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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is final.
This action is in response to communications filed on 07/06/2026.
Claims 2, 7 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 are pending and have been considered.
In view of amendments the claims are no longer interpreted under 112(f), but instead are given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Nguyen Spectral fatigue damage assessment of tanker deck structural detail subjected to time-dependent corrosion, Int Journal Fatigue, 48, (2013) p147-155 (“NGU”) in further view of US 4998208 A Buhrow, (“BUH”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Nguyen Spectral fatigue damage assessment of tanker deck structural detail subjected to time-dependent corrosion, Int Journal Fatigue, 48, (2013) p147-155 (“NGU”) in further view of US 4998208 A Buhrow, (“BUH”) in further view of RESOLUTION MSC.461(101) (adopted on 13 June 2019) AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE ON THE ENHANCED PROGRAMME OF INSPECTIONS DURING SURVEYS OF BULK CARRIERS AND OIL TANKERS, 2011 (2011 ESP CODE) (“MSC461”) AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE ON THE ENHANCED PROGRAMME OF INSPECTIONS DURING SURVEYS OF BULK CARRIERS AND OIL TANKERS, 2011 (2011 ESP CODE) (“MSC461”)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Nguyen Spectral fatigue damage assessment of tanker deck structural detail subjected to time-dependent corrosion, Int Journal Fatigue, 48, (2013) p147-155 (“NGU”) in further view of US 4998208 A Buhrow, (“BUH”)in view of Hulkkonen et al Digital Twin for Monitoring Remaining Fatigue Life of Critical Hull Structures, 18th Conference on Computer Applications and Information Technology in the Maritime Industries (COMPIT2019), March 2019 (“HUL”)
Claims 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Nguyen Spectral fatigue damage assessment of tanker deck structural detail subjected to time-dependent corrosion, Int Journal Fatigue, 48, (2013) p147-155 (“NGU”) in further view of US 4998208 A Buhrow, (“BUH”) in further view of Guo et al Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification for Functional Response, INTECH 2017 (“GUO”)
Notations, Abbreviations and Conventions used in this Action
The number in the parenthesis, following next to a claim number, when used, is the number of the parent claim.
The following abbreviations are used:
BRI = Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
POSITA = Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art
WURC = well-understood, routine, and conventional
BRI = Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
101 - 35 USC § 101
102 or 103 = 35 USC § 102 or 335 USC § 103
(S1)/(S2A1)/(S2A2) (S2B) = Steps 1, 2AProng , 2AProng2, and 2B of the multi-step eligibility analysis in the Alice/Mayo framework
{ } text from the reference
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for the Amendments and Arguments filed on 07/06/2026, which have been considered.
Claims 2 and 7 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are pending, have been amended, and have been considered. In view of the amendments, the claims are no longer interpreted under 112(b). The claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding the 101 rejection, the amendments have not sufficiently moved the claims towards eligibility. It is acknowledged that physical components exist to the estimation system including the two sensors and the computing ensemble of processor(s0)/memory. Also acknowledged that the processor performs specific technical processing operations. However, in view of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claim still recites and an abstract idea (considered as a single abstract idea as according to MPEP guidance, yet drawing from multiple limitations that recite mental processes and mathematical concepts). Although indeed specific elements are characteristic to a technological field, the processes/processing are nonetheless abstract. The only role of sensors is to provide data. The processor acquires the data from sensors in a generic way, there is no specific /different than common aspect of the recited data gathering, and therefore the data gathering is generic, and as an insignificant extra (pre) solution activity has been found by the courts to be WURC.
Data gathering are the only non-abstract limitations in the independent claim. While the claim does indeed recite a process that characterized the claimed improvement to floating structure monitoring technology, the improvement is coming from limitations that now recite the abstract ideas. The improvement can not come from the abstract idea only. None of the dependent claims has additional elements able to bring the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 101.
Several paths are suggested to overcome the rejection, in the context where what is now in the limitations reciting abstract ideas are the steps for improvement and core of the innovative idea. One path is having no abstract idea recited. That can be achieved if the limitations recite elements that make the processing impractical to be performed in the human mind – more than simply reciting the use of processor/computer, which is insufficient - but explicitly reciting elements that do a computation with data/formats/other aspects that are not suitable for human processing. Avoiding mathematical concepts is also needed.
