries of the claim limitation, making the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 11-14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 2020/0123894 A1)(“Ross” herein – cited previously), and further in view of Beck (US 10,801,872 B1) (“Beck” herein)
Claim 1.
Ross discloses, as best understood based on the indefiniteness above, a method for permanently plugging orphaned or abandoned wells to mitigate fugitive methane emissions, the method comprising:
an at least one or more wells; [0224-0225, 0230]
assessing an at least one or more structure and condition of said at least one or more orphaned or abandoned well, [0231-0232]
designing an at least one or more plugging method specific to said at least one or more structure and condition of said at least one or more orphaned or abandoned well, said at least one or more plugging method specifying an at least one or more permanent barrier across a wellbore comprising an at least one or more cement system designed to satisfy an at least one or more predefined performance envelope under downhole conditions; [0035-0040]
preparing and executing an at least one or more customized plugging plan implementing said at least one or more plugging method, including placement of said at least one or more permanent barrier across said wellbore, thereby plugging said at least one or more orphaned or abandoned well, said at least one or more orphaned or abandoned well, once plugged, being referred to hereinafter as said plugged well; [0232-0234]
performing an at least one or more post- placement assessment to verify that said at least one or more permanent barrier across said wellbore satisfies said at least one or more predefined performance envelope; [0236-0239, 0242, 0244]
storing well- identification data generated by said identifying, well-assessment data generated by said assessing, plugging-plan data generated by said designing, barrier-placement data generated by said preparing and executing, and post-placement assessment data generated by said performing an at least one or more post-placement assessment, in an at least one or more archive implemented as an at least one or more searchable electronic database; [0064-0071, 0145-0158, 0244] and
monitoring said plugged well for methane emissions over an at least one or more defined period [0236-0244] and storing said data in said searchable electronic. [0152-0157]
Ross however does not explicitly disclose using an at least one or more periodic surface air sampling proximate said plugged well and an at least one or more methane detection sensor capable of remote transmission, thereby generating methane- monitoring data, and said methane-monitoring data and including measuring an at least one or more sustained casing pressure and measuring an at least one or more methane emissions at or near an at least one or more wellhead over an at least one or more predefined assessment period.
Beck teaches the above limitation (See Col.4, l. 37-53, Col. 7 l. 55 +, Col. 11, l. 35-38 → Beck teaches this limitation in that in one aspect, a vent gas methane data logger system is provided. The system has a data logging unit and a series of modular wellhead sensors and valves. The system can measure vent gas flow rate and methane composition to produce a totalized methane flow. The system can monitor one or a plurality of wellhead pressure transmitters. In some aspects, the system can measure up to four wellhead pressure transmitters. In some aspects, the data so obtained can be recorded using an on-board data logging hardware unit. In some aspects the data so obtained can be transmitted remotely using a cellphone, satellite or other communications unit. In some aspects, the system is modular, self-powered and communicates with the data logging hardware unit via wired or wireless means, e.g. a wireless transmitter or cable connection. In some aspects, the system is suitable for unattended operation. In some aspects, the system connects to an interface application. the illustrated embodiment, system 20 further includes a data logging memory 40. Data logging memory 40 can be used to record various measured parameters relating to wellhead 22 over time, for example a surface casing vent flow rate, the proportion of methane present in the gas being vented from wellhead 22, the surface casing pressure, intermediate casing pressure, production tubing pressure, production casing pressure, and the like. In alternative embodiments, rather than being provided with an on-board data storage unit like data logging memory 40, data could be transmitted by system 20 for storage on a remote data storage system. In some embodiments, data logging memory 40 is a local USB memory. In some embodiments, data logging memory 40 is a storage unit, for example, providing persistent storage. In some embodiments, the data storage unit 40 is configured to receive data, for example, from another component included in system 20 (e.g., flow meter (high) 28, flow meter (low) 26, surface casing pressure monitor 66, methane detector 34, intermediate casing pressure monitor 68, production tubing pressure monitor 70, production casing pressure monitor 72, temperature monitor 78, a sensor, a monitor, and/or other component). In some embodiments, in high speed logging mode, a sample is taken every 5 to 10 milliseconds, including e.g. every 6, 7, 8 or 9 milliseconds.) for the purpose of providing an improved apparatus, systems and methods for quantifying the amount of methane present in gases vented through wellhead venting. (Col. 2 l. 61-63).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ross, with the above limitation, as taught by Beck, in order to provide an improved apparatus, systems and methods for quantifying the amount of methane present in gases vented through wellhead venting. (Col. 2 l. 61-63).
Claim 4.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising an at least one or more pre-placement testing to evaluate one or more properties of a cement slurry for said at least one or more permanent barrier under representative well conditions. [0236-0244]
Claim 7.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising a use of an at least one or more mechanical devices, to provide a physical base for placement of said at least one or more permanent barrier across said wellbore. [0035, 0208]
Claim 8.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising a perf-and- seal technique to create a barrier in a compromised annulus.[0019-0020, 0233-0234]
Claim 9.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one or more customized plugging plan incorporates an a balanced plug placement technique to reduce fluid intermixing during placement of said at least one or more permanent barrier across said wellbore. [0141-0144, 0233-0234]
Claim 11.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one or more plugging method is adapted to injecting an at least one or more settable sealant fluid through perforations to seal annular flow paths. [0019-0020, 0234-0236]
Claim 12.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one or more assessments include ultrasonic or acoustic bond logs to verify integrity of said at least one or more permanent barrier across said wellbore. [0159-0170, 0236-0244]
Claim 13.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1. Ross does not explicitly disclose, wherein said monitoring includes periodic air sampling at the surface in proximity to said plugged well. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 14.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said monitoring for methane emissions includes deploying an at least one or more real-time gas detection sensor capable of remote transmission. [0152-0154, 0162-0165]
Claim 16.
The method of claim 1, wherein said at least one or more customized plugging plan includes an at least one or more contingency for addressing unanticipated methane pressure build-up detected during execution of said at least one or more customized plugging plan.
Claim 17.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said searchable electronic database stores said well-identification data, said well-assessment data, said plugging-plan data, said barrier-placement data, said post-placement assessment data, and said monitoring data. [0145-0158] Ross however does not explicitly disclose methane. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 19.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one or more permanent barrier is designed to remain effective for one thousand (1000) years. [0023, 0042-0045]
It is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function and / or property possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to
distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the Patent Office has reason to
believe that a functional limitational limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be a characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swimehart, 169 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1971).
Claim 20.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising said monitoring and recording fugitive methane emissions for twenty (20) years. [0023, 0042-0045]
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, Beck, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alharbi et al. (US 2023/0003113 A1) ("Alharbi" herein – cited previously).
Claim 2.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1. Ross however does not explicitly disclose,
wherein said at least one or more plugging method includes an at least one or more contingency decision tree for on-site adjustments during execution of said at least one or more customized plugging plan in response to said at least one or more structure and condition.
Alharbi teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0038-0039, 0065-0066 →
Alharbi teaches this limitation in that in some embodiments, for example, the well intervention manager (e.g., well intervention manager X (260)) applies one or more ML algorithms (e.g., an unsupervised ML algorithm, a reinforcement ML algorithm, a self-supervised ML algorithm, etc.) to train a model (e.g., ML models X (265)). Specifically, the well intervention manager (e.g., well intervention manager X (260)) applies the model to generate a well intervention plan at a well site using data inputs regarding one or more well intervention providers and one or more well conditions. With respect to ML models, different types of ML models may be used, such as convolutional neural networks, deep neural networks, recurrent neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees, inductive learning models, deductive learning models, unsupervised learning models, supervised learning models, reinforcement learning models, self- supervised learning models, etc. Also, in emergency situations, wells may need to be attended to control the emergency situation (e.g., by shutting the well or installing an isolation plugs). In case of an emergency, a well Intervention manager may identify all the affected wells faster in order to be shut-in and control the emergency situation. Based on the acquired data inputs, well intervention manager may generate one or more plans and task schedules. In some embodiments, a well intervention manager estimates required budgets as well as time and resources to perform various tasks in addition to estimating hydrocarbon gains. Thus, a well intervention manager may also provide feedback and/or recommendations or suggested changes to the different input sources to meet various constraints such as available resources and allocated budgets. Once well intervention plan is approved and executed, the well intervention manager may collect the input information from the different sources (see, e.g., FIG. 5E) such as rig and workover operations details, rigless operations details, maintenance and servicing details, tie-in details, surveillance outputs, and sampling output. Those data sources may generate information such as the rig and rigless site reports, stimulation job reports, maintenance reports, and logging output. Data input sources may also form the feedline to provide the data needed for a machine learning process, where a system may utilize machine-learning algorithms to read and compare acquired data with a particular plan. Thus, a system may identify changes that occurred during an implementation phase (e.g., problems and contingencies that arose, changes in field and reservoirs' conditions, etc.). Some processes may be thus repeated in a different plan, while incorporating knowledge gains from previous cycles. ) for the purpose of determining a well intervention plan using machine learning (ML). [0015]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ross, with the above limitation, as taught by Alharbi, in order to di determine a well intervention plan using machine learning (ML).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, Beck, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hernandez (US 2011/0226474 A1) ("Hernandez" herein- cited previously)
Claim 3.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1. Ross however does not explicitly disclose,
further comprising use of an at least one or more gauge ring and collar locator to assess internal wellbore conditions before executing said at least one or more plugging method.
Hernandez teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0012 & 0068 → Hernandez teaches this limitation in that in most instances, a "trial run" (for example, using a gauge ring and/or a junk basket) is first made in order to determine that the necessary clearance exists for the cutting assembly of the present invention to reach a desired depth. Assuming that the trial run is successful, the cutting assembly can be conveyed into the well. In the preferred embodiment, the pipe cutter assembly of the present invention has a threaded connection at its upper end, and can be connected to slickline. The cutting assembly is then lowered downhole to a desired depth where a cut is to be made. Following a successful gauge run, a plug is typically set within tubing to be cut at a desired distance below the location of a desired cut. Such plug can be cement deposited within the tubing (such as, for example, cement plug 202 depicted in FIG. 7B), including cement deposited as part of plugging and abandonment operations. Alternatively, said plug can be a mechanical plug set separately, or even a plug or anchor assembly conveyed along with and integrally attached to cutting assembly 100 of the present invention.) for the purpose of determining that the necessary clearance exists for the cutting assembly of the present invention to reach a desired depth. [0012]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ross, with the above limitation, as taught by Hernandez, in order to determine that the necessary clearance exists for the cutting assembly of the present invention to reach a desired depth.
Claim 5, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, Beck, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alanqari et al. (US 2023/0151260 A1) (“Alanqari” herein)
Claim 5.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1. Ross however does not explicitly disclose,
wherein said at least one or more permanent barrier across said wellbore comprises an at least one or more Portland cement and an at least one or more additives selected to enhance durability and seal integrity.
Alanqari teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0058, 0079, & 0098 → Alanqari teaches this limitation in that the cement precursor material may include Portland cement, siliceous fly ash, calcareous fly ash, slag cement, silica fume, quartz, other cement precursor material, or any combination of these. the cement compositions may include additives, such as but not limited to, expansion additives, fluid loss additives, friction reducers, gas block stabilizers, other additives, or combinations of these. In some aspects, the cement compositions may include an expansion additive. The expansion additive can be selected from known expansion additive compounds. Examples of expansion additives may include metal oxides, examples of which include, but are not limited to, calcium oxide (CaO), magnesium oxide (MgO), metal oxides of zinc, magnesium, iron, aluminum powders, or combinations of these. In some aspects, the expansion additive may be a calcined magnesium oxide. In other aspects, the expansion additive may be a mixture of calcium oxide and magnesium oxide. During curing, hydration of magnesium oxide to magnesium hydroxide may provide an expansive force within the cement matrix. Diameters of tubular strings, such casings and liners, may be affected by changes in temperature and pressure, and therefore, the diameters of such tubular strings may be reduced or expanded, which can lead to the formation of a micro-annulus between the tubular string and the cement or between the cement and the wellbore wall. The expansion additive may be used in the cement compositions to maintain a seal around the tubular string and against the wellbore wall of the wellbore to achieve superior bonding. The spacer fluid may provide a buffer between the drilling fluid or treatment fluid and the cement composition to prevent contact between incompatible constituents. Various washing fluids or pre-flush fluids may also be introduced to the interior volume of the tubular string 20 before or after the spacer fluid. Washing fluids may be used to remove films and residue from the surfaces of the tubular string 20 and wellbore wall.) for the purpose of providing a remedial sealing that may also include injecting the cement composition into the wellbore for purposes of sealing the wellbore in preparation for abandonment. [0101]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ross, with the above limitation, as taught by Alanqari, in order to prepare for abandonment.
Claim 10.
Ross discloses the method of claim 5. Ross however does not explicitly disclose, further comprising using an at least one or more pre-cement flush to remove hydrocarbon films from casing surfaces before placement of said Portland cement and said at least one or more additives selected to enhance durability and seal integrity. (Same as claim 5)
Claim 18.
Ross discloses the method of claim 5. Ross however does not explicitly disclose,
wherein said at least one or more Portland cement further comprises an additive configured to expand upon setting and reduce gas migration. (Same as claim 5)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, Beck, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rahman et al. (US 2015/0260009 A1) ("Rahman" herein- cited previously)
Claim 6.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1. Ross however does not explicitly disclose, wherein said at least one or more permanent barrier across said wellbore is designed using an at least one or more cement formulation laboratory tested for durability under pressure and temperature conditions representative of the well.
Rahman teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0030 & 0050→ Rahman teaches this limitation in that the Portland cement type-G with nanosilica additive for high pressure-high temperature applications is a mixture of about 1.0%-2.0% by dry weight of nanoparticles of hydrophilic silica; and type-G Portland cement (and other admixtures) forming the balance of the mixture. Other admixtures include powders and liquids for preventing fluid loss, strength retrogression, foaming, and early setting. The cement SO formed is suitable for use in petroleum wells, which require cement that can be introduced under high temperature (about 290. degree. F.) and high pressure (about 8,000-9,000 PSI) conditions. Cement lab testing is an important process used to evaluate and develop different properties of the cement system, and to attempt to mimic the actual behavior of the cement in high pressure high temperature downhole environment.) for the purpose of having conditions require cement that can be introduced under high temperature and high temperature. [0049]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ross, with the above limitation, as taught by Rahman, in order to have conditions that require cement that can be introduced under high temperature and high temperature.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, Beck, as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Potyrailo et al. (US 2020/0400635 A1) ("Potyrailo" herein- cited previously).
Claim 15.
Ross discloses the method of claim 1. Ross however does not explicitly disclose, wherein said monitoring for methane emissions includes using at least one or more drones equipped with methane detection technology to survey said plugged well.
Potyrailo teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0036, 0046, 0077, 0141 → Potyrailo teaches this limitation in that least one technical effect of the sensor system and methods described herein include the use of the sensor systems for detection of gases of interest in various environments, and optionally the actions that are implemented in response to the detection of a gas of interest by the systems. Non- limiting examples of machine inspection include inspection by robots, drones, unmanned vessels, and unmanned vehicles. Non-limiting examples of drones include airborne, ground-based, and subsea drones. In an embodiment, the industrial site is a site along a gas or oil pipeline, gas or oil production site, gas or oil distribution site, and/or gas or oil transport site. In one embodiment, this gas sample is an analyte of interest, such as methane, ethane, or another hydrocarbon. In one example, an experiment was provided with the sensor node as described above that was positioned
onto a drone and tested for its detection of methane during operation of the drone.) for the purpose of detecting the methane leak in real time. [0141]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ross, with the above limitation, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to detect the methane leak in real time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/SILVANA C RUNYAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616 09/21/2026
Prosecution Insights