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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, the applicant asserts that “segmented is where the wire or ribbon are composed of several segments or pieces of the material that are formed into a wire or ribbon, but they are not disposed on another substrate and instead are simply attached to another segment so that multiple segments form the wire/ribbon but no other material is present or separates the segments. There is no separate substrate for the segmented pieces, but instead the segmented pieces are attached to an adjacent segment forming a wire/ribbon” without explaining how Davis does not teach “a continuous segmented flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material.” The examiner respectfully submits that Davis teaches “segmented is […] composed of several segments or pieces of the material that are formed into a wire or ribbon” (i.e., the strain-based sensors 15 comprising active areas formed by segments of electrodes 64 and 66 sandwiching the PVDF sheet 62) (see Fig. 3 and 4); “are not disposed on another substrate and instead are simply attached to another segment so that multiple segments form the wire/ribbon” (i.e., active areas of sensors 15 formed by segments of electrodes 64 and 66 sandwiching the PVDF sheet 62 are ribbon shaped) (see at least Fig. 3 and 4) but no other material is present (i.e., non-conductive material 68 is not present in the embodiment of Fig. 3 vs that of embodiment in Fig. 4. Since material 68 provides insulation against electrical shorts, in embodiments where two active areas of sensors 15 are placed at distal ends of a vessel, then the material wouldn’t be necessary because the electrodes would be sufficiently far apart that they would not short) (see Fig. 3 and 4) or separates the segments; “no separate substrate for the segmented pieces, but instead the segmented pieces are attached to an adjacent segment forming a wire/ribbon” (i.e., adjacent active areas are attached to each other via the single sheet of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) 62) (see Fig. 3 and 4). In addition, the examiner respectfully submits that Davis teaches that each strain sensor is composed of a flat ribbon (i.e., active areas of sensors 15 formed by segments of electrodes 64 and 66 sandwiching the PVDF sheet 62 are ribbon shaped) (see at least Fig. 3 and 4) that includes a continuous (i.e., longitudinal strips of active areas of sensors 15) (see Fig. 3) segmented (i.e., separated longitudinal strips of active areas of sensors 15) (see Fig. 3 and 4) flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material (i.e., a piezo-electronic pressure transducer may be used as one or more of the strain-based sensors) (see Column 8, line 34, to Column 10, line 30) as described in the claim.
The applicant mentions that “please see the accompany articles and description of such wires/ribbons and similar products”. The examiner respectfully submits that the non-patent literatures mentioned are not included in any IDS filed and will not be considered.
Applicant’s assertion that “[t]here is no mechanism in the patent or the claims to change the “an output” to more than one output or to outputs. The plain language of “an output” is one output by definition of the word “an”. Examiner is adding features not found in the claims or the specification. “An output” is one output. The word “an” is singular, as is the word “a”. Both “a” and “an” define one thing. Furthermore, the measurements are used to determine “hoop strain” measurements were are [sic] the single measurement change in circumference of a vessel. Hoop strain cannot be measured by the cited prior art in the same way that the present invention does”, on page 10 of the Remarks, does not appear to address any parts of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in the Final office action dated 04/04/2025. It seems that this portion relates to the applicant’s statements to “the response to arguments section” mentioned in the “Conclusion”
The examiner respectfully submits that, in response to the applicant’s argument that “the measurements are used to determine “hoop strain” measurements were are [sic] the single measurement change in circumference of a vessel,” the invention as claimed does not describe or define any hoop strain measurements in the language mentioned above. The examiner’s statement, in line item 4, in the response to arguments of the Final office action, was to address the applicant’s assertion that “the present invention reduces the output of the sensor to just one per sensor,” which assertion is not explicitly supported by the claimed limitation that “each strain sensor has an output which can be converted to an output voltage”. In this case, this limitation merely discloses that an output of each sensor can be converted to an output voltage, not exclusively that ““the present invention reduces the output of the sensor to just one per sensor”. Having each sensor in the array of sensor producing individual output that can be converted to an output voltage is explicitly anticipated by Davis. In particular, Davis directly teaches that each strain sensor has an output (i.e., the signal processor receives pressure signals P.sub.1(t) . . . P.sub.N(t) from each of the N strain-based sensors 15 in the array 11 (block 54) and selectively processes the signals from the M selected strain-based sensors 15 to determine the parameter associated with the fluid 13 (block 56)) (see Column 5, line 1, to Column 6, line 41) which can be converted (i.e., there are integrated circuit piezoelectric voltage mode-type sensors that feature built-in microelectronic amplifiers that convert the high-impedance charge into a low-impedance voltage output) (see Column 8, lines 34-53) to an output voltage (i.e., the signal processor 19 may compare the output signal of each strain-based sensor 15 to a predetermined criteria (e.g., voltage level), which indicates that each strain-based sensor 15 generates an output that can be converted to voltages in order to be compared to a predetermined voltage level) (see Column 7, lines 13-31).
The applicant asserts that “the Davis patent is measuring localized perturbances in the surface of the elastic pressure vessel” and “the present invention does not measure localized perturbances in the surface of the vessel” because “the present invention uses a direct measurement of the external surface diameter of the elastic pressure vessel (hoop strain) and measures no other variables.” The examiner respectfully submits that, in this case, the applicant appears to define hoop strain as “a direct measurement of the external surface diameter of the elastic pressure vessel”—which is not disclosed in the instant claims—, but the applicant has not explained how a direct measurement on an external surface of the vessel is not considered measurement of perturbances localized to the mounting position or location of the sensors disposed around the vessel. On the other hand, the specification mentions the word “local” in one context related to “[sensing] overall or integral expansion, otherwise known as a “hoop strain”, and not the local effects of the increase in pressure” (see paragraph section [0012] of specification dated 04/06/2022), which appears to define that, when the sensor is configured to sense “overall or integral expansion”, it would be considered as not sensing “the local effects of the increase in pressure”. In this case, the examiner respectfully submits that Davis explicitly teaches sensing overall or integral expansion (i.e., the signal processor 19 may reconfigure the array 11 by selecting sensors 15 and/or segments 76 at different circumferential locations about the diameter of the pipe 14 to determine a complete or partial circumferential measurement of induced strain on the pipe 14. The signal processor 19 may select selected ones of the strain-based sensors 15 to provide spatial filtering of conditions associated with the pipe 14. For example, when it is desired for the sensors 15 to sense the strain in the pipe 14 due to pressure fluctuations) (see Davis’ Column 6, lines 31-41; Column 8, lines 3-13), as defined by the specification. The examiner respectfully submits that the claims do not disclose any sensing of “overall or integral expansion” of the vessel.
The applicant asserts that “Davis teaches directly away from the present invention” because “the present invention reduces the output of the sensor to just one per sensor”, “utilizes a ribbon or a wire”, while “Davis invention uses a variety of sensors disposed in different locations for localized data collection”, “does not provide a measurement that directly measures the strain around the vessel” and “none of the sensors disclosed in Davis are disposed completely around the vessel”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that in response to:
“the present invention reduces the output of the sensor to just one per sensor”, Davis teaches that that each strain sensor has an output (i.e., the signal processor receives pressure signals P.sub.1(t) . . . P.sub.N(t) from each of the N strain-based sensors 15 in the array 11 (block 54) and selectively processes the signals from the M selected strain-based sensors 15 to determine the parameter associated with the fluid 13 (block 56)) (see Column 5, line 1, to Column 6, line 41) which can be converted (i.e., there are integrated circuit piezoelectric voltage mode-type sensors that feature built-in microelectronic amplifiers that convert the high-impedance charge into a low-impedance voltage output) (see Column 8, lines 34-53) to an output voltage (i.e., the signal processor 19 may compare the output signal of each strain-based sensor 15 to a predetermined criteria (e.g., voltage level), which indicates that each strain-based sensor generates an output that can be converted to voltages in order to be compared to a predetermined voltage level) (see Column 7, lines 13-31);
“utilizes a ribbon or a wire”, Davis teaches each strain sensor is composed of a flat ribbon (i.e., active areas of sensors 15 formed by segments of electrodes 64 and 66 sandwiching the PVDF sheet 62 are ribbon shaped) (see at least Fig. 3 and 4);
“Davis invention uses a variety of sensors disposed in different locations for localized data collection”, the examiner respectfully submits that Davis’ discussion of the non-conductive PVDF material creates “only a local charge in response to a local strain” in order to create multiple independent sensors 15 (see Davis’ Column 10, lines 14-30). Davis explicitly teaches that each sensor 15 extends substantially fully around the outer surface of the pipe 14, which allows each sensor 15 to sense the circumferential average of unsteady pressures at a corresponding one of the axial locations (see Davis’s Column 10, lines 31-39). The specification mentions the word “local” in one context related to “[sensing] overall or integral expansion, otherwise known as a “hoop strain”, and not the local effects of the increase in pressure” (see paragraph section [0012] of specification dated 04/06/2022), which appears to define that when the sensor is configured to sense “overall or integral expansion”, it would be considered as not sensing “the local effects of the increase in pressure”. In this case, the examiner respectfully submits that Davis explicitly teaches sensing overall or integral expansion (i.e., the signal processor 19 may reconfigure the array 11 by selecting sensors 15 and/or segments 76 at different circumferential locations about the diameter of the pipe 14 to determine a complete or partial circumferential measurement of induced strain on the pipe 14. The signal processor 19 may select selected ones of the strain-based sensors 15 to provide spatial filtering of conditions associated with the pipe 14. For example, when it is desired for the sensors 15 to sense the strain in the pipe 14 due to pressure fluctuations) (see Davis’ Column 6, lines 31-41; Column 8, lines 3-13), as defined by the specification. The examiner respectfully submits that the claims do not disclose any sensing of “overall or integral expansion” of the vessel;
“does not provide a measurement that directly measures the strain around the vessel”, the examiner respectfully submits that Davis teaches directly [measuring] the strain around the vessel (i.e., the signal processor 19 may reconfigure the array 11 by selecting sensors 15 and/or segments 76 at different circumferential locations about the diameter of the pipe 14 to determine a complete or partial circumferential measurement of induced strain on the pipe 14. The signal processor 19 may select selected ones of the strain-based sensors 15 to provide spatial filtering of conditions associated with the pipe 14. For example, when it is desired for the sensors 15 to sense the strain in the pipe 14 due to pressure fluctuations) (see Davis’ Column 6, lines 31-41; Column 8, lines 3-13);
and “none of the sensors disclosed in Davis are disposed completely around the vessel”, the examiner respectfully submits that Davis directly teaches sensors disposed “completely around the vessel” (i.e., each sensor 15 extends substantially fully around the outer surface of the pipe 14) (see Fig. 5). There is nothing indicating that each sensor 15, in the embodiment of Fig. 5, does not dispose completely around the vessel. The examiner respectfully submits there is nothing to suggest that Davis’ teaching of each sensor extending “substantially fully around the outer surface of the pipe” is any less than the instantly claimed limitation of “each strain sensor is wrapped at least a complete turn around the elastic pressure vessel.” The examiner respectfully submits that Fig. 16-17B are directed to a different embodiment of Fig. 6 which is distinct from that of Fig. 5.
The applicant further asserts that “the present invention does not monitor local effects” because “each of the strain sensors of the present invention is used alone and produces a single output signal at the end of the wire or ribbon that connects to the electronics for monitoring the deformation of the elastic pressure vessel by an output signal”, the examiner respectfully submits that the instantly claimed invention, as presented, does not directly teach or make any explicitly connection between “measuring strain over a significant dimension fraction length or area of a surface of an elastic pressure vessel” and “monitoring the deformation of the elastic pressure vessel.” The examiner further respectfully submits that Davis teaches that
“each of the strain sensors of the present invention is used alone” (i.e., when conductive electrodes 64, 66 are placed covering an area of the PVDF material, it will become an integrating sensor for detecting strain and/or temperature differences only over the area covered by the electrodes 64, 66) (see Fig. 4)
“and produces a single output signal at the end of the wire or ribbon that connects to the electronics” (i.e., to route the various sensors 15 to a common location for easy attachment to a connector 70 (FIG. 3) for connection to the signal processor 19 or processing unit 20) (see Fig. 1 and 3)
“for monitoring the deformation of the elastic pressure vessel by an output signal” (i.e., the signal processor 19 may reconfigure the array 11 by selecting sensors 15 and/or segments 76 at different circumferential locations about the diameter of the pipe 14 to determine a complete or partial circumferential measurement of induced strain on the pipe 14. The signal processor 19 may select selected ones of the strain-based sensors 15 to provide spatial filtering of conditions associated with the pipe 14. For example, when it is desired for the sensors 15 to sense the strain in the pipe 14 due to pressure fluctuations) (see Davis’ Column 6, lines 31-41; Column 8, lines 3-13)
In response to the applicant’s argument that Davis “should not be used in a 102 rejection” because “the present application covers only a single signal from one output per sensor” while “Davis’ sensors include a variety of sensors”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant invention, as currently claimed, only discloses that each strain sensor has an output (i.e., the signal processor receives pressure signals P.sub.1(t) . . . P.sub.N(t) from each of the N strain-based sensors 15 in the array 11 (block 54) and selectively processes the signals from the M selected strain-based sensors 15 to determine the parameter associated with the fluid 13 (block 56)) (see Davis’ Column 5, line 1, to Column 6, line 41) which can be converted (i.e., there are integrated circuit piezoelectric voltage mode-type sensors that feature built-in microelectronic amplifiers that convert the high-impedance charge into a low-impedance voltage output) (see Davis’ Column 8, lines 34-53) to an output voltage (i.e., the signal processor 19 may compare the output signal of each strain-based sensor 15 to a predetermined criteria (e.g., voltage level), which indicates that each strain-based sensor generates an output that can be converted to voltages in order to be compared to a predetermined voltage level) (see Davis’ Column 7, lines 13-31).
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.
Claims 1-10 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the phrase “a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible […] material” seems to describe a strain sensor being made from a material that is both continuous and segmented while it can be either flexible or nonflexible. This statement appears to include a nebulous set of continuous and segmented materials encompassing all ranges of flexibility and nonflexibility. While being overly broad is not particularly indefinite on its own, however, the phrase ““a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible” does not really narrow or limit the piezoelectric or strain gauge material to any particular structure or arrangement. The applicant further clarifies in the Remarks that “segmented is where the wire or ribbon are composed of several segments or pieces of the material that are formed into a wire or ribbon, but they are not disposed on another substrate and instead are simply attached to another segment so that multiple segments form the wire/ribbon but no other material is present or separates the segments. There is no separate substrate for the segmented pieces, but instead the segmented pieces are attached to an adjacent segment forming a wire/ribbon”. For examination purposes, the term “segmented” will be considered according to this definition. However, the applicant has not defined the phrase “continuous, segmented”, “continuous segmented”, “continuous segmented flexible and nonflexible […] material” in the context of the claims. The phrases “a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material” and “a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible strain gauge material” will be interpreted as piezoelectric material and a strain gauge material, respectively.
Furthermore, the recitation of “each strain sensor has an output which can be converted to an output voltage” only teaches that an output of each strain sensor can be converted into an output voltage. The claim does not explicitly teach that the strain sensor generates an output and the system is configured to convert each strain sensor output.
Further clarification is respectfully requested
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a strain sensor (100)/(400), or multiple strain sensors (100)/(400), in which each strain sensor has a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material (PVDF)” is indefinite because the claim does not define whether the phrase “each strain sensor” refers to only “a strain sensor”, each one of “multiple strain sensors”, or each strain sensor or each strain sensor of multiple strain sensors.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “electronics (601) to convert” without describing how the electronics and the strain sensor are coupled or positioned relative to one another. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 10, the claim discloses “software to convert each sensor output voltage into pressure units” and “artificial intelligence combined with machine learning for predictive modeling and detection of pipe failure modes including over pressure, under pressure, fault detection of leaks, pump failure, valve failure, corrosion buildup, or combinations thereof” without reciting any tangible medium for storing the software and the artificial intelligence. In this case, the MPEP states that “products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations” are not directed to any of the statutory categories” and “thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category” (see MPEP 2106.03). The claim does not really recite a connection or describe how the software and artificial intelligence combination can be configured to associate with the sensor system.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 6-8, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis et al. (Pat. No. US 8,893,558) (hereafter Davis).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a distributed strain sensor (100)/(400) system (12) for measuring strain over a significant dimension fraction length or area of a surface (i.e., each of the strain-based sensors 15 provides a pressure signal P(t) indicative of unsteady pressure within the pipe 14 at a corresponding location (e.g., the aforementioned axial locations x.sub.1 . . . x.sub.N or circumferential locations .theta..sub.1, . . . .theta..sub.N) of the pipe 14) (see Column 4, lines 1-49) of an elastic pressure vessel (r) (note: the specification, dated 04/06/2022, discloses that “such elastic containers include, but are not limited to, piping systems, boilers, submarine hulls, fluid tanks, long haul oil and gas pipelines, residential sewage egress, water supply, or any other type of vessel (r) with a fluid under pressure (see paragraph section [0014]) (i.e., pipe 14) (see Fig. 1), the distributed strain sensor (100)/(400) system (12) comprising:
a strain sensor (100)/(400), or multiple strain sensors (100)/(400), in which each strain sensor has
a continuous, segmented (i.e., flexible piezoelectric sensors can be mounted in a variety of configurations to enhance signal detection schemes. These configurations include a) co-located sensors, b) segmented sensors with opposing polarity configurations, c) wide sensors to enhance acoustic signal detection and minimize vortical noise detection, d) tailored sensor geometries to minimize sensitivity to pipe modes, e) differencing of sensors to eliminate acoustic noise from vortical signals) (see Column 9, lines 12-45) flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material (PVDF) (i.e., the PVDF material forming each piezoelectric sensor 15 may be adhered to the outer surface of a steel strap that extends around and clamps onto the outer surface of the pipe 14) (see Column 9, lines 12-44), or
a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible strain gauge material (i.e., the strain-based sensors 15 may include electrical strain gages, optical fibers and/or gratings, ported sensors, ultrasonic sensors, among other pressure sensors. Any other strain sensing technique may be used to measure the variations in strain in the pipe 14 such as, for example, highly sensitive piezoelectric, electronic or electric, strain gages attached to or embedded in the pipe 14) (see Column 8, lines 14-53) (Please note that the applicant clarifies, on pages 9-10 of the Remarks, that “piezoelectric gauge material and strain gauge materials are completely different things that may be used in the alternative”. Therefore, the examiner respectfully submits that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07));
wherein each strain sensor (100)/(400) is composed of a flat ribbon (401) (i.e., each elongated strip of conductive material forming the first and second electrodes 64, 66 may be formed from silver ink applied to the sheet 62 of PVDF) (see Column 10, lines 1-13; and Fig. 3-4, and 6), a cylindrical wire (101), or combinations thereof;
wherein each strain sensor (100)/(400) is wrapped at least a complete turn (i.e., Each sensor 15 extends substantially fully around the outer surface of the pipe 14) (see Column 10, lines 31-52; and Fig. 5) around the elastic pressure vessel (r) (i.e., the array 11 of strain-based sensors 15 may be formed on a single sheet of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) that is wrapped around at least a portion of an outer surface of the pipe 14 and the sheet 62 is shown wrapped around an outer surface of the pipe 14) (see Fig. 5); and
each strain sensor has an output (i.e., output signals P.sub.1(t) . . . P.sub.N(t) from the array 11 of N strain-based sensors 15) (see Column 5, line 1, to Column 6, line 41) which can be converted (i.e., there are integrated circuit piezoelectric voltage mode-type sensors that feature built-in microelectronic amplifiers that convert the high-impedance charge into a low-impedance voltage output) (see Column 8, lines 34-53) to an output voltage (i.e., the signal processor 19 may compare the output signal of each strain-based sensor 15 to a predetermined criteria (e.g., voltage level), which indicates that each strain-based sensor generates an output that can be converted to voltages in order to be compared to a predetermined voltage level) (see Column 7, lines 13-31).
Regarding claim 2, Davis teaches that each strain sensor (100)/(400) is attached to the exterior of the elastic pressure vessel (r) (i.e., the strain-based sensors 15 are disposed at different axial locations x.sub.1 . . . x.sub.N along the pipe 14) (see Column 4, lines 1-49; and Fig. 1); or clamped to the exterior of the elastic pressure vessel (r) by a clamp (200).
Regarding claim 3, Davis teaches that each strain sensor (100)/(400) is attached to the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r), and is either glued or fixed with adhesive tape (i.e., It should also be appreciated that the strain-based sensors 15 may be attached to the pipe by adhesive, glue, epoxy, tape or other suitable attachment means to ensure suitable contact between the sensor and the pipe 14) (see Column 4, lines 38-49); or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Davis teaches that each strain sensor (100)/(400) is combined with multiple strain sensors (100)/(400) forming an array or multiple arrays of individual strain sensors (100)/(400) arranged axially, tangentially, or at an angle along a dimension of the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r) (i.e., array of strain-based sensors 15) (see Fig. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 6, Davis teaches electronics (601) to convert the piezoelectric charge output into amplified proportional voltage; or electronics (601) to convert each sensor strain output into proportional voltage (i.e., In one strain-based sensor embodiment, there are integrated circuit piezoelectric voltage mode-type sensors that feature built-in microelectronic amplifiers that convert the high-impedance charge into a low-impedance voltage output) (see Column 8, line 34, to Column 21); or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Davis teaches a clamp (200) to accommodate each sensor (100)/(400) or an array of clamps (200) to accommodate each sensor (100)/(400) in an array of multiple sensors (100)/(400) (i.e., The sensors 15 may alternatively be removable or permanently attached via known mechanical techniques such as mechanical fastener, spring loaded, clamped, clam shell arrangement, strapping or other equivalents) (see Column 8, lines 14-29);
wherein each clamp (200) holds each sensor (100)/(400) against the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r) (i.e., The PVDF material forming each piezoelectric sensor 15 may be adhered to the outer surface of a steel strap that extends around and clamps onto the outer surface of the pipe 14) (see Column 8, line 14, to Column 9, line 45), includes sensor electronics (601), includes sensor electronics (601), is made from stiff materials, has four segments (201), (202), (203) and (205),
or is spring loaded to create different diameters to accommodate different dimensions along the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r) (i.e., The sensors 15 may alternatively be removable or permanently attached via known mechanical techniques such as mechanical fastener, spring loaded, clamped, clam shell arrangement, strapping or other equivalents) (see Column 8, lines 14-29), or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Davis teaches that the PVDF wire/strip (101) is disposed on the clamp (200) to facilitate contact with the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r) (i.e., The PVDF material forming each piezoelectric sensor 15 may be adhered to the outer surface of a steel strap that extends around and clamps onto the outer surface of the pipe 14) (see Column 8, line 14, to Column 9, line 45); or the PVDF wire/strip (101) is fed through, and disposed within, a threaded groove (211) or a groove (211) designed to accommodate the PVDF wire/strip (101) on the clamp (200) to facilitate contact with the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r).
Regarding claim 21, Davis teaches a strain sensor (100)/(400) for measuring strain over a surface of an elastic pressure vessel (r) (note: the specification, dated 04/06/2022, discloses that “such elastic containers include, but are not limited to, piping systems, boilers, submarine hulls, fluid tanks, long haul oil and gas pipelines, residential sewage egress, water supply, or any other type of vessel (r) with a fluid under pressure (see paragraph section [0014]) (i.e., pipe 14) (see Fig. 1), the strain sensor comprising:
a continuous, segmented (i.e., flexible piezoelectric sensors can be mounted in a variety of configurations to enhance signal detection schemes. These configurations include a) co-located sensors, b) segmented sensors with opposing polarity configurations, c) wide sensors to enhance acoustic signal detection and minimize vortical noise detection, d) tailored sensor geometries to minimize sensitivity to pipe modes, e) differencing of sensors to eliminate acoustic noise from vortical signals) (see Column 9, lines 12-45) flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material (PVDF) (i.e., the PVDF material forming each piezoelectric sensor 15 may be adhered to the outer surface of a steel strap that extends around and clamps onto the outer surface of the pipe 14) (see Column 9, lines 12-44)
or strain gauge material (i.e., the strain-based sensors 15 may include electrical strain gages, optical fibers and/or gratings, ported sensors, ultrasonic sensors, among other pressure sensors. Any other strain sensing technique may be used to measure the variations in strain in the pipe 14 such as, for example, highly sensitive piezoelectric, electronic or electric, strain gages attached to or embedded in the pipe 14) (see Column 8, lines 14-53) (Please note that the applicant clarifies, on pages 9-10 of the Remarks, that “piezoelectric gauge material and strain gauge materials are completely different things that may be used in the alternative”. Therefore, the examiner respectfully submits that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07)); and
wherein the strain sensor (100)/(400) is composed of
a flat ribbon (401) (i.e., each elongated strip of conductive material forming the first and second electrodes 64, 66 may be formed from silver ink applied to the sheet 62 of PVDF) (see Column 10, lines 1-13; and Fig. 3-4, and 6)
or a cylindrical wire (101) or a combination thereof;
wherein the strain sensor (100)/(400) upon installation is wrapped at least a complete turn around the elastic pressure vessel (r) (i.e., Each sensor 15 extends substantially fully around the outer surface of the pipe 14) (see Column 10, lines 31-52; and Fig. 5); and
the strain sensor (100)/(400) has an output which can be converted to an output voltage (i.e., the signal processor 19 may compare the output signal of each strain-based sensor 15 to a predetermined criteria (e.g., voltage level)) (see Column 7, lines 13-31).
Regarding claim 22, Davis teaches a clamp (200) to accommodate the strain sensor (100)/(400);
wherein the clamp (200) holds the sensor (100)/(400) against the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r) (i.e., The sensors 15 may alternatively be removable or permanently attached via known mechanical techniques such as mechanical fastener, spring loaded, clamped, clam shell arrangement, strapping or other equivalents) (see Column 8, lines 14-29),
includes sensor electronics (601),
is made from stiff materials, has four segments (201), (202), (203) and (205),
or is spring loaded to create different diameters to accommodate different dimensions along the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r), or combinations thereof (i.e., The sensors 15 may alternatively be removable or permanently attached via known mechanical techniques such as mechanical fastener, spring loaded, clamped, clam shell arrangement, strapping or other equivalents) (see Column 8, lines 14-29).
Regarding claim 23, Davis teaches
EMF shielding (102); or electronic connections and circuitry to implement EMF shielding and/or electrical noise shielding; or electronics (601) to convert the piezoelectric charge output into amplified proportional voltage;
or electronics (601) to convert each sensor strain output into proportional voltage (i.e., In one strain-based sensor embodiment, there are integrated circuit piezoelectric voltage mode-type sensors that feature built-in microelectronic amplifiers that convert the high-impedance charge into a low-impedance voltage output) (see Column 8, line 34, to Column 21); or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 24, Davis teaches that the PVDF wire/strip (101) is disposed on the clamp (200) to facilitate contact with the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r) (i.e., The PVDF material forming each piezoelectric sensor 15 may be adhered to the outer surface of a steel strap that extends around and clamps onto the outer surface of the pipe 14) (see Column 8, line 14, to Column 9, line 45); or the PVDF wire/strip (101) is fed through, and disposed within, a threaded groove (211) or a groove (211) designed to accommodate the PVDF wire/strip (101) on the clamp (200) to facilitate contact with the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (Pat. No. US 8,893,558) (hereafter Davis) in view of Fernald et al (Pat. No. US 7,400,985) (hereafter Fernald).
Regarding claim 5, Davis as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that each strain sensor (100)/(400) further has EMF shielding (102), and/or electronic connections and circuitry to implement the EMF and electrical noise shielding at (600). However, Fernald teaches that each strain sensor further has EMF shielding (i.e., the piezoelectric film sensor may then be covered with a copper sheet to provide a grounding shield for EMI or other electrical noise) (see Column 7, lines 3-24). In view of the teaching of Fernald, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added EMF shielding in order to eliminate signal noise and to obtain more accurate sensor readings.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (Pat. No. US 8,893,558) (hereafter Davis) in view of George et al (Pub. No. US 2006/0021418) (hereafter George)
Regarding claim 9, Davis as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach a calibration rig (500) for calibrating each sensor (100)/(400) either individually or as an array of sensors (100)/(400), the calibration rig (500) having a surface of an elastic pressure vessel (r) with known pressures differences. However, George teaches a calibration rig (i.e., sensor calibration and equilibration system 100) (see Fig. 1) for calibrating each sensor (100)/(400) either individually or as an array of sensors (100)/(400), the calibration rig (500) having a surface of an elastic pressure vessel (r) with known pressures differences (i.e., When calibrating and/or equilibrating the sensor 60, it may be advantageous to conduct these steps while the sensor 60 is under a pressure that is similar to the pressure on the sensor while the sensor is in operation) (see paragraph sections [0049]-[0056]). In view of the teaching of George, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added calibration rig in order to maintain the accuracy of the sensor.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (Pat. No. US 8,893,558) (hereafter Davis) in view of Lewis et al. (Pat. No. US 10,114,000) (hereafter Lewis)
Regarding claim 10, Davis as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach software
to convert each sensor output voltage into pressure units;
or multiple sensor output into flow rate (i.e., to determine the one or more parameters 21 of the flow process, the signal processor 19 may apply the data from the M selected strain-based sensors 15 to flow logic 36 executed by signal processor 19. The one or more parameters 21 may include parameters such as, for example, flow rate, volumetric flow rate, mass flow rate, density, composition, entrained air, consistency, particle size, velocity, mach number, speed of sound propagating through the fluid 13, and/or other parameters of the fluid 13) (see Column 5, lines 34-43);
or multiple sensor output into fault detection of leaks, pump failure and valve failure;
or each sensor or multiple sensor output into corrosion detection;
or multiple sensor outputs into slug flow detection and measurement of acoustic wave speed and pipe wall thickness;
or combinations thereof; but does not explicitly teach artificial intelligence combined with machine learning for predictive modeling and detection of pipe failure modes including over pressure, under pressure, fault detection of leaks, pump failure, valve failure, corrosion buildup, or combinations thereof.
Regarding the artificial intelligence, Lewis teaches artificial intelligence combined with machine learning for predictive modeling and detection of pipe failure modes including over pressure, under pressure, fault detection of leaks, pump failure, valve failure, corrosion buildup, or combinations thereof (i.e., flow monitoring module 315 may utilize sophisticated machine learning and/or artificial intelligence techniques to perform predictive analysis using some or substantially all data collected by sensor assemblies 310. For example, system 300 (e.g., flow monitoring module 315) may for example utilize the collected data to prepare and submit (e.g., via network 301, for example via wireless transmission such as via 4G LTE networks) datasets and variables to cloud computing clusters and/or other analytical tools (e.g., predictive analytical tools) which may analyze such data using artificial intelligence neural networks. Flow monitoring module 315 may for example include cloud computing clusters performing predictive analysis. For example, flow monitoring module 315 may utilize neural network-based artificial intelligence to predictively assess risk (e.g., potential failure of portions of passage system 305 based on continuously collected data transmitted from sensor assemblies 310). For example, system 300 (e.g., flow monitoring module 315) may use the collected data to predict a longevity of operation of some or all portions of passage system 305) (see Column 10, line 4, to Column 12, line 22). In view of the teaching of Lewis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the artificial intelligence processes to perform predictive analysis in order to provide a safe technique for effectively monitoring for any potential failure or damage in the pipeline or vessel and to issue corresponding warning/alarm, so that maintenance can be performed to avoid catastrophic failures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached on (571)-272-2210. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855