The second path is to recite additional elements that would integrate into a practical application, e.g. that would cause an improvement, or provide significantly more. An example, related but which may not be directly applicable, is if a feedback loop would exist that after some processing using sensor data that would influence the measurement from that moment on. Even a specific arrangement of the measurement system that causes the improvement may be of value; unfortunately, the current arrangement of the sensors/data acquisition is not very special, the placement is at a position identical to or different, at any position, etc., nothing special(non-generic) in data acquisition is recited )
Regarding the 102 rejection of the independent claims: In view of the amendments the 102 rejection is withdrawn. A new search was necessitated by the amendment; the scope of the search also now changed to use the broadest reasonable interpretation. A 103 rejection has been made for the independent claims. The dependent claim rejections reflect the changes in the rejection of the independent claims.
Priority
The application claims priority to the 371 of PCT/JP2021/037224 with a filing date of 10/07/2021, based on a Japan National Application JP2020-191656 with filing date 11/18/2020. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). No translation of the application has been provided.
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 directed to an ineligible judicial exception.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process and mathematical concept) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-11 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claim 10 directed to a method), machine (claims 1-9 directed to a device) and manufacture (claim 11 directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
(S2A1)
Claim 1, representative for claims 10, 11, recites recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
acquire a strain response spectrum at an installation position at which a strain sensor is installed on a floating structure, the strain response spectrum being calculated based on a measurement value from the strain sensor;
acquire a wave spectrum of a wave at a position where the floating structure is located;
acquire a strain response function (response amplitude operator (RAO)) at the installation position of the strain sensor and a strain response function (RAO) at a non-installation position of the strain sensor, calculated based on a structure model of the floating structure;
calculate, based on the strain response spectrum and the strain response function (RAO) at the installation position of the strain sensor, the wave spectrum, and a formula expressing a relationship among the strain response spectrum and the strain response function (RAO) at the installation position of the strain sensor and the wave spectrum, a correction amount for a difference between a theoretical value of the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum and the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor; and (the limitation recites calculations of a correction for a difference, formula expressing relationship between spectrum and strain response function, which are recitations of mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships.)
estimate, based on a theoretical value of the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum at the non-installation position of the strain sensor, and the correction amount, the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position. (the limitation recites calculations of a correction for a difference, formula expressing relationship between spectrum and strain response function, which are recitations of mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships. With the aid of tools, such as pen and paper, the operations could also be performed by the human mind)
(2A) acquire information on a plate thickness of a structure to which a plate thickness sensor is installed, measured by the plate thickness sensor, the plate thickness sensor being installed at a position that is identical to or different from the strain sensor;
(2B) estimate a plate thickness at the non-installation position of the strain sensor based on the plate thickness measured by the plate thickness sensor and a plate thickness at any position measured during an inspection; and
(2C) calculate the strain response function (RAO) at the non-installation position of the strain sensor by using the plate thickness estimated by the plate thickness estimation unit,
(2D1) acquire the strain response function (RAO) calculated by the RAO calculation unit, and
(2D2) calculate the strain response spectrum based on the strain response function (RAO) acquired.
The claim recites the following limitations calculate a correction factor based on difference between measured strain spectrum at a sensor location and a calculated one based on a model for that location, and calculate strain response spectrum at a different location based on a model and correction factor According to the MPEP 2106.04 II. B guidance when multiple limitations reciting abstract ideas these should be combined for analysis as a single abstract idea. Thus, the claim recites a process aimed at: “Calculate strain spectrum at a location based on a model and correction factor calculated for a location for which data is provided”.
This is a combination that covers performance of limitations expressing mathematical concepts like [mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. These are Mathematical Concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection I) Accordingly, claim 1, representative for claims 10, 11 recites an abstract idea. (Certain elements of evaluation and estimation could also be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper and may be indicative of mental process).
The additional elements “processor configured to execute instructions” and “memory” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer” (used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The sensors installed on floating structure and plate thickness sensors are additional elements which characterize the specific technical field of use.
(S2A2)
Other additional elements recite activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements of acquiring strain response, acquiring wave spectrum, acquiring a stress response function are considered either pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05(d);
The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims only amount to Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))).) which the courts have identified did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B)
Claim 1 representative for claims 10, 11 does not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and/or a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h). Regarding the Insignificant Extra Pre-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), for situations substantially similar to those here, these additional elements, including data gathering, data manipulation recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). One should also mention that if for example calculating strain response spectrum would have been found not an abstract idea, it would have been WURC- such calculations are not even presented in the specification: [0016] “The method for calculating the strain response spectrum is known, and thus is not described in the present specification.” If not assuming known it would have generate a 112(a) rejection.
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions of data gathering and to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. The inventive concept lies in the judicial exception and is not provided by the individual or combination of additional elements, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claims 1, 10, 11 are ineligible.
Several paths are suggested to overcome the rejection, in the context where what is now in the limitations reciting abstract ideas are the steps for improvement and core of the innovative idea. One path to overcome the rejection is to recite no abstract idea, avoiding reciting a process that can be practically performed in the mind, as well recitation of mathematical concepts.
A second path is to recite additional elements that would integrate into a practical application, e.g. that would cause an improvement, or provide significantly more. If only sensor-related limitations are envisioned, some form of reciting additional elements that use of sensors in a way that causes the improvement or provides significantly more than the exception.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent claims 3-6, 8, 9 respectively, further recite:
(3A) acquire information on a plate thickness measured by the plate thickness sensor installed on an upper deck of the floating structure, and
(3B) estimate the plate thickness at the non-installation position, based on a relationship between a thinning amount of the plate thickness of the upper deck and a thinning amount of the structure at the non-installation position.
(4A) calculate a correction amount for correcting a difference in a peak position, a correction amount for correcting a difference in a peak value, and a correction amount for correcting a difference in a distribution width between a waveform expressing a frequency distribution of a strain response spectrum indicated by the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum and a waveform expressing a frequency distribution of a strain response spectrum indicated by the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor
(5A) calculate the correction amount corresponding to each of different positions of the floating structure.
(6A) calculate the correction amount for each wave condition indicated by the wave spectrum at a position where the floating structure is located.
(8A) use a Bayesian network to model a relationship among the correction amount L for correcting the difference in the peak position, the correction amount K for correcting the difference in the peak value, the correction amount S for correcting the difference in the distribution width, the strain response function (RAO), the wave spectrum, a function that outputs the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum, the strain response spectrum after correction obtained by correcting the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum using the correction amount L, the correction amount K, and the correction amount S, and a measured value of the strain response spectrum calculated based on a value measured by the strain sensor, and calculates the correction amount L, the correction amount K, and the correction amount S through back analysis based on the measured value of the strain response spectrum.
(9A) estimate remaining service life of the structure at the non-installation position of the strain sensor based on the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position estimated by the strain response spectrum estimation unit, and an SN diagram.
The analysis of claims 3-6, 8, 9 follows the same pattern and arguments as for the parent claims, Each of these claims continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the parent claim. The bolded claim elements recite abstract idea (mathematical concepts, mental process). The additional elements further recited by the claim are of the same nature as those identified in the parent claim, specifically Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution ) Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) limitations of data gathering, data manipulation which recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). data manipulation and mere instructions to apply an exception ((MPEP 2106.05(f) ).
When considered individually or in combination, the additional elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is thus directed to a judicial exception.
