DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action rejection on the merits. Claims 1, 3, and 5-21 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 is dependent of claim 4. However, claim 4 was cancelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/23/2026 (related to the 101 Rejection) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states, on pages 10-13, that automatically defining repair priority parameters based on received result parameters cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Receiving user input and transmitting the user input from a user terminal to a server also cannot practically be performed in the mind.
Applicant further states that Amended claim 1 recites "providing, in a server, an ignition risk database defining for the plurality of processing devices an ignition risk score, the ignition risk score being based on the operating voltage of the processing device," "retrieving from said server, the corresponding the ignition risk score associated with said processing device," and "defining said repair priority parameter also on the basis of said retrieved ignition score." The alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application at least because the use of the operating voltage provides for a technical solution to a technical problem and is an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.04 describes that "the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology." Determining a repair priority for processing devices by, in part, defining repair priority parameters based on ignition risk scores according to the devices' operating voltage improves the relevant existing technology. Existing technology does not automatically determine repair priorities for devices using, inter alia, the operating voltages of the devices. Therefore, the claims are directed to an unconventional technical solution to a technological problem and, thus, any alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” which include “managing personal behavior.” In this case, the claim 1 is directed to providing instructions that an inspector based on the repair priority list for each of the processing devices, which is merely following rules or instructions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Further, calculating a score based on user defined repair priority parameters for each of the processing devices can be performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper (e.g., similar to an inspector looking at standard guidelines and calculating a score based on the defined guidelines). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components does not take the claim out of the “certain methods of organizing human activity.” The main functions of the additional elements of a criticality database, a user terminal, and an ignition risk database recited in claim 1 are merely used to: collect data (e.g., result parameter and an identifier of the processing device) and analyze the data (e.g., calculating a repair priority parameter based on the received result parameter). Also, the computer and server are merely used to execute instructions (Paragraph 0161). Those are functions that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, the step of “defining a repair priority parameter based on a received result parameter from a client device and an ignition score retrieved from the database” is considered a well-understood, routing, and conventional function of “receiving and transmitting over a network” and “performing repetitive calculations” (MPEP 2106.05(d), readjusting a priority list based on the result parameter associated with an inspection routine associated with said processing device).
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3 and 5-20 are rejected for having the same deficiencies as those set forth with respect to the claims that they depend from, independent claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/23/2026 (related to the 103 Rejection) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states, on pages 14-15, that Kamsu-Foguem does not do is connect operating voltage to a criticality score, as is done in claim 1. Specifically, that the consequence of failure is not dependent on an operating voltage. Applicant respectfully disagrees, as Kamsu-Foguem expressly does not link ignition risk (a consequence) to operating voltage.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. Applicant states that the ignition risk score is based on the operating voltage of the processing device (see Paragraph 0022). Kamsu-Foguem discloses wherein the processing device with a higher voltage has a higher risk (see Table 2, Medium when the voltage is less than 400, High when the voltage is more than 400). Also, Kamsu-Foguem discloses a higher risk/consequence when there’s a potential of fire (see Table 1). It is well known by an ordinary skill in the art that a higher voltage poses a higher fire/ignition risk. Therefore, Kamsu-Foguem discloses a fire/ignition risk since the equipment with a higher voltage is considered high risk (which is correlated to a higher potential of fire/ignition risk). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the factors that pose a risk in a processing plan (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure locations and/or objects and/or features) of the invention of Constantinis to further incorporate other factors that pose a risk (e.g., an operating voltage) of the invention of Kamsu-Foguem because doing so is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
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, 3, and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Independent Claim 1
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim 1 is directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One - Claim 1 recites: A method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing an ignition risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list, wherein processing devices having a higher repair priority are repaired first, wherein the method comprises defining the repair priority list for the plurality of processing devices in the processing plant by implemented steps of:- automatically defining for the plurality of processing devices the repair priority parameter based on a received result parameter for the plurality of processing devices; and providing the repair priority list on the basis of the defined plurality of repair priority parameters for each of the processing devices, wherein the step of defining a repair priority parameter for a processing device in the processing plant comprises the steps of: providing a criticality, wherein the criticality comprises for a plurality of processing devices in said processing plant at least one inspection routine, wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith a criticality score, wherein said criticality score is indicative of a fault severity of said corresponding processing device; receiving, as user input, a result parameter associated with the inspection routine associated with said processing device, wherein the result parameter is indicative for a pass or a fail of said inspection routine; receiving, from said user, said result parameter; retrieving, if said received result parameter is indicative for a fail, the criticality score associated with said failed routine and said processing device; and defining said repair priority parameter for said processing device based on the retrieved criticality score wherein the method further comprises the steps of: providing, an ignition risk defining for the plurality of processing devices an ignition risk score, the ignition risk score being based on the operating voltage of the processing device: retrieving, the corresponding the ignition risk score associated with said processing device; and defining said repair priority parameter also on the basis of said retrieved ignition score. These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” which include “managing personal behavior.” In this case, the claim 1 is directed to providing instructions that an inspector based on the repair priority list for each of the processing devices, which is merely following rules or instructions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Further, calculating a score based on user defined repair priority parameters for each of the processing devices can be performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper (e.g., similar to an inspector looking at standard guidelines and calculating a score based on the defined guidelines). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements: a computer; a server; a criticality database; a user terminal; and an ignition risk database.
The computer is merely used to execute instructions (Paragraph 0161). The server is merely used to: provide information from a database; receive a result parameter associated with an inspection routine associated with said processing device; and retrieve, if said received result parameter is indicative for a fail, the criticality score associated with said failed routine and said processing device (Paragraphs 0164-0168). The criticality database is merely used to store an inspection routine, wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith a critically score (Paragraph 0165). The user terminal is merely used to receive a result parameter associated with an inspection routine associated with said processing device (Paragraph 0166). The ignition risk database is merely used to define for the plurality of processing devices an ignition risk score, the ignition risk score being based on the operating voltage of the processing device (Paragraph 0022). Merely stating that the step is performed by a computer component results in “apply it” on a computer (MPEP 2106.05f). These elements of “computer,” “server,” “criticality database,” “user terminal,” and “ignition risk database” are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Also, the server and user terminal are considered “field of use” since they are just used to receive information, but the technology is not improved (MPEP 2106.05h). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” the concept of defining a repair priority parameter for the processing device based on the result parameter associated with the inspection routine. The specification shows that the computer is merely used to execute instructions (Paragraph 0161). The server is merely used to: provide information from a database; receive a result parameter associated with an inspection routine associated with said processing device; and retrieve, if said received result parameter is indicative for a fail, the criticality score associated with said failed routine and said processing device (Paragraphs 0164-0168). The criticality database is merely used to store an inspection routine, wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith a critically score (Paragraph 0165). The user terminal is merely used to receive a result parameter associated with an inspection routine associated with said processing device (Paragraph 0166). The ignition risk database is merely used to define for the plurality of processing devices an ignition risk score, the ignition risk score being based on the operating voltage of the processing device (Paragraph 0022). Also, the server and the user terminal are considered a conventional computer function of “receiving and transmitting over a network” and “performing repetitive calculations” (MPEP 2106.05d). Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 is directed to an additional element such as: an RFID-tag. The RFID-tag is merely an identifier associated with a processing device (Paragraph 0019). In this case, the RFID-tag is still considered “field of use” (see MPEP 2106.05h) at step 2A, Prong 2; as it’s just used to receive and send an identification of the processing device, but does not improve the RFID technology. At Step 2B, this is a conventional computer function of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (see MPEP 2106.05d). Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 5 and 9-12, 14-17, and 20 are not directed to any additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above - such as: using other factors to define the repair priority parameter (e.g., ignition risk score, hazardous zone score, primary location score, secondary location score, and risk based inspection parameter for at least one equipment parameter); wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith a criticality score; wherein the inspection routines comprise the inspection tasks as defined in IEC60079-17 or inspection regulations as defined in IECEx standards; wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith an inspection grade parameter; wherein the risk based inspection parameter is defined on at least one equipment parameter being indicative of the likely consequence of a failure of said processing device (e.g., hazardous zone parameter, environmental parameter, corrosion risk parameter, etc.); selecting, on the basis of the risk based inspection parameter associated with a processing device, an inspection routine; wherein an inspection interval for a higher risk based inspection parameter is shorter than for a lower risk based inspection parameter; wherein the processing plant is a floating hydrocarbon production plant. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claim because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes.” In addition, no additional elements are integrated into the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims still recite an abstract idea that can be grouped into mental processes.
Dependent claims 6-8 and 13 are directed to additional elements such as: a hazardous zone database; a primary location risk database; a secondary location risk database; and a risk database. The hazardous zone database is merely used to store a plurality of zones and a hazardous zone score associated therewith, wherein the plurality of processing devices has associated therewith a hazardous zone and a corresponding hazardous zone score (Paragraph 0029). The primary location risk database is merely used to store a plurality of locations and a primary location score associated therewith (Paragraph 0099). The secondary location risk database is merely used to store for the plurality of processing devices a secondary location score (Paragraph 0099). The risk database is merely used to store a plurality of risk based inspection parameters associated with a plurality of processing devices, wherein the risk based inspection parameter is indicative of the likely consequence of a failure of a processing device (Paragraph 0101). However, using a database is considered “field of use” MPEP 2106.05h at Step 2A, Prong 2, since the database is not improved, and that data is just placed there. At Step 2B, this is conventional still, storing information in a memory (see MPEP 2106.05d). Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 18 is not directed to any additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above - such as: specifying other information provided to the terminal (e.g., the inspection order list and the selected inspection routines). These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claim because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” (e.g., displaying certain results of the collection and analysis). In addition, no additional elements are integrated into the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims still recite an abstract idea that can be grouped into certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes.
Dependent claim 19 is directed to an additional element such as: a communication unit. The communication unit is merely used to communicate with the at least one user terminal (Paragraph 0047). The communication unit is considered “field of use” (see MPEP 2106.05h) at step 2A, Prong 2; as it’s just used to receive and transmit information, but does not improve the technology. At Step 2B, this is a conventional computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05d). Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 21 are not directed to any additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above - such as: retrieving at least one inspection routine associated with the processing device associated with said identifier; and sending the retrieved inspection routine. In this case, the user terminal is still considered “field of use” (see MPEP 2106.05h) at step 2A, Prong 2; as it’s just used to send an inspection routine, but the technology is not improved. At Step 2B, this is a conventional computer function of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (see MPEP 2106.05d). Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantinis (US 2021/0123569 A1), in view of Kamsu-Foguem (Kamsu-Foguem, B., 2016. Information structuring and risk-based inspection for the marine oil pipelines. Applied Ocean Research, 56, pp.132-142), in further view of Ho et al. (US 7,793,850 B1).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Constantinis discloses a method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing an … risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list, wherein processing devices having a higher repair priority are repaired first, wherein the method comprises defining the repair priority list for the plurality of processing devices in the processing plant by the computer implemented steps of (Paragraph 0001, The present invention relates to a method of inspecting an object, particularly, but not exclusively, a vessel; and associated apparatus; Paragraph 0002, The Oil/Gas and indeed many other industries are concerned with safety risks. There are numerous objects, such as electrical components or vessels (e.g. pressure vessels), on Oil/Gas assets that are often safety critical and need to comply with regulatory and corporate standards. Additional risks are encountered when the confined space involves working at height, for example in a large storage tank or on a ship or offshore production facility; Paragraph 0033, The method may comprise performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method may comprise performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object/s and/or feature/s):
automatically defining for the plurality of processing devices the repair priority parameter based on a received result parameter for the plurality of processing devices (Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like); Paragraph 0073, The method comprises storing the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom, such as storing in a database. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data over a period of time for a single object 10. Additionally, or alternatively, method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data for multiple object 10; Paragraph 0074, The method comprises analysing the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The analysis comprises a statistical analysis. The analysis comprises a risk or risk factor analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the like. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object 10/s and/or feature/s; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA; Examiner interprets grading the object by criticality as the repair priority parameter);
and providing the repair priority list on the basis of the defined plurality of repair priority parameters for each of the processing devices, wherein the step of defining a repair priority parameter for a processing device in the processing plant comprises the computer implemented steps of (Paragraph 0033, The method may comprise performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method may comprise performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object/s and/or feature/s; Paragraph 0066, he method comprises a risk based inspection (RBI) to focus inspection methods and inspection intervals on the probable failure mechanisms of high risk object 10 or components; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA):
providing, in a server, a criticality database, wherein the criticality database comprises for a plurality of processing devices in said processing plant at least one inspection routine, wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith a criticality score, wherein said criticality score is indicative of a fault severity of said corresponding processing device (Paragraph 0024, The method may comprise a risk based inspection (RBI) to focus inspection methods and inspection intervals on the probable failure mechanisms of high risk objects or components; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA);
receiving, [from an apparatus], a result parameter associated with the inspection routine associated with said processing device, wherein the result parameter is indicative for a pass or a fail of said inspection routine (Paragraph 0035, The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and may comprise an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on the analysis, such as FMEA. Paragraph 0039, The method may comprise inspecting the vessel without a person entering or being required to enter the vessel. The method may comprise the entry of only apparatus, such as scanning apparatus, into the vessel; Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like); It can be noted that the claim language is written in alternative form. The limitation taught by Constantinis is based on a “parameter indicative of a fail of said inspection routine");
receiving in said server, from said [apparatus], said result parameter (Paragraph 0035, The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and may comprise an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on the analysis, such as FMEA. Paragraph 0039, The method may comprise inspecting the vessel without a person entering or being required to enter the vessel. The method may comprise the entry of only apparatus, such as scanning apparatus, into the vessel; Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like));
retrieving, if said received result parameter is indicative for a fail, from said criticality database the criticality score associated with said failed routine and said processing device (Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA);
and defining said repair priority parameter for said processing device based on the retrieved criticality score (Paragraph 0062, The method comprises determining whether the predicted or projected property or characteristic is acceptable. For example, the method comprises determining that the minimum wall thickness 12 is above a minimum threshold. The minimum threshold corresponds to a minimum safe threshold, such as identified by a risk analysis and/or regulatory requirement. The minimum threshold corresponds to a minimum allowable wall thickness. The method comprises providing an alert or trigger to inspect and/or repair or replace the object 10 where the predicted or projected minimum wall thickness 12 reaches the threshold; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA) wherein the method further comprises the steps of: …
Although Constantinis discloses a criticality database for a plurality of processing devices in said processing plant at least one inspection routine, wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith a critically score (Paragraph 0024, probable failure mechanisms of high risk objects or components; Paragraph 0075, database; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA), Constantinis does not specifically disclose wherein the criticality database further includes an ignition risk score (e.g., a risk based on the operating voltage).
However, Kamsu-Foguem discloses a method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing an ignition risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (Page 133, 2.1. Practices of risk-based inspection, The RBI method was used to assess the risk of large scale crude oil tanks in order to determine the acceptable risk and internal inspection interval of tanks; Page 133, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation, The risk evaluation is based on consequences and probabilities of failures that are evaluated in a distinct way, under the following assumptions [21]: The consequences of system faults, loss of main functions and sub-functions, are independent of the equipment carrying out the functions. • The actual equipment and the operational conditions affect the probability of failure. The outcome of the RBI process is determination of [22]: location and extent of inspections and condition monitoring, • inspection methods, • inspection intervals; Page 134, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation, Concerning the evaluation of failure probabilities, this is indirectly expressed by the maintenance characteristics and operational experiences. Essentially, the equipment failure modes, operational conditions, location and external environmental factors are fundamental elements contributing to the calculation of the probabilities of failure according to the functions the equipment supports and applicable generic maintenance concepts. These generic concepts are issued from the collection of best practices of maintenance actions, strategies and maintenance details (e.g. structured analysis identifying failure modes and failure causes) for an enterprise. The general consequence classification (defined in Table 1) is made in accordance with criteria for Health, safety and environment (HSE), Production and Cost (exclusive production loss). The consequence classification methodology is applied for categorizing of static mechanical equipment with the purpose of selecting critical equipment for further analysis and prioritizes them for in-depth risk evaluations as the basis for preparation of inspection and maintenance programmes. The technology of equipment is a factor influencing maintenance activities. Therefore it is possible to classify equipment according to the technological complexity needed to execute the maintenance engineering. Some examples of equipment classified according to their technological complexity are provided in Table 2; Table 1, Potential of fire; Table 2, Electrical Equipment Voltage), …;
PNG
media_image1.png
335
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving, [from an operated transporter], a result parameter associated with the inspection routine associated with said processing device, wherein the result parameter is indicative for a pass or a fail of said inspection routine; receiving in said server, [from an operated transporter], said result parameter (Page 133, In-Line inspections (ILI) of pipelines are generally accomplished using a pig. The pig moves through the pipeline guided by the flow or fluid or may be pulled by a vehicle or a cable. It gathers data as it turns through the pipeline. External inspections are generally accomplished using a remotely operated transporter equipped with diverse inspection techniques and resources. This can for instance be techniques for visual inspections (video recording) and physical measurements (steel electrochemical voltage measurements). The scope of these inspections methods encompasses all pressure systems in the industrial site, and they can be used to inspect pipes/other static equipment and take the geometric measurements (diameter, wall thickness, metal loss, crack and other defects). The selection of inspection method is based on optimizing a number of features that symbolize each technique: (i) Confidence in identifying the estimated damage state, (ii) Cost of technique/method, including human and technical resources, and (iii) Magnitude of maintenance support necessary to perform the work (scaffolding, process shutdown, opening of equipment));
retrieving, if said received result parameter is indicative for a fail, from said criticality database the criticality score associated with said failed routine and said processing device; and defining said repair priority parameter for said processing device based on the retrieved criticality score wherein the method further comprises the steps of: providing, in a server, an ignition risk database defining for the plurality of processing devices an ignition risk score, the ignition risk score being based on the operating voltage of the processing device: retrieving from said server, the corresponding the ignition risk score associated with said processing device; and defining said repair priority parameter also on the basis of said retrieved ignition score (Page 134, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation, Concerning the evaluation of failure probabilities, this is indirectly expressed by the maintenance characteristics and operational experiences. Essentially, the equipment failure modes, operational conditions, location and external environmental factors are fundamental elements contributing to the calculation of the probabilities of failure according to the functions the equipment supports and applicable generic maintenance concepts. These generic concepts are issued from the collection of best practices of maintenance actions, strategies and maintenance details (e.g. structured analysis identifying failure modes and failure causes) for an enterprise. The general consequence classification (defined in Table 1) is made in accordance with criteria for Health, safety and environment (HSE), Production and Cost (exclusive production loss). The consequence classification methodology is applied for categorizing of static mechanical equipment with the purpose of selecting critical equipment for further analysis and prioritizes them for in-depth risk evaluations as the basis for preparation of inspection and maintenance programmes. The technology of equipment is a factor influencing maintenance activities. Therefore it is possible to classify equipment according to the technological complexity needed to execute the maintenance engineering. Some examples of equipment classified according to their technological complexity are provided in Table 2; Table 1, Potential of fire; Table 2, Electrical Equipment Voltage; Page 138, The implementation of the RBI therefore needs to collect all the data; type of equipment, the material used, the operating conditions, safety systems, the cost of failure etc., related to subsea pipeline production and injection of water and gas production centres on an Excel file to create a dynamic database. This is the first step and the most important part of the methodology as it will define the quality of inspection plans. Therefore, one has to understand the types of information required, thickness, length, operating pressure, maximum allowed pressure, etc., and their influence on the results. In addition a permanent judgement on values and information found is necessary in order to avoid possible errors. The collection of information for the development of RBI must ensure the access to industrial databases that contain all the information related to each defined business, production site or projects (production line drawings, technical documents, plans, alignment sheets with geographic coordinates and system specifications). For each RBI plan, two types of information, specific or generic, can be identified; Examiner interprets the classification of the equipment based on the operating voltage as the ignition score, see table 2 below. In this case, the classification is medium when the operating voltage is less than 400V and the classification is high when the operating voltage is greater than 400V. Therefore, a higher voltage results in a higher ignition risk).
PNG
media_image1.png
335
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure locations and/or objects) of the invention of Constantinis to further incorporate other factors that pose a risk in a device (e.g., ignition risk based on an operating voltage) of the invention of Kamsu-Foguem because doing so would allow the method to categorize mechanical equipment with the purpose of selecting critical equipment for further analysis and prioritizes them for in-depth risk evaluations as the basis for preparation of inspection and maintenance programmes (see Kamsu-Foguem, Page 134, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Although Constantinis receiving a result parameter associated with the inspection routine associated with said processing device, wherein the result parameter is indicative for a pass or a fail of said inspection routine (Paragraph 0072, a single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements; Paragraph 0076, failure type), the combination of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem does not specifically disclose wherein the result parameter is received in the user terminal as user input.
However, Ho et al. discloses receiving, in the user terminal as user input, a result parameter associated with the inspection routine associated with said processing device, wherein the result parameter is indicative for a pass or a fail of said inspection routine (Column 11, lines 36-43, The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag reader either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation; Column 12, lines 31-44, If the inspector is currently inspecting a welded joint of a tower crane mast section and he finds that the welding job is not done properly, not compliant with the ASME B 30.5 standard, then in carrying out the action of block 312, the inspector can navigate the ASME standard document to section B 30.5 and take a screenshot of the text of that particular section. He can then draw a red line underneath the sentences that describe the standard for a joint welding job that this particular joint does not comply with. Then, he may crop the screenshot such as to capture only the sentences he just underlined and then press a button on the handheld device to insert this cropped screenshot as an attachment to his inspection data for the joint of the tower crane mast section; Column 12, lines 45-57, In addition to allowing an inspector to select an item from a pre-populated checklist, which requires the inspector to go through each item on the checklist, in one embodiment of the present industrial inspection system, the inspector can also make a free-form observation of a potential problem identified in the course of the inspection that may not be on the pre-populated checklist. If an inspector makes an observation of a potential problem during an inspection, whether from a pre-populated list or in free-form, the problem is logged by the inspection compliance system so that any future visits to the same site require the problem(s) noted in the previous inspection visit to be re-visited before the next inspection can be satisfactorily completed; Examiner interprets “non-compliant” as the “result parameter indicative of a fail”);
receiving in said server, from said user terminal, said result parameter and associating the result parameter (Column 11, lines 36-43, The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag reader either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation; Column 12, lines 51-65, If an inspector makes an observation of a potential problem during an inspection, whether from a pre-populated list or in free-form, the problem is logged by the inspection compliance system so that any future visits to the same site require the problem(s) noted in the previous inspection visit to be re-visited before the next inspection can be satisfactorily completed. Problems must be re-visited on subsequent inspections until they are fixed; re-visiting the problem means visiting the area where the problem was observed (and possibly swiping the machine readable tags), possibly noting any changes (taking new pictures, notes, etc. to describe changes), and optionally fixing the problems and recording pictures, notes, and the like of the fix. Problems will only be automatically populated into subsequent inspections until they are fixed).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list stored in a criticality database (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure locations and/or objects), wherein inspection results are received from a user/inspector and/or an apparatus of the invention of Constantinis to further specify wherein the inspection results are received from a user/inspector terminal of the invention of Ho et al. because doing so would allow the inspector to report whether the inspection result is in compliance with the ASME standard (see Ho et al., Column 11, lines 30-49). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Although Constantinis discloses a unique identifier associated with a processing device (Constantinis, Paragraph 0031, storing inspection results of multiple objects; Constantinis, Paragraph 0080, scanning apparatus), the combination of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem does not specifically disclose an RFID-tag associated with a processing device.
However, Ho et al. further discloses wherein the identifier comprises an RFID-tag associated with a processing device, wherein the method further comprises the step of scanning, with said user terminal, an RFID-tag associated with said processing device and sending said scanned RFID-tag to said server (Column 7, lines 52-67, In the situation where the unique machine-readable tag deployed at the logical inspection point is not in a sub-optimal condition, industrial inspection method 150 proceeds to block 104 where an inspector scans the unique machine-readable tag deployed at the selected logical inspection point. A unique machine-readable tag may be a barcode sticker, a high-frequency (HF) radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, an ultra-high-frequency (UHF) RFID tag, or any other tag or the like that serves as a unique identifier for a logical inspection point. The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag reader either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation. Various other techniques of choosing the type of unique machine-readable tag and its scanning are within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art; Column 11, lines 36-43, The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag reader either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation; Column 12, lines 51-65, If an inspector makes an observation of a potential problem during an inspection, whether from a pre-populated list or in free-form, the problem is logged by the inspection compliance system so that any future visits to the same site require the problem(s) noted in the previous inspection visit to be re-visited before the next inspection can be satisfactorily completed. Problems must be re-visited on subsequent inspections until they are fixed; re-visiting the problem means visiting the area where the problem was observed (and possibly swiping the machine readable tags), possibly noting any changes (taking new pictures, notes, etc. to describe changes), and optionally fixing the problems and recording pictures, notes, and the like of the fix. Problems will only be automatically populated into subsequent inspections until they are fixed).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure locations and/or objects), wherein each device is associated with a unique identifier of the invention of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem to further specify wherein the device is identified by scanning an RFID-tag associated with said device of the invention of Ho et al. because doing so would allow the method to store a record of the scanning operation using RFID tags (see Ho et al., Column 7, lines 52-67). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Although Constantinis discloses determining a repair priority list based on a predicted property or characteristics of the object/device, Constantinis does not specifically disclose wherein the repair priority list is based on an ignition score (e.g., an operating voltage).
However, Kamsu-Foguem further discloses the steps of, receiving from the user terminal, an operating voltage of the processing device, wherein the ignition risk score is retrieved based on the received operating voltage (Page 133, 2.1 Practices of risk-based inspection, External inspections are generally accomplished using a remotely operated transporter equipped with diverse inspection techniques and resources. This can for instance be techniques for visual inspections (video recording) and physical measurements (steel electrochemical voltage measurements) Page 133, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation, The risk evaluation is based on consequences and probabilities of failures that are evaluated in a distinct way, under the following assumptions [21]: The consequences of system faults, loss of main functions and sub-functions, are independent of the equipment carrying out the functions. • The actual equipment and the operational conditions affect the probability of failure. The outcome of the RBI process is determination of [22]: location and extent of inspections and condition monitoring, • inspection methods, • inspection intervals; Table 1, Potential of fire; Table 2, Electrical Equipment Voltage).
PNG
media_image1.png
335
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure objects/devices and an ignition risk) of the invention of Constantinis to further incorporate wherein the ignition risk score is based on the operating voltage of the processing device of the invention of Kamsu-Foguem because doing so would allow the method to categorize mechanical equipment with the purpose of selecting critical equipment for further analysis and prioritizes them for in-depth risk evaluations as the basis for preparation of inspection and maintenance programmes (see Kamsu-Foguem, Page 134, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Constantinis further discloses wherein the criticality database comprises for a plurality of processing devices a plurality of inspection routines, wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith a criticality score (Paragraph 0034, The method may comprise compiling an inventory of objects, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method may comprise grading the objects, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0008, International requirements and guidelines for general and detailed inspections, such as an ATEX Directive (e.g. 2014/34/EU) in the EU (or equivalent harmonised international IECEx standards), can include detailed inspections of components such as junction boxes, connectors, lighting systems and glands; Paragraph 0035, The method may comprise determining and/or following an inspection programme. The method may comprise identifying which object/s require or are likely to require inspection. The method may comprise identifying or determining a detailed procedure for the inspection of each object. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and may comprise an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA).
Regarding claim 11 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Constantinis further discloses wherein the inspection routines comprise the inspection tasks as defined in IEC60079-17 or inspection regulations as defined in IECEx standards (Paragraph 0034, The method may comprise compiling an inventory of objects, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method may comprise grading the objects, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0008, International requirements and guidelines for general and detailed inspections, such as an ATEX Directive (e.g. 2014/34/EU) in the EU (or equivalent harmonised international IECEx standards), can include detailed inspections of components such as junction boxes, connectors, lighting systems and glands; Paragraph 0035, The method may comprise determining and/or following an inspection programme. The method may comprise identifying which object/s require or are likely to require inspection. The method may comprise identifying or determining a detailed procedure for the inspection of each object. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and may comprise an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA).
Regarding claim 12 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 10, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 10. Constantinis further discloses wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith an inspection grade parameter, wherein the inspection grade parameter is indicative for the depth of the inspection routine, wherein a higher inspection grade parameter reflects a greater depth of inspection, wherein a plurality of the processing devices has associated therewith a plurality of inspection routines with different inspection grade parameters (Paragraph 0034, The method may comprise compiling an inventory of objects, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method may comprise grading the objects, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0008, International requirements and guidelines for general and detailed inspections, such as an ATEX Directive (e.g. 2014/34/EU) in the EU (or equivalent harmonised international IECEx standards), can include detailed inspections of components such as junction boxes, connectors, lighting systems and glands; Paragraph 0035, The method may comprise determining and/or following an inspection programme. The method may comprise identifying which object/s require or are likely to require inspection. The method may comprise identifying or determining a detailed procedure for the inspection of each object. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and may comprise an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA; Examiner interprets “determining a detailed procedure for each object” as the “depth of inspection”).
Regarding claim 13 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Constantinis further discloses providing a risk database, wherein the risk database comprises a plurality of risk based inspection parameters associated with a plurality of processing devices, wherein the risk based inspection parameter is indicative of the likely consequence of a failure of a processing device (Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like); Paragraph 0073, The method comprises storing the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom, such as storing in a database. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data over a period of time for a single object 10. Additionally, or alternatively, method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data for multiple object 10; Paragraph 0074, The method comprises analysing the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The analysis comprises a statistical analysis. The analysis comprises a risk or risk factor analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the like. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object 10/s and/or feature/s; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA).
Regarding claim 14 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 13, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 13. Constantinis further discloses wherein the risk based inspection parameter is defined on at least one equipment parameter being indicative of the likely consequence of a failure of said processing device, … associated therewith a risk score, wherein the risk based inspection parameter is determined on the basis of the … risk scores of the respective equipment parameters (Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like); Paragraph 0073, The method comprises storing the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom, such as storing in a database. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data over a period of time for a single object 10. Additionally, or alternatively, method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data for multiple object 10; Paragraph 0074, The method comprises analysing the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The analysis comprises a statistical analysis. The analysis comprises a risk or risk factor analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the like. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object 10/s and/or feature/s; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA).
Although Constantinis discloses wherein the risk based inspection parameter is defined on at least one equipment parameter being indicative of the likely consequence of a failure of said processing device, Constantinis does not specifically disclose wherein an equipment parameter defines at least two categories, wherein each category has associated therewith a risk score, wherein the risk based inspection parameter is determined on the basis of the combined risk scores of the respective equipment parameters.
However, Kamsu-Foguem further discloses wherein a equipment parameter defines at least two categories, wherein each category has associated therewith a risk score, wherein the risk based inspection parameter is determined on the basis of the combined risk scores of the respective equipment parameters (Page 133, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation, The risk evaluation is based on consequences and probabilities of failures that are evaluated in a distinct way, under the following assumptions [21]: The consequences of system faults, loss of main functions and sub-functions, are independent of the equipment carrying out the functions. • The actual equipment and the operational conditions affect the probability of failure. The outcome of the RBI process is determination of [22]: location and extent of inspections and condition monitoring, • inspection methods, • inspection intervals; Page 134, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation, Concerning the evaluation of failure probabilities, this is indirectly expressed by the maintenance characteristics and operational experiences. Essentially, the equipment failure modes, operational conditions, location and external environmental factors are fundamental elements contributing to the calculation of the probabilities of failure according to the functions the equipment supports and applicable generic maintenance concepts. These generic concepts are issued from the collection of best practices of maintenance actions, strategies and maintenance details (e.g. structured analysis identifying failure modes and failure causes) for an enterprise. The general consequence classification (defined in Table 1) is made in accordance with criteria for Health, safety and environment (HSE), Production and Cost (exclusive production loss). The consequence classification methodology is applied for categorizing of static mechanical equipment with the purpose of selecting critical equipment for further analysis and prioritizes them for in-depth risk evaluations as the basis for preparation of inspection and maintenance programmes. The technology of equipment is a factor influencing maintenance activities. Therefore it is possible to classify equipment according to the technological complexity needed to execute the maintenance engineering. Some examples of equipment classified according to their technological complexity are provided in Table 2; Table 1, Potential of fire; Table 2, Electrical Equipment Voltage).
PNG
media_image1.png
335
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure objects/devices and an ignition risk), wherein the risk based inspection parameter is defined on at least one equipment parameter being indicative of the likely consequence of a failure of said processing device of the invention of Constantinis to further incorporate wherein an equipment parameter defines at least two categories of the invention of Kamsu-Foguem because doing so would allow the method to categorize mechanical equipment with the purpose of selecting critical equipment for further analysis and prioritizes them for in-depth risk evaluations as the basis for preparation of inspection and maintenance programmes (see Kamsu-Foguem, Page 134, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 15 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 12, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 12. Although Constantinis discloses determining a repair priority list based on a predicted property or characteristics of the object/device, Constantinis does not specifically disclose wherein the repair priority list is based at least on an ignition score (e.g., an operating voltage).
Kamsu-Foguem discloses wherein the risk based inspection parameter is based on at least one of: - a hazardous zone parameter; - an environmental parameter being indicative of the exposure to the environment, i.e. weather, deluge or sea spay, of the equipment; - a corrosion risk parameter being indicative of the risk of corrosion of said processing device; - a water exposure parameter being indicative of the exposure to water of the processing device; - an opening frequency parameter being indicative of the opening frequency of the processing device; - an ignition risk parameter being indicative of the operating voltage of the processing device; - an equipment protection parameter being indicative of protective concept of the processing device; - a vibration parameter being indicative of the exposure to vibration of said processing device; - an UV exposure parameter being indicative of the exposure to UV light of said processing device; - a temperature parameter being indicative of the range of temperature exposed to said processing device; - a location parameter being indicative of the conditions of the location of the processing device (Page 133, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation, The risk evaluation is based on consequences and probabilities of failures that are evaluated in a distinct way, under the following assumptions [21]: The consequences of system faults, loss of main functions and sub-functions, are independent of the equipment carrying out the functions. • The actual equipment and the operational conditions affect the probability of failure. The outcome of the RBI process is determination of [22]: location and extent of inspections and condition monitoring, • inspection methods, • inspection intervals; Page 134, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation, Concerning the evaluation of failure probabilities, this is indirectly expressed by the maintenance characteristics and operational experiences. Essentially, the equipment failure modes, operational conditions, location and external environmental factors are fundamental elements contributing to the calculation of the probabilities of failure according to the functions the equipment supports and applicable generic maintenance concepts. These generic concepts are issued from the collection of best practices of maintenance actions, strategies and maintenance details (e.g. structured analysis identifying failure modes and failure causes) for an enterprise. The general consequence classification (defined in Table 1) is made in accordance with criteria for Health, safety and environment (HSE), Production and Cost (exclusive production loss). The consequence classification methodology is applied for categorizing of static mechanical equipment with the purpose of selecting critical equipment for further analysis and prioritizes them for in-depth risk evaluations as the basis for preparation of inspection and maintenance programmes. The technology of equipment is a factor influencing maintenance activities. Therefore it is possible to classify equipment according to the technological complexity needed to execute the maintenance engineering. Some examples of equipment classified according to their technological complexity are provided in Table 2; Table 1, Potential of fire; Table 2, Electrical Equipment Voltage; It can be noted that the claim language is written in alternative form. The limitation taught by Kamsu-Foguem is based on “an ignition risk parameter being indicative of the operating voltage of the processing device").
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure objects/devices and an ignition risk) of the invention of Constantinis to further incorporate wherein the ignition risk score is based on the operating voltage of the processing device of the invention of Kamsu-Foguem because doing so would allow the method to categorize mechanical equipment with the purpose of selecting critical equipment for further analysis and prioritizes them for in-depth risk evaluations as the basis for preparation of inspection and maintenance programmes (see Kamsu-Foguem, Page 134, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Constantinis further discloses receiving in said server, [from the apparatus], an identifier of a processing device; retrieving, from said criticality database, at least one inspection routine associated with the processing device associated with said identifier; sending, to said [apparatus], the retrieved inspection routine; and receiving, in said user [apparatus], said result parameter associated with said inspection routine (Paragraph 0035, The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and may comprise an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on the analysis, such as FMEA. Paragraph 0039, The method may comprise inspecting the vessel without a person entering or being required to enter the vessel. The method may comprise the entry of only apparatus, such as scanning apparatus, into the vessel; Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data);
wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith an inspection grade parameter, wherein the inspection grade parameter is indicative for the depth of the inspection routine, wherein a higher inspection grade parameter reflects a greater depth of inspection, and wherein a plurality of the processing devices has associated therewith a plurality of inspection routines with different inspection grade parameters (Paragraph 0034, The method may comprise compiling an inventory of objects, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method may comprise grading the objects, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0008, International requirements and guidelines for general and detailed inspections, such as an ATEX Directive (e.g. 2014/34/EU) in the EU (or equivalent harmonised international IECEx standards), can include detailed inspections of components such as junction boxes, connectors, lighting systems and glands; Paragraph 0035, The method may comprise determining and/or following an inspection programme. The method may comprise identifying which object/s require or are likely to require inspection. The method may comprise identifying or determining a detailed procedure for the inspection of each object. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and may comprise an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA; Examiner interprets “determining a detailed procedure for each object” as the “depth of inspection”);
the method further comprising providing a risk database, wherein the risk database comprises a plurality of risk based inspection parameters associated with a plurality of processing devices, and wherein the risk based inspection parameter is indicative of the likely consequence of a failure of a processing device (Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like); Paragraph 0073, The method comprises storing the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom, such as storing in a database. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data over a period of time for a single object 10. Additionally, or alternatively, method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data for multiple object 10; Paragraph 0074, The method comprises analysing the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The analysis comprises a statistical analysis. The analysis comprises a risk or risk factor analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the like. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object 10/s and/or feature/s; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA);
and wherein the step of retrieving the at least one inspection routine comprises selecting, on the basis of the risk based inspection parameter associated with a processing device, an inspection routine, wherein for a higher risk base inspection parameter, an inspection routine having a higher inspection grade parameter is selected (Paragraph 0074, The method comprises analysing the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The analysis comprises a statistical analysis. The analysis comprises a risk or risk factor analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the like. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object 10/s and/or feature/s; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA).
Although Constantinis receiving a result parameter associated with the inspection routine associated with said processing device, wherein the result parameter is indicative for a pass or a fail of said inspection routine (Paragraph 0072, a single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements; Paragraph 0076, failure type), the combination of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem does not specifically disclose wherein the result parameter is received in the user terminal as user input.
However, Ho et al. discloses receiving in said server, from said user terminal, an identifier of a processing device (Column 11, lines 30-49, If industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 305, the inspector scans a unique machine-readable tag deployed at the selected logical inspection point. A unique machine-readable tag may be a barcode sticker, a high-frequency (HF) radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, an ultra-high-frequency (UHF) RFID tag, or any other tag or the like that serves as a unique identifier for a logical inspection point. The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag reader either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation. Various other techniques of choosing the type of unique machine-readable tag and the scanning of it are within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. The software then recognizes the scanned tag's unique identifier and proceeds to retrieve all of its associated data and begins the inspection process for the logical inspection point associated with that particular tag);
retrieving, from said criticality database, at least one inspection routine associated with the processing device associated with said identifier; sending, to said user terminal, the retrieved inspection routine; and receiving, in said user terminal, said result parameter associated with said inspection routine (Column 11, lines 36-43, The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag reader either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation; Column 12, lines 31-44, If the inspector is currently inspecting a welded joint of a tower crane mast section and he finds that the welding job is not done properly, not compliant with the ASME B 30.5 standard, then in carrying out the action of block 312, the inspector can navigate the ASME standard document to section B 30.5 and take a screenshot of the text of that particular section. He can then draw a red line underneath the sentences that describe the standard for a joint welding job that this particular joint does not comply with. Then, he may crop the screenshot such as to capture only the sentences he just underlined and then press a button on the handheld device to insert this cropped screenshot as an attachment to his inspection data for the joint of the tower crane mast section).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list stored in a criticality database (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure locations and/or objects), wherein inspection results are received from a user/inspector and/or an apparatus of the invention of Constantinis to further specify wherein the inspector scans a unique machine-readable tag using a user/inspector terminal of the invention of Ho et al. because doing so would allow the method to recognize the scanned tag's unique identifier and proceeds to retrieve all of its associated data and begins the inspection process for the logical inspection point associated with that particular tag (see Ho et al., Column 11, lines 30-49). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 13, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 13. Constantinis further discloses the steps of: defining on the basis of the risk based inspection parameter for a processing device an inspection interval, wherein an inspection interval for a higher risk based inspection parameter is shorter than for a lower risk based inspection parameter; recording, in a history database, the inspection dates of the respective processing devices; providing, on the basis of the defined inspection interval and the inspection dates of the processing devices, an inspection order list defining the processing devices to be inspected (Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like); Paragraph 0073, The method comprises storing the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom, such as storing in a database. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data over a period of time for a single object 10. Additionally, or alternatively, method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data for multiple object 10; Paragraph 0074, The method comprises analysing the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The analysis comprises a statistical analysis. The analysis comprises a risk or risk factor analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the like. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object 10/s and/or feature/s; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA; Examiner notes that objects/devices that are most likely to fail are inspected first. Therefore, the inspection parameter interval is shorter when the object/device has a higher risk).
Regarding claim 18 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 16, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 16. Constantinis further comprising the steps of: defining on the basis of the risk based inspection parameter for a processing device an inspection interval, wherein an inspection interval for a higher risk based inspection parameter is shorter than for a lower risk based inspection parameter; recording, in a history database, the inspection dates of the respective processing devices; providing, on the basis of the defined inspection interval and the inspection dates of the processing devices, an inspection order list defining the processing devices to be inspected; and providing to a user … the inspection order list and the selected inspection routines (Paragraph 0074, The method comprises analysing the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The analysis comprises a statistical analysis. The analysis comprises a risk or risk factor analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the like. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object 10/s and/or feature/s; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA).
Although Constantinis discloses all the limitations above and an inspection order list, Constantinis does not specifically disclose wherein the list is provided to a user terminal.
However, Ho et al. discloses providing to a user terminal the … (Column 10, lines 32-36, FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method of ensuring compliance of industrial inspections, detailing the flow of usage of the software on a handheld device, in accordance with yet another embodiment of the present industrial inspection system).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure locations and/or objects), wherein an alert to inspect the object/device is communicated to a user/inspector and/or apparatus of the invention of Constantinis to further specify a user/inspector terminal of the invention of Ho et al. because doing so would allow the method to display for the user on the display device (see Ho et al., Column 15, lines 37-53). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 19 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Constantinis discloses a system comprising a server for storing at least one of the databases according to one of the preceding claims (Paragraph 0042, According to an aspect of the invention, there is provided a system comprising a controller according to an aspect, claim, embodiment or example of this disclosure, or a system arranged to perform a method according to an aspect, claim, embodiment or example of this disclosure; Paragraph 0043, According to an aspect of the invention, there is provided computer software which, when executed by a processing means, is arranged to perform a method according to any aspect, claim, embodiment or example of this disclosure. The computer software may be stored on a computer readable medium. The computer software may be tangibly stored on a computer readable medium. The computer readable medium may be non-transitory);
a processing means for providing a repair priority parameter according to any of the preceding claims, and (Paragraph 0044, Any controller or controllers described herein may suitably comprise a control unit or computational device having one or more electronic processors; (Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like); Paragraph 0073, The method comprises storing the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom, such as storing in a database. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data over a period of time for a single object 10. Additionally, or alternatively, method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data for multiple object 10; Paragraph 0074, The method comprises analysing the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The analysis comprises a statistical analysis. The analysis comprises a risk or risk factor analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the like. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object 10/s and/or feature/s; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA; Examiner interprets grading the object by criticality as the repair priority parameter);
and a communication unit for communicating with at least one user … (Paragraph 0062, The method comprises determining whether the predicted or projected property or characteristic is acceptable. For example, the method comprises determining that the minimum wall thickness 12 is above a minimum threshold. The minimum threshold corresponds to a minimum safe threshold, such as identified by a risk analysis and/or regulatory requirement. The minimum threshold corresponds to a minimum allowable wall thickness. The method comprises providing an alert or trigger to inspect and/or repair or replace the object 10 where the predicted or projected minimum wall thickness 12 reaches the threshold; Paragraph 0081, Still further, embodiments of the present disclosure may be conveyed electronically via any medium such as a communication signal carried over a wired or wireless connection and embodiments suitably encompass the same).
Constantinis discloses: determining a repair priority list based on a predicted property or characteristics of the object (Paragraph 0074); and providing an alert to inspect the object/device (Paragraph 0062). Although Constantinis discloses all the limitations above, Constantinis does not specifically disclose communication to the at least one user terminal.
However, Ho et al. further discloses a communication unit for communicating with at least one user terminal (Column 10, lines 32-36, FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method of ensuring compliance of industrial inspections, detailing the flow of usage of the software on a handheld device, in accordance with yet another embodiment of the present industrial inspection system).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure locations and/or objects), wherein an alert to inspect the object/device is communicated to a user/inspector and/or apparatus of the invention of Constantinis to further specify a user/inspector terminal of the invention of Ho et al. because doing so would allow the method to display for the user on the display device (see Ho et al., Column 15, lines 37-53). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 20 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 19, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 19. Constantinis further discloses a floating hydrocarbon production plant (Paragraph 0002, The Oil/Gas and indeed many other industries are concerned with safety risks. There are numerous objects, such as electrical components or vessels (e.g. pressure vessels), on Oil/Gas assets that are often safety critical and need to comply with regulatory and corporate standards. Additional risks are encountered when the confined space involves working at height, for example in a large storage tank or on a ship or offshore production facility; Paragraph 0026, The vessel may be on or part of a moving ship or Floating Production, Storage and Offloading unit (FPSO) or Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit or Accommodation Vessel for example).
Regarding claim 21 (New), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Constantinis further discloses wherein the method further comprises, prior to the step of receiving the result parameter, the steps of: receiving in said server, [from the apparatus], an identifier of a processing device; retrieving, from said criticality database, at least one inspection routine associated with the processing device associated with said identifier; and sending, to said [apparatus], the retrieved inspection routine (Paragraph 0035, The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and may comprise an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure may be determined in dependence on the analysis, such as FMEA. Paragraph 0039, The method may comprise inspecting the vessel without a person entering or being required to enter the vessel. The method may comprise the entry of only apparatus, such as scanning apparatus, into the vessel; Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data).
Although Constantinis receiving a result parameter associated with the inspection routine associated with said processing device, wherein the result parameter is indicative for a pass or a fail of said inspection routine (Paragraph 0072, a single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements; Paragraph 0076, failure type), the combination of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem does not specifically disclose wherein the result parameter is received in the user terminal as user input.
However, Ho et al. discloses wherein the method further comprises, prior to the step of receiving the result parameter, the steps of: receiving in said server, from said user terminal, an identifier of a processing device (Column 11, lines 30-49, If industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 305, the inspector scans a unique machine-readable tag deployed at the selected logical inspection point. A unique machine-readable tag may be a barcode sticker, a high-frequency (HF) radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, an ultra-high-frequency (UHF) RFID tag, or any other tag or the like that serves as a unique identifier for a logical inspection point. The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag reader either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation. Various other techniques of choosing the type of unique machine-readable tag and the scanning of it are within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. The software then recognizes the scanned tag's unique identifier and proceeds to retrieve all of its associated data and begins the inspection process for the logical inspection point associated with that particular tag);
retrieving, from said criticality database, at least one inspection routine associated with the processing device associated with said identifier; and sending, to said user terminal, the retrieved inspection routine (Column 11, lines 36-43, The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag reader either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation; Column 12, lines 31-44, If the inspector is currently inspecting a welded joint of a tower crane mast section and he finds that the welding job is not done properly, not compliant with the ASME B 30.5 standard, then in carrying out the action of block 312, the inspector can navigate the ASME standard document to section B 30.5 and take a screenshot of the text of that particular section. He can then draw a red line underneath the sentences that describe the standard for a joint welding job that this particular joint does not comply with. Then, he may crop the screenshot such as to capture only the sentences he just underlined and then press a button on the handheld device to insert this cropped screenshot as an attachment to his inspection data for the joint of the tower crane mast section).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list stored in a criticality database (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure locations and/or objects), wherein inspection results are received from a user/inspector and/or an apparatus of the invention of Constantinis to further specify wherein the inspector scans a unique machine-readable tag using a user/inspector terminal of the invention of Ho et al. because doing so would allow the method to recognize the scanned tag's unique identifier and proceeds to retrieve all of its associated data and begins the inspection process for the logical inspection point associated with that particular tag (see Ho et al., Column 11, lines 30-49). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantinis (US 2021/0123569 A1), in view of Kamsu-Foguem (Kamsu-Foguem, B., 2016. Information structuring and risk-based inspection for the marine oil pipelines. Applied Ocean Research, 56, pp.132-142), in further view of Ho et al. (US 7,793,850 B1) and Manahan et al. (US 2020/0211803 A1).
Regarding claim 6 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Constantinis further discloses the steps of: providing, in a server, a hazardous zone database defining a plurality of zones … associated therewith, wherein the plurality of processing devices has associated therewith a hazardous zone …, wherein a zone is indicative of the frequency and time that a hazardous substance may exist in said zone in normal working conditions (Paragraph 0007, Furthermore, inspections may be required in hazardous areas. Hazardous areas are typically areas where flammable liquids, vapours, gases or combustible dusts are likely to occur in quantities sufficient to cause a hazard risk, such as of fire or explosion. Hazardous environments or areas are sometimes referred to as “Ex Locations”, “Zoned Areas”, “Explosive Atmospheres” or “ATEX Areas”. Consequently, equipment that is certified for use in these areas is often called “ATEX Equipment”, “HAE” or “Ex Equipment”. Equipment can have various terms or ratings, such as “Ex d” (Flameproof), “Ex e” (Increased Safety), “Ex I” (Intrinsic Safety) and “Ex p” (Pressurised));
retrieving, from said server, the zone … associated with said processing device, and; defining said repair priority parameter also on the basis of said retrieved hazardous zone … (Paragraph 0074, The method comprises analysing the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The analysis comprises a statistical analysis. The analysis comprises a risk or risk factor analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the like. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object 10/s and/or feature/s).
Although Constantinis discloses: hazardous zones; and prioritizing an inspection based on the most critical failure locations, Constantinis does not specifically disclose a corresponding hazardous zone score.
However, Manahan et al. discloses wherein the plurality of processing devices has associated therewith a hazardous zone and a corresponding hazardous zone score (Paragraph 0022, Division 1 presents a greater risk of explosion than, for example, Division 2 where flammable gases or vapors are normally handled either in a closed system, confined within suitable enclosures, or are normally prevented by positive mechanical ventilation; Paragraph 0023, The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) likewise categorizes hazardous locations into Zone 0, 1, or 2 representing locations in which flammable gases or vapors are or may be airborne in an amount sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures. As defined in the IEC, a Zone 0 location is a location in which ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors are present continuously or for long periods of time. A Zone 1 location is a location in which ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors are likely to exist or may exist frequently because of repair or maintenance operations or because of leakage or possible release of ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors, or that is adjacent to a Zone 0 location from which ignitable concentrations of vapors could be communicated; Examiner interprets the hazardous risk of each zone as the hazardous zone score).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure objects/devices, most critical failure locations, and an ignition risk) of the invention of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem to further incorporate other factors that pose a risk in a device (e.g., hazardous zone score) of the invention of Manahan et al. because doing so would allow the method to categorize hazardous locations into Zone 0, 1, or 2 representing locations in which flammable gases or vapors are or may be airborne in an amount sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures (see Manahan et al., Paragraph 0023). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Although Constantinis discloses: hazardous zones; and prioritizing an inspection based on the most critical failure locations, Constantinis does not specifically disclose a corresponding hazardous zone score.
However, Manahan et al. discloses the steps of: - providing, in a server, a primary location risk database defining a plurality of locations and a primary location score associated therewith, wherein the plurality of processing devices has associated therewith a location and a corresponding primary location score; - retrieving, from said server, the corresponding primary location score associated with said processing device, and; - defining said … priority parameter also on the basis of said retrieved primary location score (Paragraph 0023, The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) likewise categorizes hazardous locations into Zone 0, 1, or 2 representing locations in which flammable gases or vapors are or may be airborne in an amount sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures. As defined in the IEC, a Zone 0 location is a location in which ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors are present continuously or for long periods of time. A Zone 1 location is a location in which ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors are likely to exist or may exist frequently because of repair or maintenance operations or because of leakage or possible release of ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors, or that is adjacent to a Zone 0 location from which ignitable concentrations of vapors could be communicated); Examiner notes that zone 1 has a higher risk than zone 0 since zone 1 is more likely to have ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure objects/devices, most critical failure locations, and an ignition risk) of the invention of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem to further incorporate other factors that pose a risk in a device (e.g., hazardous zone score) of the invention of Manahan et al. because doing so would allow the method to categorize hazardous locations into Zone 0, 1, or 2 representing locations in which flammable gases or vapors are or may be airborne in an amount sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures (see Manahan et al., Paragraph 0023). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 7, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, Ho et al., and Manahan et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 7. Although Constantinis discloses: hazardous zones; and prioritizing an inspection based on the most critical failure locations, Constantinis does not specifically disclose the risk of neighboring equipment.
However, Manahan et al. further discloses the steps of: providing, in a server, a secondary location risk database defining for the plurality of processing devices a secondary location score being indicative of the risk of neighbouring equipment; retrieving, from said server, the corresponding secondary location score associated with said processing device, and; defining said … priority parameter also on the basis of said retrieved secondary location score (Paragraph 0023, The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) likewise categorizes hazardous locations into Zone 0, 1, or 2 representing locations in which flammable gases or vapors are or may be airborne in an amount sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures. As defined in the IEC, a Zone 0 location is a location in which ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors are present continuously or for long periods of time. A Zone 1 location is a location in which ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors are likely to exist or may exist frequently because of repair or maintenance operations or because of leakage or possible release of ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors, or that is adjacent to a Zone 0 location from which ignitable concentrations of vapors could be communicated).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure objects/devices, most critical failure locations, and an ignition risk) of the invention of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem to further incorporate other factors that pose a risk in a device (e.g., risk of neighbouring equipment) of the invention of Manahan et al. because doing so would allow the method to categorize hazardous locations based on a location that is adjacent to a Zone 0 location from which ignitable concentrations of vapors could be communicated (see Manahan et al., Paragraph 0023). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 1, the combination of Constantinis, Kamsu-Foguem, and Ho et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Constantinis further discloses wherein the repair priority parameter is defined on the basis of the criticality score, … (Paragraph 0072, The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10. The method comprises inspecting multiple object 10 during a single inspection. The single inspection comprises multiple inspection scans and/or measurements, such as thickness measurements (e.g. ultrasonic or the like); Paragraph 0073, The method comprises storing the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom, such as storing in a database. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data derived therefrom. The method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data over a period of time for a single object 10. Additionally, or alternatively, method comprises compiling the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data for multiple object 10; Paragraph 0074, The method comprises analysing the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The analysis comprises a statistical analysis. The analysis comprises a risk or risk factor analysis, such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the like. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on the compiled inspection results and/or analysis/es or data. The method comprises performing a targeted inspection in dependence on a most likely and/or most critical failure location/s and/or object 10/s and/or feature/s; Paragraph 0075, The method comprises compiling an inventory of object 10, and/or inspection results and/or analysis/es or data associated therewith, such as in a database. The method comprises grading the object 10, such as by criticality—typically in dependence on the inspection results and/or analysis/es or data; Paragraph 0076, The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on a probable defect or failure type/s; and comprises an associated, preferably validated, method for detecting such defects or failures. The detailed procedure is determined in dependence on the analysis, such as an FMEA; Examiner interprets grading the object by criticality as the repair priority parameter based on the criticality score).
Although Constantinis discloses determining wherein the repair priority parameter is defined on the basis of the criticality score, Constantinis does not specifically disclose wherein the repair priority parameter is defined on the basis of the ignition risk score, hazardous zone score, the primary location score and the secondary location score.
However, Kamsu-Foguem discloses wherein the repair priority parameter is defined on the basis of the … ignition risk score, … (Page 133, 2.1. Practices of risk-based inspection, The RBI method was used to assess the risk of large scale crude oil tanks in order to determine the acceptable risk and internal inspection interval of tanks; Page 133, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation, The risk evaluation is based on consequences and probabilities of failures that are evaluated in a distinct way, under the following assumptions [21]: The consequences of system faults, loss of main functions and sub-functions, are independent of the equipment carrying out the functions. • The actual equipment and the operational conditions affect the probability of failure. The outcome of the RBI process is determination of [22]: location and extent of inspections and condition monitoring, • inspection methods, • inspection intervals; Page 134, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation, Concerning the evaluation of failure probabilities, this is indirectly expressed by the maintenance characteristics and operational experiences. Essentially, the equipment failure modes, operational conditions, location and external environmental factors are fundamental elements contributing to the calculation of the probabilities of failure according to the functions the equipment supports and applicable generic maintenance concepts. These generic concepts are issued from the collection of best practices of maintenance actions, strategies and maintenance details (e.g. structured analysis identifying failure modes and failure causes) for an enterprise. The general consequence classification (defined in Table 1) is made in accordance with criteria for Health, safety and environment (HSE), Production and Cost (exclusive production loss). The consequence classification methodology is applied for categorizing of static mechanical equipment with the purpose of selecting critical equipment for further analysis and prioritizes them for in-depth risk evaluations as the basis for preparation of inspection and maintenance programmes. The technology of equipment is a factor influencing maintenance activities. Therefore it is possible to classify equipment according to the technological complexity needed to execute the maintenance engineering. Some examples of equipment classified according to their technological complexity are provided in Table 2; Table 1, Potential of fire; Table 2, Electrical Equipment Voltage).
PNG
media_image1.png
335
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure locations and/or objects) of the invention of Constantinis to further incorporate other factors that pose a risk in a device (e.g., ignition risk based on an operating voltage) of the invention of Kamsu-Foguem because doing so would allow the method to categorize mechanical equipment with the purpose of selecting critical equipment for further analysis and prioritizes them for in-depth risk evaluations as the basis for preparation of inspection and maintenance programmes (see Kamsu-Foguem, Page 134, 2.2 Principles for risk evaluation). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Although the combination of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem discloses determining wherein the repair priority parameter is defined on the basis of the criticality score and the ignition risk score, the combination of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem does not specifically disclose wherein the repair priority parameter is defined on the basis of the hazardous zone score, the primary location score and the secondary location score.
However, Manahan et al. discloses wherein the … priority parameter is defined on the basis of the hazardous zone score, the primary location score and the secondary location score (Paragraph 0022, Division 1 presents a greater risk of explosion than, for example, Division 2 where flammable gases or vapors are normally handled either in a closed system, confined within suitable enclosures, or are normally prevented by positive mechanical ventilation; Paragraph 0023, The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) likewise categorizes hazardous locations into Zone 0, 1, or 2 representing locations in which flammable gases or vapors are or may be airborne in an amount sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures. As defined in the IEC, a Zone 0 location is a location in which ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors are present continuously or for long periods of time. A Zone 1 location is a location in which ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors are likely to exist or may exist frequently because of repair or maintenance operations or because of leakage or possible release of ignitable concentrations of flammable gases or vapors, or that is adjacent to a Zone 0 location from which ignitable concentrations of vapors could be communicated; Examiner interprets the hazardous risk of each zone as the hazardous zone score).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for repairing a plurality of processing devices posing a risk in a processing plant on the basis of a repair priority list (e.g., based at least on the most critical failure objects/devices, most critical failure locations, and an ignition risk) of the invention of Constantinis and Kamsu-Foguem to further incorporate other factors that pose a risk in a device (e.g., hazardous zone score) of the invention of Manahan et al. because doing so would allow the method to categorize hazardous locations into Zone 0, 1, or 2 representing locations in which flammable gases or vapors are or may be airborne in an amount sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures (see Manahan et al., Paragraph 0023). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Yamamoto (JP 2006252311 A) – discloses a priority order using the equipment attribute information and equipment importance rank information of the plant equipment, determines the order of priority for selecting a maintenance method for various plant equipment, and the determined priority order information (see at least page 7).
Smiley et al. (US 2014/0358601 A1) – discloses a fire risk or an environmental risk (e.g., which could pose a financial liability on an entity responsible for the equipment) (see at least Paragraph 0020).
Turpin (US 9,672,486 B1) – discloses a web based risk-prioritization process wherein a plurality of answers to the standardized questions posed are used to navigate a decision tree to reach a ranking in order of need for repair of the inspection items. In some instances the rankings are color coded (see at least Column 2, lines 61-67).
Noordam (US 2008/0177665 A1) – discloses the inspector 10 may be guided through the inspection by the portable computer 300 and the inspector 10 may enter the results of such inspection in step 840. The portable computer 300 may audit the entered results in step 850. On completion of step 850, in step 860 the portable computer 300 may generate a management record with the results of the inspection, which may include cryptographic functions (see at least Paragraph 0048).
Griggs (US 2007/0124220 A1) – discloses the hand-held detector 412 may be integrated with a caliper or other inspection tool to enable automated writing to the database regarding inspection information, such as wall thickness in the case of the caliper. The inspection results may include wall thickness, outside diameter, inside diameter, crack detection, pitting, maintenance history, length, connection size and type, material type and strength, API or ISO grade/condition, customer job history and run data, and dates of inspection (see at least Paragraph 0036).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARJORIE PUJOLS-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4668. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thru 7:30 AM - 5:00 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, Patricia H Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. 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.
/MARJORIE PUJOLS-CRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights