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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on 04/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the description as “nonpatent literature” is an error as these documents are not prior art properly included in an IDS” because “[i]nstead, these references are included as factual representation of common terms in the art related to the definitions of strain gauge and piezoelectric sensor wires and ribbons as used in the claims. The examiner respectfully submits that the MPEP states that “[m]ere listing of a reference in an information disclosure statement is not taken as an admission that the reference is prior art against the claims” and that "[t]he filing of an information disclosure statement shall not be construed to be an admission that the information cited in the statement is, or is considered to be, material to patentability as defined in § 1.56(b)")” (see MPEP 2129). In this case, the examiner respectfully submits that, in order for the NPL references to be considered, the references should be included in an IDS; or the NPL reference can be included in form PTO-892 by the examiner.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “piezoelectric gauge material and strain gauge materials are completely different things that may be used in the alternative” and that “strange [sic] gauge material uses conductive metal foil” and “piezoelectric gauge material” are “simply alternatives”, the examiner respectfully agrees. For examination purposes, these limitations in the claims will be understood as alternatives or interchangeable.
In response to the applicant’s argument 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 just simply attached to another segment so that multiple segments form the wire/ribbon but no other material is present or separates the segments”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as presented, do not appear to define “multiple segments” as having no other material present or separating the segments. Instead, the claims, as presented, do not really make a distinction between segmented as in discontinuous segments of the material and segmented as in being partitioned into sensitive and non-sensitive partitions/segments. The examiner respectfully submits that Davis’ teaching of the sheet PVDF 62 is considered a ribbon without “other material [being] represent or [separating] the segments.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “the term continuous, segmented refers to the structure of the wire/ribbon as being composed of more than one piece of strain gauge or piezoelectric material adjacent each other forming the sensor as a continuous wire or ribbon”, the examiner respectfully submits that the claims just do not reflect the applicant’s assertions that ““the term continuous, segmented refers to the structure of the wire/ribbon”. The examiner respectfully submits that the independent claims recite that “a strain sensor, or multiple strain sensors, in which each strain sensor has a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material (PVDF), or a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible strain gauge material; wherein each strain sensor is composed of a flat ribbon, a cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof” (claim 1) or “the strain sensor comprising: a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material (PVDF) or strain gauge material; and wherein each strain sensor is composed of a flat ribbon, a cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof” (claim 21). The claims, as recited, do not really define “a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material or strain gauge material” forming or being composed of “a flat ribbon, a cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof” as asserted by the applicant. The examiner respectfully submits that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). As defined by the independent claims, an array of sensors composed of a single sheet 62 of PVDF material can be considered as “a strain sensor” or strain sensors 15 composed of strain gauge material can be considered as “multiple strain sensors”.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “the measurements are used to determine “hoop strain” measurements which are the single measurement of change in circumference of a vessel” and that “hoop strain cannot be measured by the cited prior art in the same way that the present invention does”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that the particular “measurements [being] used to determine “hoop strain” measurements” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). In this case, although the instant specification may disclose features not taught by the prior arts, the instant claims, as recited, are anticipated and/or obvious over the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that “Davis teaches directly away from the present invention as it utilizes multiple sensors with non-sensitive areas in between them”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 explicitly recites “a strain sensor” or “multiple strain sensors”. The claim does not explicitly require that the “multiple sensors” cannot have “sensitive areas in between them. Furthermore, Davis directly teaches a strain sensor (100)/(400) (i.e., an array 11 on pipe 14) (see Fig. 5), or multiple strain sensors (100)/(400) (i.e., sensors 15 on pipe 14) (see Fig. 5); the claim does not appear to define that a sensor array cannot include a strain sensor.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “none of the sensors disclosed in Davis are disposed completely around the vessel” because “FIGs 16—17B clearly demonstrate that the sensors are only disposed part of the way around the pipe” and that “FIG. 5 show[sic] sheet 62 on one side of a pipe”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that, despite the two-dimensional illustrations failing to fully capture the configuration of the device, Davis explicitly discloses that each sensor 15 extends substantially fully around the outer surface of the pipe 14 (see Column 10, lines 31-52) and that 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).
In response to the applicant’s argument that “Davis nor the other prior art” does not “show a continuous, segmented wire or ribbon around the circumference of the pipe”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that the independent claim only recites that “each strain sensor is composed of a flat ribbon, a cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof” and that “each strain sensor is wrapped at least a complete turn around the elastic pressure vessel”. However, the claim does not appear to recite that the flat ribbon, the cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof are configured to be wrapped at least a complete turn around the elastic pressure vessel. The examiner respectfully submits that the phrase “each strain sensor is wrapped at least a complete turn around the elastic pressure vessel” and the phrase “a continuous, segmented wire or ribbon around the circumference of the pipe” are not equivalent, since the claim only defines that “each strain sensor is composed of a flat ribbon, a cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof”.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Davis does not “measure strain and is not even talking about measuring an output signal to measure strain”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that the claim only requires that “each strain sensor has an output which can be converted to an output voltage”. The examiner respectfully submits that the phrase “for measuring strain” in the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention (as explained by the applicant and, specifically, the inventor in the Remarks dated 04/30/2026 and the Affidavit dated 04/30/2026). The MPEP states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02).
In response to the applicant’s argument that “Davis does not disclose the use of sensors in which each sensor is a wire or a ribbon with a continuous segmented flexible or nonflexible strain gauge material or PVDF material” and that “a 201[sic] rejection is not appropriate” because “the sensors in Davis have two electrodes, and not just one”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 or 21 as recited does not teach that “each sensor is a wire or a ribbon with a continuous segmented flexible or nonflexible strain gauge material or PVDF material” as asserted by the applicant. The examiner respectfully submits that the independent claims recite “a strain sensor, or multiple strain sensors, in which each strain sensor has a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material (PVDF), or a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible strain gauge material; wherein each strain sensor is composed of a flat ribbon, a cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof” (claim 1) or “the strain sensor comprising: a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material (PVDF) or strain gauge material; and wherein each strain sensor is composed of a flat ribbon, a cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof” (claim 21). These recitations in the claims do not really define that “each sensor is a wire or a ribbon with a continuous segmented flexible or nonflexible strain gauge material or PVDF material”. The examiner respectfully submits that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). As disclosed by the claims, the phrase “each strain sensor is composed of a flat ribbon, a cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof” only means that each strain sensor is made from components including flat ribbon, a cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof; and does not mean that the flat ribbon, the cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof are made from PVDF or strain gauge material.
In response to the applicant’s argument, with regards to claims 22-24, that “Davis does not have the wire/strip to be wrapped around a vessel, nor does it have grooves”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that claim 24 recites that “the PVDF wire/strip (101) is disposed on the clamp (200) to facilitate contact with the surface of the elastic pressure vessel (r); 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)”. In this case, the examiner respectfully submits that 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the first recitation of PVDF in the claims should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims, as recited, do not really define “a continuous, segmented flexible or nonflexible piezoelectric material or strain gauge material” forming or being composed of or being “a flat ribbon, a cylindrical wire, or combinations thereof”.
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 is configured to generate an output related to strain and the system is configured to convert each strain sensor output to an output voltage.
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 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.
Claims 2-9 and 22-24 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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) (i.e., an array 11 on pipe 14) (see Fig. 5), or multiple strain sensors (100)/(400) (i.e., sensors 15 on pipe 14) (see Fig. 5), 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 (i.e., the flexibility of the material depends on the intended use application) (please note that the applicant stated that, on page 11, of the Remarks dated 04/30/2026, “[t]he decision to use any of these four options are determined by the intended user application”) 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 (i.e., strips of sensors 15) (see Fig. 5) flexible or nonflexible (i.e., the flexibility of the material depends on the intended use application) (please note that the applicant stated that, on page 11, of the Remarks dated 04/30/2026, “[t]he decision to use any of these four options are determined by the intended user application”) 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 dated 04/30/2026, that “piezoelectric gauge material and strain gauge materials are completely different things that may be used in the alternative” and that “strange [sic] gauge material uses conductive metal foil” and “piezoelectric gauge material” are “simply alternatives”. 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 capture and convert the piezoelectric charge output into amplified proportional voltage; or electronics (601) to capture and 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 (i.e., the flexibility of the material depends on the intended use application) (please note that the applicant stated that, on page 11, of the Remarks dated 04/30/2026, “[t]he decision to use any of these four options are determined by the intended user application”) 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 dated 04/30/2026, that “piezoelectric gauge material and strain gauge materials are completely different things that may be used in the alternative” and that “strange [sic] gauge material uses conductive metal foil” and “piezoelectric gauge material” are “simply alternatives”. 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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
Prosecution Insights