When considered individually and in combination, the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims 3-9 are thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Nguyen Spectral fatigue damage assessment of tanker deck structural detail subjected to time-dependent corrosion, Int Journal Fatigue, 48, (2013) p147-155 (“NGU”) in further view of US 4998208 A Buhrow, (“BUH”)
Re Claims 1, 10, 11- reciting substantially similar limitations, PAR teaches:
acquire a strain response spectrum at an installation position of the strain sensor, the strain response spectrum being calculated based on a measurement value from the strain sensor; {[Abstract] a load sensing unit disposed on the first point to measure a level of a load acting on the first point in real time. [Before eq 1.] Based on the stored RAO and measured marine state of each stored load, the short-term response of the load can be calculated using Equation (1) . Here, MPEV .sub.R means the most probable extreme value of each load, that is, the short-term response of each load, and n means the number of waves during the measurement time. Hs is the significant wave, Tz is the mean wave period, θ is the wave incident angle, and ω is the angular frequency of the wave. In .sub.addition, S R (ω│H S, T Z, θ) is for each sea state and a response spectrum of each load}
acquire a wave spectrum of a wave at a position where the floating structure is located; {[Abstract] an oceanic information collecting unit which collects the marine state information around the ship in real time; [description of embodiments] For example, the sea state information can be a wave scatter diagram (Wave Scatter Diagram) and a wave spectrum (Wave Spectrum) of the designed sea area}
acquire a strain response function (response amplitude operator (RAO)) at the installation position of the strain sensor and a strain response function (RAO) at a non-installation position of the strain sensor, calculated based on a structure model of the floating structure;{[Abstract] a load sensing unit disposed on the first point to measure a level of a load acting on the first point in real time; [2] The load sensing unit 200 has a function of measuring a size of a load acting on a first point in real time and can be provided at least one point on the hull. The load sensing unit 200 may include a bending moment sensing unit 210 for measuring a bending moment acting at a first point and a fatigue load sensing unit 220 for measuring a fatigue load at the first point. For example, a strain gage or an optical fiber gauge may be used as the bending moment sensing unit 210. [Description of embodiments] The database unit 100 stores a load RAO (Response Amplitude Operator) which can store various types of loads and their sizes that can be operated on an arbitrary marine vessel, and can calculate various types of load sizes }
calculate, based on the strain response spectrum and the strain response function (RAO) at the installation position of the strain sensor, the wave spectrum, and a formula expressing a relationship among the strain response spectrum and the strain response function (RAO) at the installation position of the strain sensor and the wave spectrum, a correction amount for a difference between a theoretical value of the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum and the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor; calculate based on a theoretical value of the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum at the non-installation position of the strain sensor, and the correction amount, the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position.{[Abs] and a control unit to compare the calculation load of the first point in correspondence to the oceanic condition information collected in real time with the measured load of the first point measured by the load sensing unit in real time to calculate a correction coefficient, and to apply the correction coefficient to the calculation load of the second point in correspondence to the oceanic condition information collected in real time to correct the calculation load of the second point. [Before eq 1.] Based on the stored RAO and measured marine state of each stored load, the short-term response of the load can be calculated using Equation (1) . Here, MPEV .sub.R means the most probable extreme value of each load, that is, the short-term response of each load, and n means the number of waves during the measurement time. Hs is the significant wave, Tz is the mean wave period, θ is the wave incident angle, and ω is the angular frequency of the wave. In .sub.addition, S R (ω│H S, T Z, θ) is for each sea state and a response spectrum of each load}
acquire the calculated strain response function (RAO), and calculate the strain response spectrum based on the strain response function (RAO) acquired.{ the RAO of each load stored in the database unit 100 is a response amount of each load to a wave of 1 m wave height having a specific wave incident angle and a wave period. Based on the stored RAO and measured marine state of each stored load, the short-term response of the load can be calculated using Equation (1).
PNG
media_image1.png
114
281
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, MPEV .sub.R means the most probable extreme value of each load, that is, the short-term response of each load, and n means the number of waves during the measurement time. Hs is the significant wave, Tz is the mean wave period, θ is the wave incident angle, and ω is the angular frequency of the wave. In .sub.addition, S R (ω│H S, T Z, θ) is for each sea state and a response spectrum of each load in the (Hs, Tz, θ), H R (ω│θ) is a wave incident angle (θ) Is the RAO of each load and S .sub.W (ω│H .sub.S , T .sub.Z ) is the wave spectrum (JONSWAP spectrum, Pierson-Moskovitz spectrum, etc.) at each sea state (Hs, Tz). The short term response of each load calculated from the above equation can be calculated by the control unit 300.}
PAR already established the sensor-relative framing at the non-instalation position. PAR does not teach however NGU teaches
calculate the strain response function (RAO) at the non-installation position of the strain sensor, by using the estimated plate thickness { {p148 The vertical bending stress, RAOr,ver, at the considered point in the cross section is given as
PNG
media_image2.png
52
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
P154 5.2. Corrosion .. leads to thickness reduction and consequently induces loss of the hull girder section modulus …The explicit corrosion degradation effect, as defined here, is related to a direct reduction of plate thickness p152 Fig 6, Hull section modulus W(tn) , Stress transfer function H}
PNG
media_image3.png
530
802
media_image3.png
Greyscale
} RAO computation is driven by section modulus which is direct reduction of the plate thickness
Thickness -> Hull section modulus W(tn) ->, Stress transfer function H, section modulus terms Iyy and z0 in equation 1 of RAO
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR and NGU. One would have been motivated do so to have the advantage of using an information easier to obtain, such as the plate thickness.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/PAN/BUH.
PAR/NGU does not teach, however BUH teaches
acquire information on a plate thickness of a structure to which a plate thickness sensor is installed, measured by the plate thickness sensor, the plate thickness sensor being installed at a position that is identical to or different from the strain sensor; and { Typical methods of monitoring piping thickness involve acoustic monitoring using ultrasonic probes or radiographic monitoring using a radioactive source and radiosensitive film. Development of ultrasonic thickness-measuring instruments and of radiographic techniques has allowed the wall thickness of piping to be monitored while the plant is operated.
estimate a plate thickness at the non-installation position of the strain sensor based on the plate thickness measured by the plate thickness sensor and a plate thickness at any position measured during an inspection; { (9) actual corrosion measurements taken at one inspection point in a circuit can be used to infer corrosion conditions in other portions of the circuit. (53) FIG. 5 shows the calculation of the estimated thickness 124, ... The estimated thickness 124 is calculated for each inspection point at which the piping has not been inspected during the most recent field inspection of the circuit using the equation indicated generally at 126. Specifically, the estimated thickness 124 is the latest point reading thickness 128, that is, the thickness of the pipe when most recently inspected, less a quantity 129 equal to the estimated rate 130, which is calculated in a manner described below… he estimated rate 130 is the greatest of the circuit adjusted rate, the point short rate, and the point long rate; FIG. 5 shows in schematic flow chart form the calculation of the estimated thickness and circuit adjusted rate, which are parameters used in the calculation of FIG. 4; }
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR with BUH. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage obtaining the information of thickness in cheapest, fastest and safest way, by using a model of how thickness varies over the entire structure and measuring at locations that are convenient, using a measuring system that is robust, a widely available, and low cost, which would be by a commercial sensor for thickness (such as ultrasound based), and from there estimating at other locations less convenient. Measuring at a location and estimating using a model the value at another location is a method well known to a POSITA.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/NGU/BUH.
Re Claim 5 (1) PAR/NGU/BUH. teaches the limitations of the parent claim. PAR further teaches:
wherein the correction amount calculation unit calculates the correction amount corresponding to each of different positions of the floating structure. {The short term response of each load calculated from the above equation can be calculated by the control unit 300… The hull according to the present embodiment may include a first point and a second point. The first point is a point at which the load sensing unit 200 is provided in the hull, and the second point is a point at which the load sensing unit 200 Means a point not provided. When referring only to 'hull', it means a point including both the first point and the second point of the hull. …[between eq 3 and 4] The load correction unit 330 can correct the load acting on the second point by applying the correction coefficient calculated by the central processing unit 310 to the calculation load of the second point. That is, the corrected load acting on the second point in accordance with the state of the sea state changing in real time can be calculated by Equation (4). Therefore, even if the sensing unit capable of detecting the load applied to the hull is provided only at a certain point in the environment where the sea condition is continuously changed, the strength and safety of the entire hull can be measured and measured in real- It can be judged. }
Re Claim 6 (1) PAR/NGU/BUH teaches the limitations of the parent claim. PAR further teaches:
wherein the correction amount calculation unit calculates the correction amount for each wave condition indicated by the wave spectrum at a position where the floating structure is located. { [Before eq 1.] Based on the stored RAO and measured marine state of each stored load, the short-term response of the load can be calculated using Equation (1) . Here, MPEV .sub.R means the most probable extreme value of each load, that is, the short-term response of each load, and n means the number of waves during the measurement time. Hs is the significant wave, Tz is the mean wave period, θ is the wave incident angle, and ω is the angular frequency of the wave. In .sub.addition, S R (ω│H S, T Z, θ) is for each sea state and a response spectrum of each load}}
In view of the specification( [0032]) wave condition is frequency and wave direction. wave incident angle is wave direction, wave period provides measure of wave frequency (its inverse).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Nguyen Spectral fatigue damage assessment of tanker deck structural detail subjected to time-dependent corrosion, Int Journal Fatigue, 48, (2013) p147-155 (“NGU”) in further view of US 4998208 A Buhrow, (“BUH”)in view of Hulkkonen et al Digital Twin for Monitoring Remaining Fatigue Life of Critical Hull Structures, 18th Conference on Computer Applications and Information Technology in the Maritime Industries (COMPIT2019), March 2019 (“HUL”)
Re Claim 9 (1) PAR/NGU/BUH teaches the limitations of the parent claim, as well as a fatigue load database unit 120 based on design lifetime and accumulated fatigue load calculated by Eq2. PAR/NGU/BUH does not teach the use of a SN diagram , however HUL teaches:
further comprising a degradation estimation unit configured to estimate remaining service life of the structure at the non-installation position of the strain sensor based on the strain response spectrum at the non-installation position estimated by the strain response spectrum estimation unit, and an SN diagram. {see at least p424
PNG
media_image4.png
528
725
media_image4.png
Greyscale
{ p425 top] The D should be in general less than 1.0 and the time covered by now-cast data in relation of expected ships lifetime indicates the remaining fatigue life.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR/NGU/BUH with HUL . One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of taking precautionary measures as one risk increases with approach of lifetime end , which both references measure with fatigue and rapid determination of a result from a table instead of doing time-consuming calculations. Both PAR/NGU/BUH and HUL are dealing with determining fatigue and lifetime, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by PAR/NGU/BUH and HUL would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/NGU/BUH / HUL
Claims 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Nguyen Spectral fatigue damage assessment of tanker deck structural detail subjected to time-dependent corrosion, Int Journal Fatigue, 48, (2013) p147-155 (“NGU”) in further view of US 4998208 A Buhrow, (“BUH”) in view of Guo et al Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification for Functional Response, INTECH 2017 (“GUO”)
Regarding claim 4(1) PAR/NGU/BUH discloses the limitations of the parent claim. PAR/NGU/BUH discloses the correction unit, calculating correction based on strain response, though it does not disclose correction in peak position, peak value, distribution width – which are the characteristics parameter of common/Gaussian distributions and would be common to any spectrum correction/calibration. GUO however discloses:
the correction amount calculation unit calculates a correction amount for correcting a difference in a peak position, a correction amount for correcting a difference in a peak value, and a correction amount for correcting a difference in a distribution width between a waveform expressing a frequency distribution of a strain response spectrum indicated by the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum and a waveform expressing a frequency distribution of a strain response spectrum indicated by the strain response spectrum at the installation position of the strain sensor. {Fig 5
PNG
media_image5.png
636
912
media_image5.png
Greyscale
} peak position is interpreted as mean, distribution width as variance.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR with GUO . One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of correcting/calibrating over the entire spectrum – probability distribution function. GUO presents a mathematics based calibration method that is generally applicable regardless of the specific domain of application. Combining the elements, of a general method of calibration with the specific application problem in need of calibration over a spectrum of frequencies using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by PAR and GUO would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/ GUO
Regarding claim 8 (4) PAR/NGU/BUH/GUO discloses the limitations of the parent claim. PAR/NGU/BUH /GUO discloses the correction/calibration for distributions based on measured strain. GUO further discloses:
the correction amount calculation unit uses a Bayesian network to model a relationship among the correction amount L for correcting the difference in the peak position, the correction amount K for correcting the difference in the peak value, the correction amount S for correcting the difference in the distribution width, the strain response function (RAO), the wave spectrum, a function that outputs the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum calculated from the strain response function (RAO) and the wave spectrum, the strain response spectrum after correction obtained by correcting the theoretical value of the strain response spectrum using the correction amount L, the correction amount K, and the correction amount S, and a measured value of the strain response spectrum calculated based on a value measured by the strain sensor, and calculates the correction amount L, the correction amount K, and the correction amount S through back analysis based on the measured value of the strain response spectrum. {[Abstract] A Bayesian framework is presented to deal with the model calibration in the case of functional response; Section 3.2. Bayesian calibration; [p122] On the other hand, the inverse problem is to estimate the values of model parameters θ such that it makes the model’s output fit the experimental data as accurate as possible (or satisfy some precision requirements).; p124 The inverse problem of uncertainty quantification is implemented in an updated formulation with a Bayesian approach [1]. In model (13), the
metamodel, ϕ(x, θ), and discrepancy function, η(x), are both Gaussian processes:
Following the methodology introduced in Section 3, metamodels can be established for the simulation data and discrepancy function, with Gaussian process regression models. In our example, we obtained 92 simulation data to build GPs and 20 observations for calibration. The posterior distribution of the calibration parameter is also displayed in Figure 5.’ [P127[ So far, we have accomplished calibrating a metamodel in the Bayesian framework using the experimental data, which accounts for parameter uncertainty and corrects the model discrepancy and experimental uncertainty.}
PNG
media_image5.png
636
912
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Back analysis interpreted in view of the specification, which uses the term, as regression analysis. Correction amount as the values of the discrepancy function.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR/GUO with further teaching of GUO. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of performing the calculations needed for correction with a classic, convention method proven by decades of use (the Bayesian network).
Both PAR PAR/NGU/BUH /GUO and further teaching of GUO are in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by PAR/NGU/BUH /GUO would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/NGU/BUH / GUO.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK ET AL, KR 101549236 B1 (“PAR“) in view of Nguyen Spectral fatigue damage assessment of tanker deck structural detail subjected to time-dependent corrosion, Int Journal Fatigue, 48, (2013) p147-155 (“NGU”) in further view of US 4998208 A Buhrow, (“BUH”) in further view of RESOLUTION MSC.461(101) (adopted on 13 June 2019) AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE ON THE ENHANCED PROGRAMME OF INSPECTIONS DURING SURVEYS OF BULK CARRIERS AND OIL TANKERS, 2011 (2011 ESP CODE) (“MSC461”)
Regarding claim 3(2) PAR/NGU/BUH discloses the limitations of the parent claim. BUH also teaches
the plate thickness estimation unit estimates the plate thickness at the non-installation position, based on a relationship between a thinning amount of the plate thickness of the upper deck and a thinning amount of the structure at the non-installation position. { (9) actual corrosion measurements taken at one inspection point in a circuit can be used to infer corrosion conditions in other portions of the circuit. (53) FIG. 5 shows the calculation of the estimated thickness 124, ... The estimated thickness 124 is calculated for each inspection point at which the piping has not been inspected during the most recent field inspection of the circuit using the equation indicated generally at 126. Specifically, the estimated thickness 124 is the latest point reading thickness 128, that is, the thickness of the pipe when most recently inspected, less a quantity 129 equal to the estimated rate 130, which is calculated in a manner described below… he estimated rate 130 is the greatest of the circuit adjusted rate, the point short rate, and the point long rate; FIG. 5 shows in schematic flow chart form the calculation of the estimated thickness and circuit adjusted rate, which are parameters used in the calculation of FIG. 4; }.
The claim estimates thickness at another position. While the upper deck is not indicated, the estimates are for any position based on the built model, including the upper deck.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR/PAN/NGU with further teaching of NGU. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of determining thinning, such as due to corrosion by easier measurements of thickness and reduced thickness (thus thinning) through models of thinning/corrosion indicating relationships between different points in the structure..
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/PAN/NGU.
PAR/PAN/NGU does not teach, however MSC461 teaches
the plate thickness acquisition unit acquires information on a plate thickness measured by the plate thickness sensor installed on an upper deck of the floating structure, and {[p.32 5.7.3] provisions and arrangements for thickness measurements (i.e. access, cleaning/descaling, illumination, ventilation, personal safety);} As per specification the measurements are made in an area that is accessible. The reference teaches that the area for thickness measurements should be made in area with access, personal safety etc – which implies the upper deck).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PAR/PAN/NGU with MSC461. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of performing the measurements at a safe and accessible which can still provide the information needed.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PAR/PAN/NGU/MSC461.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park et al, KR 101556303 B1
Yonemura et al US 20090177417 A1
Cusano et al US 20170369127 A1
Panetta et al US 20090193899 A1
Luque et al, Spatial Probabilistic Modeling of Corrosion in Ship Structures, ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part B: Mechanical Engineering SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 3 {“LUQ”) in further view of RESOLUTION MSC.461(101) (adopted on 13 June 2019)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights