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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-12, and 14-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Drawings and Specification
As discussed in a previous rejection, the drawings filed on 09/04/24 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are overcome in view of the applicant’s 10/15/25 amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for determining a physical parameter of a pipe-fluid system, which is a process. Independent claim 11 is directed to determination system, which is a machine. Independent claim 14 is directed to a non-tangible computer-readable storage medium, which is a manufacture.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
determining a mechanical model vibration spectrum based on a provided theoretical model for the pipe-fluid system and the provided characteristic data of the pipe and the provided process-fluid data (Using a theoretical model to determine a model vibration spectrum represents an abstract mathematical relationship based on mathematical calculations. Please note paragraph 0016 of the applicant’s original specification, which states, “At step 450 a mechanical model vibration spectrum 210, 220 is determined based on a provided theoretical model for the pipe-fluid system 110 and the provided characteristic data of the pipe and the provided process-fluid data and/or sensitivity prediction calculations for potential scenarios are performed, based on look up tables, preferably using interpolation calculations.” Here, it appears that the determination is directly performed using mathematical calculations.)
comparing the mechanical vibration spectrum and the model vibration spectrum for determining the physical parameter of the pipe-fluid system by comparing at least a measured frequency of the mechanical vibration spectrum with at least a frequency value of the mechanical model vibration spectrum (Comparing two data values is an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind. This limitation appears to be represented by a visual evaluation of applicant’s figure 2, which is capable of being performed in the human mind. If it wasn’t, then figure 2 could not exist in simple graphical form on paper for the examiner to evaluate.)
Independent claims 11 and 14 represent variations of independent claim 1 and recites similar abstract elements.
Dependent claims 4-5, 7-10, 12, and 15 depend on claims 1 and 11 and also recite their abstract limitations by virtue of their dependence.
Dependent claim 4 has been amended to state, “wherein the filtering includes limiting a frequency range of the vibration spectrum to an upper frequency value and a lower frequency value based on the process-fluid data and the model vibration spectrum.” This type of filtering is defined by mathematical relationships and therefore recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 further discloses that the theoretical model for the vibration spectrum is based on a finite-element calculation, which recites an abstract mathematical calculation.
Dependent claim 15 further discloses a determination based on a deviation between two variables, which recites an abstract mathematical concept.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
A method for determining a physical parameter of a pipe-fluid system (Overall, the method is directed to collecting data, processing data, and outputting data. The data merely stays on the computer. The claims do not affirmatively claim that the processed data is used with a particular machine or used to effect an actual structural change of a particular article to a different state or thing.)
striking an outer surface of the pipe-fluid system with a mechanical device to generate a mechanical vibration spectrum by a mechanical excitation pulse (Here, there is a positive recitation of structure, in the form of striking an outer surface of the pipe-fluid system with a mechanical device. However, as the examiner performed the update search, it appeared that such behavior is routine and conventional to creating data that is then processed, such as in the field of impact testing. Art is cited below that teaches using a hammer to strike a pipe to create a mechanical vibration spectrum. Because the amended limitation of striking the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system with a mechanical device appears to be routine and conventional, its purpose in the overall claim appears to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “solution” in the claims, as a whole, is still directed to the processing of data. Also, in the context of acquiring data through a routine and conventional technique, the amended limitation also serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
acquiring the mechanical vibration spectrum and providing, to a mobile device, the mechanical vibration spectrum of the pipe-fluid system (This limitation is directed to providing data about a pipe-fluid system. Although a pipe-fluid system is an actual structural element, its recitation here merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similarly, the general and generic mention of a “mobile device,” also serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, simply collecting data to be processed by an abstract mathematical concept is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the phrase “to a mobile device” is not a positive recitation of the structural implementation of the mobile device. In this context, data is “provided to” a mobile device, where the mobile device functions like a computer and processes the data. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The mobile device here does not qualify as a “particular machine” under MPEP 2106.05(b). Please contrast the use of the mobile device here with the Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. case, which was found to be eligible because the claims recited the use of a mathematical formula with a particular type/arrangement of an antenna with conductors. That case demonstrates how a conventional computer performing conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Here, the generic mention of the mobile device, in the context of general and generic data processing, does not rise to the level of positive recitation of a particular machine.)
providing characteristic data of a pipe of the pipe-fluid system (providing data is adding insignificant extra-solution activity; In addition, the phrase “to the mobile device” is not a positive recitation of the structural implementation of the mobile device. In this context, data is “provided to” a mobile device, where the mobile device functions like a computer and processes the data. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
providing process-fluid data of the pipe-fluid system (providing data is adding insignificant extra-solution activity; In addition, the phrase “to the mobile device” is not a positive recitation of the structural implementation of the mobile device. In this context, data is “provided to” a mobile device, where the mobile device functions like a computer and processes the data. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
determining, by the mobile device (The phrase “by the mobile device” is not a positive recitation of the structural implementation of the mobile device. In this context, data is “determined by” a mobile device, where the mobile device functions like a computer and processes the data. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
wherein the mechanical vibration spectrum of the pipe-fluid system is obtained by an acoustic signal acquisition system of the mobile device, the acoustic signal acquisition system acoustically coupled to the pipe-fluid system, and wherein the acoustic signal acquisition system comprises a microphone, or wherein the mechanical vibration spectrum of the pipe-fluid system is obtained by an acceleration acquisition system of the mobile device mechanically coupled to the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because this limitation merely gives context to the type of data that is being processed by abstract mathematical techniques. They serve as a general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are not directed to a positive recitation of the structural elements. There is a distinction between a positive recitation of structure and data processing about data that is related to or obtained via structure.)
comparing, by the mobile device (The phrase “by the mobile device” is not a positive recitation of the structural implementation of the mobile device. In this context, data is “compared by” a mobile device, where the mobile device functions like a computer and processes the data. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
outputting, by an interface, the determined physical parameter (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because outputting processed data outputs to some sort of display merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.), wherein a length of the pipe-fluid system is delimited by vibration mode confining elements at both ends of the pipe-fluid system, and wherein the determined physical parameter includes at least one of: a density of a process-fluid of the pipe-fluid system, a viscosity of the process-fluid of the pipe-fluid system, a flow of the process-fluid of the pipe-fluid system, and a pressure of the process-fluid of the pipe-fluid system (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because this limitation merely gives context to the type of data that is being processed by abstract mathematical techniques. They serve as a general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are not directed to a positive recitation of the structural elements. There is a distinction between a positive recitation of structure and data processing about data that is related to or obtained via structure.)
Independent claims 11 and 14 represent variations of independent claim 1 and recites similar additional elements that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 4
filtering, by the mobile device, of the provided vibration spectrum, using the process-fluid data and the model vibration spectrum corresponding to the process-fluid data, for comparing the vibration spectrum and the model vibration spectrum (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because the data filtering is merely a data processing operation performed by a computer, and as stated in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely using a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. As discussed above, the mere mention of a mobile device merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Providing data to or processing data by the mobile device merely uses the mobile device as a computer to perform an abstract idea.)
Claim 5
providing, to the mobile device, a temperature of the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system; and determining, by the mobile device, the mechanical model vibration spectrum additionally based on the temperature of the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system (This limitation is directed to data that is provided to the abstract mathematical model. It is not indicative of integration into a practical application because providing data to be processed is insignificant extra-solution activity. Also, the data is being processed by a computer being used as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, adding the phrases “to the mobile device” and “by the mobile device” are not indicative of integration into a practical application for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above.)
Claim 7
wherein the characteristic data of the pipe of the pipe-fluid system includes a diameter of the pipe or a thickness of the pipe or a material of the pipe of the pipe-fluid system or the length of the pipe-fluid system (This limitation is directed to data that is provided to the abstract mathematical model. It is not indicative of integration into a practical application because providing data to be processed is insignificant extra-solution activity. Also, the data is being processed by a computer being used as a tool to perform an abstract idea.)
Claim 9
further comprising a plurality of process-fluids, wherein each process-fluid comprises different process-fluid data (This limitation is directed to data that is provided to the abstract mathematical model. It is not indicative of integration into a practical application because providing data to be processed is insignificant extra-solution activity. Also, the data is being processed by a computer being used as a tool to perform an abstract idea.)
Claim 10
wherein the theoretical model for the model vibration spectrum is calculated using a computer system or the model for the vibration spectrum is provided by a list for a plurality of pipe-fluid systems including different process-fluid data (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.)
Claim 12
wherein the determination device further comprises a temperature acquisition system to provide a temperature of the pipe-fluid system (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use to gather data, which serves as insignificant extra-solution activity.)
wherein the determination device is configured to be electrically coupled to the acceleration acquisition system and comprises a first interface for providing the mechanical vibration spectrum of the pipe-fluid system, a second interface for providing the characteristic data of the pipe of the pipe-fluid system, and a third interface for providing the process-fluid data of the pipe-fluid system (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because the structural aspects are merely cited in the form of a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use for the purpose of providing data to the abstract mathematical data processing elements. As stated above, merely providing data to be processed by the judicial exception serves as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims have not affirmatively claimed a specific nexus between the structural elements and the judicial exception. They are merely cited generally, as a mechanism to provide data.)
Claim 15
wherein the physical parameter is the density of the process-fluid of the pipe-fluid system (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link a data variable that is processed to a particular technological environment or field of use.)
setting an alarm based on a change of the density of the process-fluid exceeding a threshold (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because setting a generalized alarm merely serves to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The “solution” of the claimed invention is in the abstract data processing. Setting a general alarm based on a threshold determination is a well-established, routine, and conventional action that serves here as “extra-solution.”)
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving data, processing data, and outputting a result based on the processed data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
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, 4, 7-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swindell et al (GB2550192A) in view of Vicente (FR2970721A1) (Machine Translation is attached), Harrison et al (US PgPub 20220011113), and Liu et al (CN206191152U) (Both original foreign reference and machine translation are attached).
With respect to claim 1, Swindell et al discloses:
A method for determining a physical parameter of a pipe-fluid system (abstract states, “A method for measuring stress in a structure is provided …”)
acquiring the mechanical vibration spectrum and providing the mechanical vibration spectrum of the pipe-fluid system (page 12, lines 26-27 state, “receiving vibration data for the structure captured while the structure is under operating conditions …”; page 1, lines 13-21 state, “Assessment of subsea systems has largely been limited to vortex induced vibration (VIV) or riser systems … due to flow past the outside of a riser, conductor or pipeline. Piping vibration due to process excitation has only now started to become a recognised issue on manifolds and jumpers, in part associated with increasing production rates leading to higher fluid velocities.” Swindell et al accounts for forces both internal and external to the structure. For example, page 10, lines 25-28 state, “The above aspects may be performed together to produce a more effective, accurate and complete model of the stresses on and the fatigue of subsea pipework structures both internally and externally.”)
providing characteristic data of a pipe of the pipe-fluid system (page 4, lines 21-24 state, “The use of accelerometers to determine stress is advantageous as they are easy to install …”; the accelerometer data can be broadly construed to serve as the claimed “characteristic data of a pipe.” Furthermore, page 9, lines 10-11 state, “Typical pipework already comprises pressure and flow sensors and these may be used to provide the analysis.”)
providing process-fluid data of the pipe-fluid system (page 7, line 24 – page 8, line 5 states, “The method comprises receiving measurement(s) of at least one property of a fluid contained within the pipe structure …”)
determining a mechanical model vibration spectrum based on a provided theoretical model for the pipe-fluid system and the provided characteristic data of the pipe and the provided process-fluid data (page 5, lines 15-29 state, “The step of applying the acceleration data to the virtual model may comprise: optionally, deriving velocity or displacement data from the received acceleration data; converting the received acceleration data, or the derived velocity or displacement data, for the series of time points into the frequency domain, for example by fourier transform; and updating the virtual model by applying a plurality of virtual vibrations to the virtual model at a respective plurality of different frequencies …”; page 8, lines 15-20 state, “The first virtual model of the fluid contained within the pipe structure may be a one-dimensional or three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics model. The at least one property of the fluid of which measurement(s) are received may further comprise: a pressure of the fluid, a temperature of the fluid and/or a density of the fluid …”; column 10, lines 25-30 state, “The above aspects may be performed together to produce a more effective, accurate, and complete model of the stresses on and the fatigue of subsea pipework structures both internally and externally.”; It is clear that Swindell et al contemplates both the external stress from the accelerometer data, as well as internal stress from fluid flow data.)
wherein the mechanical vibration spectrum of the pipe-fluid system is obtained by an acoustic signal acquisition system, the acoustic signal acquisition system acoustically coupled to the pipe-fluid system, and wherein the acoustic signal acquisition system comprises a microphone, or wherein the mechanical vibration spectrum of the pipe-fluid system is obtained by an acceleration acquisition system mechanically coupled to the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system (Swindell discloses accelerometers 11 that are attached to the structure. For example, page 4, lines 11-17 state, “The method comprises: receiving acceleration data captured at each of a series of time points from each of one or more accelerometers, each of the one or more accelerometers being attached to a respective position on the subsea structure.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “respective positions” would suggest sensors being coupled to the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system, as it’s more non-intrusive and easier to install than placing sensors on the inside of the pipe. Also, vibration considerations, like vortex induced vibration (VIV) (taught on page 1, line 14) are known in the art to be directed towards external structural vibration response, as opposed to internal fluid behavior.)
comparing the mechanical vibration spectrum and the model vibration spectrum for determining the physical parameter of the pipe-fluid system by comparing at least a measured frequency of the mechanical vibration spectrum with at least a frequency value of the mechanical model vibration spectrum (figure 8, reference 81 states, “Compare measured mode shapes and natural frequencies with those predicted.”; page 10, line 31 – page 11, line 15 states, “The combined method may compare the respective stress at the one or more locations within the subsea pipe structure calculated by the first aspect with the respective stress at the one or more locations within the subsea pipe structure calculated by the second aspect … Additionally, the model of the method of the first aspect may be used to calibrate the model of the method of the second aspect … when the measurements are taken over the same time period in each method, then the stresses derived in the two methods can be compared to adjust the model and/or sensors of the other. Further the model and stresses derived from each method above may be compared to the model of the other aspect over the same time period and the differences analysed to examine the stresses and forces on the structure …” Page 11, line 32 – page 12, line 1 states, “The combined method may further comprise: comparing the stress cycle count or frequency to a predetermined threshold and taking a predetermined action if the stress cycle count or frequency is above the predetermined threshold.” Page 19, lines 14-16 state, “The measured mode shapes and natural frequencies 62 are compared with those predicted in the model (step 81).”)
outputting, by an interface, the determined physical parameter (Page 7, line 24 – page 8, line 6 states, “The method comprises: receiving measurement(s) of at least one property of a fluid contained within the pipe structure, the measurement(s) indicating value(s) …”; Page 12, lines 10-16 state, “The method may further comprise outputting an indication of the remaining fatigue life of the structure. The indication may be a qualitative indication, such as a traffic light warning system, or a quantitative indication, such as an estimate …”; The disclosure of outputting an “indication” broadly suggests outputting “by an interface or a screen.”)
and wherein the determined physical parameter includes at least one of: a density of a process-fluid of the pipe-fluid system, a viscosity of the process-fluid of the pipe fluid system, a flow of the process-fluid of the pipe-fluid system, and a pressure of the process-fluid of the pipe-fluid system (page 8, lines 16-20 state, “The at least one property of the fluid of which measurement(s) are received may further comprise: a pressure of the fluid, a temperature of the fluid and/or a density of the fluid …”)
With respect to claim 1, Swindell et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
striking an outer surface of the pipe-fluid system with a mechanical device to generate a mechanical vibration spectrum by a mechanical excitation pulse
to a mobile device / by a mobile device / of a mobile device
wherein a length of the pipe-fluid system is delimited by vibration mode confining elements at both ends of the pipe-fluid system
With respect to claim 1, Vicente discloses:
striking an outer surface of the pipe-fluid system with a mechanical device to generate a mechanical vibration spectrum by a mechanical excitation pulse (Vicente page 3, paragraph 3 states, “Preferably, the equipment includes an acoustic wave generator with a means for mounting against the drainage pipe … the acoustic wave generator includes an electronic hammer capable of striking the pipe …”)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Vicente into the invention of Swindell et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of generating acoustic data that can be analyzed.
With respect to claim 1, Harrison et al discloses:
to a mobile device / by a mobile device / of a mobile device (abstract states, “Inertial measurement units with gyroscopic sensors are standard in mobile computers. The present invention shows that these sensors can be co-opted for vibroacoustic data reception.” The amended limitation provides for the use of a mobile device as “processing unit/computer” for the context of “determining a physical parameter of a pipe-fluid system.” As seen above, Swindell et al discloses the context of determining a physical parameter of a pipe-fluid system. What it lacks is the disclosure of processing its method using a mobile device. Harrison et al teaches the use of a mobile phone to serve as a mobile computer, with the structural capability of receiving and processing vibroacoustic data. The claimed invention, as amended, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of applying the principle of using a mobile computer with such capabilities to the context taught in Swindell et al.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Harrison et al into the invention of Swindell et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of using a more mobile and potentially more inexpensive computer system for processing data.
With respect to claim 1, Liu et al discloses:
wherein a length of the pipe-fluid system is delimited by vibration mode confining elements at both ends of the pipe-fluid system (figure 1, references 3 and 5; both references 3 and 5 could be construed to anticipate the claimed limitation, as they serve to isolate/limit/damp vibration and are positioned at opposite ends of the pipe, depending on directional orientation. Paragraph 0021 states, “As shown in Figures 1 and 2, a pipeline universal vibration damping isolator of the utility model includes a universal vibration isolator assembly and a pipeline damper assembly. The universal vibration isolator assembly includes a universal vibration isolator 3, a damping vibration isolation shell 2 and a connecting flange 4; the pipeline damper assembly includes a pipeline damper 5 …”)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu et al into the invention of modified Swindell et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of mitigating the effects that vibration may have on the safety and life of the pipeline.
Claim 11 represents a variation of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 14 represents a variation of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
With respect to claim 4, Swindell et al, as modified, discloses:
filtering, by the mobile device, of the provided vibration spectrum, using the process-fluid data and the model vibration spectrum corresponding to the process-fluid data, for comparing the vibration spectrum and the model vibration spectrum (obvious in view of combination; Swindell page 15, lines 29-31 state, “The process data model 12 serves to format and filter the data received from the accelerometers and (in this embodiment) to translate this data into displacement data.”; page 20, line 16 states, “The response of individual modes may be determined using band pass filtering.”; page 23, lines 21-25 state, “The high level functionalities are the same in this method, the process data model serves to format and filter the real world data …”; Harrison teaches mobile device, as discussed above. Harrison also teaches filtering (paragraphs 0014, 0043, 0055-0056, and 0061), wherein the filtering includes limiting a frequency range of the vibration spectrum to an upper frequency value and a lower frequency value based on the process-fluid data and the model vibration spectrum (obvious in view of combination; Both Swindell and Harrison disclose band-pass filters, which suggest setting upper and lower frequency values. Filtering vibration signals for a wide variety of reasons is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As one application example, Harrison paragraph 0014 states, “The use of microphones necessitated significant amounts of noise filtering and processing to avoid ambient noise …” There are many established reasons in the art for filtering signals.)
With respect to claim 7, Swindell et al discloses:
wherein the characteristic data of the pipe of the pipe-fluid system includes a diameter of the pipe or a thickness of the pipe or a material of the pipe of the pipe-fluid system or the length of the pipe-fluid system (Swindell page 2, lines 27-31 state, “Vibration monitoring techniques have also been used in above-water systems to estimate fatigue … A strain gauge is first attached to a structure near the position where the stress is to be determined and the measured strain is converted into stress by multiplying the measurement by the Young’s modulus of the structure material.”)
With respect to claim 8, Swindell et al discloses:
wherein the theoretical model for the vibration spectrum of the pipe-fluid system is based on a finite-element calculation of a plurality of pipe-fluid systems comprising different characteristic data of the respective pipes (Swindell page 4, lines 11-17 state, “The method comprises: receiving acceleration data captured at each of a series of time points from each of one or more accelerometers, each of the one or more accelerometers being attached to a respective position on the subsea structure; applying the acceleration data to a virtual model of the subsea structure; and calculating, from the virtual model, a respective stress resulting from the applied acceleration data at one or more locations on the subsea structure.”; Swindell page 6, lines 9-11 state, “The virtual model may be a structural model, preferably a finite element model, a finite volume model or a finite difference model. Such models provide for an accurate indication of the stresses on the structure.” “Finite element” teachings are further disclosed throughout the disclosure of Swindell.)
With respect to claim 9, Swindell et al discloses:
further comprising a plurality of process-fluids, wherein each process-fluid comprises different process-fluid data (Swindell page 13, lines 4-6 discloses, “the fluid contained within the structure may comprise oil, gas, water, or any combination thereof.”)
With respect to claim 10, Swindell et al discloses:
wherein the theoretical model for the model vibration spectrum is calculated using a computer system or the model for the vibration spectrum is provided by a list for a plurality of pipe-fluid systems including different process-fluid data (Swindell page 13, lines 8-13 state, “there may be provided an apparatus adapted to carry out the method of any of the above aspects. In a further aspect, there may be provided a computer program which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out a method according to any of the above aspects. In a further aspect, there may be provided a computer-readable medium storing the computer program.”)
With respect to claim 12, Swindell et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the determination device further comprises a temperature acquisition system to provide a temperature of the pipe-fluid system (obvious in view of combination; Swindell discloses the detection of temperature (page 8, lines 15-20 and page 23, lines 7-11). Harrison teaches implementing the processing of sensor data on a mobile computer (abstract; paragraph 0005). Using a mobile computer to process the data of Swindell would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
wherein the determination device is configured to be electrically coupled to the acceleration acquisition system and comprises a first interface for providing the mechanical vibration spectrum of the pipe-fluid system, a second interface for providing the characteristic data of the pipe of the pipe-fluid system, and a third interface for providing the process-fluid data of the pipe-fluid system (obvious in view of combination; Swindell page 25, line 24 – page 26, line 11 states, “Methods and processes described herein can be embodied as code … which may include any device or medium that can store code and/or data for use by a computer system …” The claimed electrical coupling and interfaces are suggested by the disclosure of a computer system, as computers run on electricity. The processor that performs each discrete computer processing function will be construed as the first/second/third interface depending on what function it is performing. Harrison teaches mobile device as computer.)
With respect to claim 15, Swindell et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the physical parameter is the density of the process-fluid of the pipe-fluid system (Swindell page 8, lines 15-20; claim 14)
determining a most likely fluid state for the pipe-fluid system based on a deviation between the measured frequency of the mechanical vibration spectrum and the frequency value of the mechanical model vibration spectrum (Swindell page 24, lines 16-21 state, “The process of computational fluid dynamics modelling is well known and will not be discussed in detail here for the purposes of brevity. The CFD model is used to calculate the static and dynamic pressure applied to the pipeline structure by the fluid. From this, a forcing function can be derived describing the forces on the pipeline structure arising from the calculated pressure.” It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to determine most likely fluid state, as a result of knowing the various forces on a pipeline structure. And as taught above, Swindell et al teaches comparison of frequencies as part of its modelling process. It would be mathematically obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, who is familiar with computational fluid dynamics, to arrive at the claimed limitation based on the data disclosed by Swindell et al.)
setting an alarm based on a change of the density of the process-fluid exceeding a threshold (obvious in view of total teachings of Swindell et al. Swindell et al teaches alarm/alert triggering throughout its disclosure. For example, page 11, line 32 – page 12, line 16 states, “The combined method may further comprise … or frequency is above the predetermined threshold … The method is thus able to proactively mitigate risk in subsea pipework environments. The predetermined action may be triggering an alarm … The indication may be a qualitative indication … or a quantitative indication … the method is able to accurately and efficiently alert operators to an expected fatigue lifetime such that actions can be taken in advance of pipe failure.” Although Swindell does not specifically disclose change of density exceeding a threshold as being an alarm trigger, it discloses the general principle of setting an alarm based on a trigger of a crossed threshold. It also discloses, as discussed above, density as one of the data points considered in its overall analysis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the same alarm trigger principles that Swindell teaches for its overall analysis to the various, individual variables that it considers.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swindell et al (GB2550192A) in view of Harrison et al (US PgPub 20220011113) and Liu et al (CN206191152U), as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Smith (US Pat 6301973).
With respect to claim 5, Swindell et al, as modified, discloses:
The method according to claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
providing, to the mobile device (taught by Swindell in view of Harrison, for reasons discussed above)
determining, by the mobile device (taught by Swindell in view of Harrison, for reasons discussed above)
With respect to claim 5, Swindell et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
a temperature of the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system (Swindell may have temperature sensors on the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system, but it is not explicitly clear about this.)
the mechanical model vibration spectrum additionally based on the temperature of the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system
With respect to claim 5, Smith discloses:
a temperature of the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system (column 9, lines 54-59 state, “Temperature sensor 59 is an external temperature sensor that measures pipe temperature and may be used as a close approximation for gas temperature … The temperature sensor may be used to adjust the pressure reading for temperature effects as discussed hereinafter.”)
the mechanical model vibration spectrum additionally based on the temperature of the outer surface of the pipe-fluid system (obvious in view of combination; As discussed above, Swindell already factors in temperature in its evaluation of vibration-related considerations. Furthermore, column 9, lines 50-59 of Smith states, “As the pressure varies, controller 48 will cause voltage-controlled oscillator 44 to vary the frequency to track the selected vibrational mode resonance frequency of pipe segment 34. Frequency detector 54 detects the frequency. Temperature sensor 59 is an external temperature sensor that measures pipe temperature and may be used as a close approximation for gas temperature … The temperature sensor may be used to adjust the pressure reading for temperature effects as discussed hereinafter.” One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes the direct link between vibration response, pressure, frequency, and temperature, such that it would be obvious for mechanical model vibration spectrum to be considered “based on temperature.”)
With respect to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Smith into the invention of modified Swindell et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of accurately accounting for various parameters of fluid flow in a pipe, including vibration response, frequency, pressure, and temperature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nozaki et al (JP 2004028976 A) discloses a method and apparatus for inspecting reinforced concrete pipe. Machine Translation also included.
Minaki et al (JP 2005189227 A) discloses a method for inspecting buried pipe. Machine Translation also included.
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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 02/28/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857