DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the claims
The amendment received on February 4, 2027 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 17-19 are previously withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-23 are currently pending. Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 20-23 remain for further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-16, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 11, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dria et al. (US 2008/0047662 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Dria”) in view of Till et al. (WO 2021023586 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Till”).
Regarding claim 1, Dria teaches a system for monitoring a tubular structure having a length (Fig. 1, 10), comprising:
a sensor module array having a plurality of sensor modules (Fig. 1, 20) configured to sense one or more parameters relating to the tubular structure (Fig. 1, 10) at spaced apart positions along the length of the tubular structure (Fig. 1) and produce communication signals representative of the sensed parameter (para. [0076]: the novel techniques and methods described herein may be implemented and applied through the use of any type of strain sensor or transducer capable of detecting signals and transmitting signals) at each position along the length of the tubular structure (Fig. 1, 20);
a cable (Fig. 1, 30) configured to contain the sensor modules (Fig. 1, 20) and configured to extend along the length of the tubular structure (Fig. 1, 10) (Fig. 1 exhibits contain the sensor modules and configured to extend along the length of the tubular structure); and
a control unit (para. [0126]: controlled test) in communication with the sensor module array (Fig. 1 and para. [0076]: the novel techniques and methods described herein may be implemented and applied through the use of any type of strain sensor or transducer capable of detecting signals and transmitting signals) and a memory storing instructions, which instructions when executed cause the control unit (para. [0126]: controlled test) to process the communication signals (para. [0070]: transmitting signals) representative of the sensed parameter at each position (Fig. 1, 20) along the length of the tubular structure (Fig. 1 and Fig. 1, 10) into one or more waveforms (Fig. 1; para. [0076]: any type of strain sensor or transducer capable of detecting signals and transmitting signals, note that detecting signals and transmitting signals reads on “one or more waveform”);
wherein at least one of the sensor modules includes a sensor configured to sense a coating or a surface condition of the tubular structure (para. [00108]: the strain sensors 20 and the fiber 30 may be applied to an exterior surface of the object 10 (i.e. tubular) (as illustrated in FIG. 1, note that “the strain sensors 20 may be applied to an exterior surface of the object 10 (i.e. tubular)” reads on “sense a surface condition of the tubular structure”).
Dria does not specifically teach sensor module producing information relating to the positions along the length of the tubular structure and the sensed parameter at the positions along the length of the tubular structure.
However, Till teaches sensor module (Fig. 26, sensor arrangement 26) producing information relating to the positions along the length of the tubular structure and the sensed parameter at the positions along the length of the tubular structure (page 5, lines 27-page 6, line2: the position and/or related or other information derived using the sensor arrangement such as connection detection as mentioned hereinbefore, and enhanced environmental awareness, may be supplied to an operator at the surface and/or may be supplied to a downhole located drilling control unit; page 11, lines 21-23: it will be appreciated that as well as providing position and/or rate of penetration information, the sensor arrangement may also be used to detect the occurrence of other conditions such as buckling of the drill string or twist-off conditions, note that the above feature of “the position and/or related or other information derived using the sensor arrangement such as connection detection” in page 5, lines 27-page 6, line 2 and “position and/or rate of penetration information, the sensor arrangement may also be used to detect the occurrence of other conditions” in page 11, lines 21-23 reads on “producing information relating to the positions along the length of the tubular structure and the sensed parameter at the positions along the length of the tubular structure”).
Dria and Till are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor module such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to provide an arrangement whereby position and related information can be obtained substantially in real time whilst drilling is being undertaken (Till, page 3, lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 2, Dria in view of Till teaches all the limitation of calim1, in addition, Dria teaches that at least one of the sensor modules is configured to sense an amount of strain within the tubular structure at the respective position along the length of the tubular structure (para. [0076]: any type of strain sensor or transducer capable of detecting signals and transmitting signals).
Regarding claim 11, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of “using a control unit to communicate with the sensor modules in the array, including receiving communication signals representative of the sensed parameter at each position along the length of the tubular structure (Fig. 1 and para. [0076]: the novel techniques and methods described herein may be implemented and applied through the use of any type of strain sensor or transducer capable of detecting signals and transmitting signals; para. [0126]: controlled test; para. [0070]: transmitting signals),” taught by Dria.
Regarding claim 24, Dria in view of Till teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Dria teaches that coating or the surface condition of the tubular structure comprises surface corrosion (Fig. 14 and para. [0100]: a sensor coating 104 applied on top of a liquid epoxy on a pipe or section of pipe (such as in a Field Joint area) as shown in FIG. 14 can add leak detection and detection of physical stimuli to any corrosion protection provided by the liquid epoxy) or organic growth (Fig. 12 and para. [0095]: a belt/strap leak detection system is a flexible architecture, intended for pipeline monitoring and leak detection as shown in FIG. 12. It contains multiple belt/strap electrode/coating sensor elements 96 wrapped around a pipeline (FIG. 10) with selectable sensor modules 98 including a hydrocarbon sensor module and/or vibration, temperature sensor modules and the like for reacting to various changes in physical properties and structural health of the pipe and surrounding area).
Claims 3, 9, 13, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dria in view of Till and Nesgaard et al. (US 2018/0274336 A1, hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Dria in view of Till teaches all the limitation of calim1.
Dria and Till do not specifically teach that at least one of the sensor modules is configured to sense a position of the tubular structure at the respective position along the length of the tubular structure.
However, Nesgaard teaches that at least one of the sensor modules is configured to sense a position of the tubular structure at the respective position along the length of the tubular structure (para. [0014]: the sensor units may be arranged at least partly in the wall of the well tubular metal structure; para. [0066]: the detector 14 can for example be used together with the digital processing unit 12 to form a detecting unit for determining position data of the sensor unit 10).
Dria and Nesgaard are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor module such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to run monitoring equipment, and to allow for a more permanent monitoring, sensor systems have been developed (Nesgaard, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 9, Dria in view of Till and Nesgaard teaches all the limitation of claim 3.
Dria and Till do not specifically teach that at least one of the plurality of sensor modules includes a temperature sensor, a salinity sensor, or a fluid velocity sensor.
However, Nesgaard teaches that at least one of the plurality of sensor modules includes a temperature sensor, a salinity sensor, a fluid velocity sensor (para. [0062]: the downhole autonomous tool 50 can be arranged in the lateral well tubular metal structure for a very long period of time and may activate itself every 6 months, measure some characteristics of its surroundings, e.g. temperature, pressure and flow density, and send the measured data to surface if some characteristics have changed, and then enter into “sleep mode” for a new period of e.g. 6 months; para. [0066]: as shown in FIG. 5, the sensor module 15 may e.g. comprise a temperature sensor 15a and/or a pressure sensor 15b and/or a flow condition sensor 15c and/or a water content sensor 15 (i.e. a salinity sensor)).
Dria and Nesgaard are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the at least one of the plurality of sensor modules such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to run monitoring equipment, and to allow for a more permanent monitoring, sensor systems have been developed (Nesgaard, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, it is dependent on claim 11 and method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 21, Dria in view of Till teaches all the limitation of claim 11.
Dria and Till do not specifically teach that the plurality of sensor modules includes a plurality of vibration sensors disposed at a plurality of spaced apart lengthwise positions of the tubular structure, and the step of sensing one or more parameters includes sensing vibrations of the tubular structure using the vibration sensors.
However, Nesgaard teaches that the plurality of sensor modules includes a plurality of vibration sensors disposed at a plurality of spaced apart lengthwise positions of the tubular structure (para. [0014]: the sensor units may be arranged at least partly in the wall of the well tubular metal structure; para.[0066]: the detector 14 can for example be used together with the digital processing unit 12 to form a detecting unit for determining position data of the sensor unit 10), and
the step of sensing one or more parameters includes sensing vibrations of the tubular structure using the vibration sensors (para. [0072]: as is shown in FIG. 6, any of these members is possible. In case of using a vibrating member 1101, a piezoelectric member 1102 or a magnetostrictive member 1103, the energy harvesting module 1100 is configured to convert mechanical vibrations of the surrounding environment, such as in the well tubular metal structure or in downhole fluid, to electrical energy).
Dria and Nesgaard are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sensor modules such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to run monitoring equipment, and to allow for a more permanent monitoring, sensor systems have been developed (Nesgaard, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 22, Dria in view of Till teaches all the limitation of claim 11.
Dria and Till do not specifically teach that the plurality of sensor modules includes at least one sensor module configured to sense a temperature of the tubular structure at the respective position along the length of the tubular structure.
However, Nesgaard teaches that the plurality of sensor modules includes at least one sensor module configured to sense a temperature of the tubular structure at the respective position along the length of the tubular structure (Para. [0062]: the downhole autonomous tool 50 can be arranged in the lateral well tubular metal structure for a very long period of time and may activate itself every 6 months, measure some characteristics of its surroundings, e.g. temperature, pressure and flow density, and send the measured data to surface if some characteristics have changed, and then enter into “sleep mode” for a new period of e.g. 6 months; para. [0066]: The detector 14 can for example be used together with the digital processing unit 12 to form a detecting unit for determining position data of the sensor unit 10).
Dria and Nesgaard are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sensor modules such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to run monitoring equipment, and to allow for a more permanent monitoring, sensor systems have been developed (Nesgaard, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 23, Dria in view of Till teaches all the limitation of claim 11.
Dria and Till do not specifically teach that the plurality of sensor modules includes a plurality of sensor modules each configured to sense a temperature of the tubular structure at a respective position along the length of the tubular structure.
However, Nesgaard teaches that the plurality of sensor modules includes a plurality of sensor modules each configured to sense a temperature of the tubular structure at a respective position along the length of the tubular structure (Para. [0062]: the downhole autonomous tool 50 can be arranged in the lateral well tubular metal structure for a very long period of time and may activate itself every 6 months, measure some characteristics of its surroundings, e.g. temperature, pressure and flow density, and send the measured data to surface if some characteristics have changed, and then enter into “sleep mode” for a new period of e.g. 6 months; para. [0066]: The detector 14 can for example be used together with the digital processing unit 12 to form a detecting unit for determining position data of the sensor unit 10).
Dria and Nesgaard are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sensor modules such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to run monitoring equipment, and to allow for a more permanent monitoring, sensor systems have been developed (Nesgaard, para. [0003]).
Claims 4-6, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dria in view of Till, Nesgaard, and Dutoit et al. (US 2013/0286378 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Dutoit”).
Regarding claim 4, Dria in view of Till and Nesgaard teaches all the limitation of claim 3, in addition, Nesgaard teaches the instructions when executed cause the control unit to process the communication signals representative of the sensed position of the tubular structure at each position along the length of the tubular structure (para. [0014]: the sensor units may be arranged at least partly in the wall of the well tubular metal structure; para.[0066]: the detector 14 can for example be used together with the digital processing unit 12 to form a detecting unit for determining position data of the sensor unit 10; para. [0070]: the surface system 110 also comprises a transceiver 32 for receiving data communicated from the sensor units 10, and also for transmitting data and control signals to the sensor units 10).
Dria and Nesgaard are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the instructions such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to run monitoring equipment, and to allow for a more permanent monitoring, sensor systems have been developed (Nesgaard, para. [0003]).
Dria, Till, and Nesgaard do not specifically teach that each positional sensor module is a 3-axis accelerometer.
However, Dutoit teaches that each positional sensor module is a 3-axis accelerometer (para. [0055] three accelerometers may be positioned at three different directions on a vehicle which mechanically cooperates with the one or more position references to move along the one or more position references. The three accelerometers are arranged on the vehicle to measure the acceleration of the vehicle along three different axes).
Dria and Dutoit are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring continuously structural and/or functional parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the each positional sensor module as is described in Dutoit into Dria, in order to monitor the status of engineered or architectonic structures (Dutoit,vpara. [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Dria in view of Till and Nesgaard teaches all the limitation of claim 3, in addition, Nesgaard teaches the information relating to the sensed position of the tubular structure at the respective positions along the length of the tubular structure (para. [0014]: the sensor units may be arranged at least partly in the wall of the well tubular metal structure; para.[0066]: the detector 14 can for example be used together with the digital processing unit 12 to form a detecting unit for determining position data of the sensor unit 10).
Dria and Nesgaard are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to run monitoring equipment, and to allow for a more permanent monitoring, sensor systems have been developed (Nesgaard, para. [0003]).
Dria, Till, and Nesgaard do not specifically teach that the information relating to the sensed position of the tubular structure at the respective positions along the length of the tubular structure includes information relating to a bending of the tubular structure.
However, Dutoit teaches that the information relating to the sensed position of the tubular structure at the respective positions along the length of the tubular structure includes information relating to a bending of the tubular structure (para. [0034]: The present invention, allows installation induced twist to be determined so that the position of the strain sensor(s) can be defined. Accordingly, bending strain and also bending direction can be determined).
Dria and Dutoit are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring continuously structural and/or functional parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information relating to a bending of the tubular structure such as is described in Dutoit into Dria, in order to monitor the status of engineered or architectonic structures (Dutoit, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Dria in view of Till and Nesgaard teaches all the limitation of claim 3, in addition, Nesgaard teaches the information relating to the sensed position of the tubular structure at the respective positions along the length of the tubular structure (para. [0014]: the sensor units may be arranged at least partly in the wall of the well tubular metal structure; para.[0066]: the detector 14 can for example be used together with the digital processing unit 12 to form a detecting unit for determining position data of the sensor unit 10).
Dria and Nesgaard are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to run monitoring equipment, and to allow for a more permanent monitoring, sensor systems have been developed (Nesgaard, para. [0003]).
Dria, Till, and Nesgaard do not specifically teach the information relating to the sensed position of the tubular structure at the respective positions along the length of the tubular structure includes information relating to a twist of the tubular structure.
However, Dutoit teaches the information relating to the sensed position of the tubular structure at the respective positions along the length of the tubular structure includes information relating to a twist of the tubular structure (para. [0033]: The three strain sensors and the one position reference, maybe so that they are each integral to the sub-sea pipe. Over long lengths of the sub-sea pipe e.g. 10 km, at least a portion of the sub-sea pipe may become twisted though an unknown angle).
Dria and Dutoit are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring continuously structural and/or functional parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information relating to a twist of the tubular structure such as is described in Dutoit into Dria, in order to monitor the status of engineered or architectonic structures (Dutoit, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Dria in view of Till and Nesgaard teaches all the limitation of claim 13, in addition, Nesgaard teaches that each sensor module within the sensor module array is configured to sense a position of the tubular structure at the respective position along the length of the tubular structure (para. [0014]: the sensor units may be arranged at least partly in the wall of the well tubular metal structure; para. [0066]: the detector 14 can for example be used together with the digital processing unit 12 to form a detecting unit for determining position data of the sensor unit 10).
Dria and Nesgaard are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the each sensor module such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to run monitoring equipment, and to allow for a more permanent monitoring, sensor systems have been developed (Nesgaard, para. [0003]).
Dria, Till, and Nesgaard, do not specifically teach that the information relating to the sensed parameter at the positions along the length of the tubular structure is representative of a lengthwise bending or a twisting of the tubular structure relative to a predetermined position of the tubular structure.
However, Dutoit teaches the information relating to the sensed parameter at the positions along the length of the tubular structure is representative of a lengthwise bending or a twisting of the tubular structure relative to a predetermined position of the tubular structure (para. [0033]: the three strain sensors and the one position reference, maybe so that they are each integral to the sub-sea pipe. Over long lengths of the sub-sea pipe e.g. 10 km, at least a portion of the sub-sea pipe may become twisted though an unknown angle; (para. [0034]: The present invention, allows installation induced twist to be determined so that the position of the strain sensor(s) can be defined. Accordingly, bending strain and also bending direction can be determined).
Dria and Dutoit are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring continuously structural and/or functional parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information relating to the sensed parameter at the positions along the length of the tubular structure such as is described in Dutoit into Dria, in order to monitor the status of engineered or architectonic structures (Dutoit, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Dria in view of Till and Nesgaard teaches all the limitation of claim 13, in addition, Dria teaches each positional sensor module (Fig. 1, 20).
Dria and Till do not specifically teach a 3-axis accelerometer.
However, Dutoit teaches a 3-axis accelerometer (para. [0055]: three accelerometers may be positioned at three different directions on a vehicle which mechanically cooperates with the one or more position references to move along the one or more position references. The three accelerometers are arranged on the vehicle to measure the acceleration of the vehicle along three different axes).
Dria and Dutoit are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring continuously structural and/or functional parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the 3-axis accelerometer such as is described in Dutoit into Dria, in order to monitor the status of engineered or architectonic structures (Dutoit, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 20, Dria in view of Till and Nesgaard teaches all the limitation of claim 13, in addition, Nesgaard teaches the tubular structure, the plurality of sensor modules including a plurality of fluid velocity sensors disposed at a plurality of spaced apart lengthwise positions of the tubular (para. [0014]: the sensor units may be arranged at least partly in the wall of the well tubular metal structure; para. [0059]: the self-powering device 11 of each sensor unit 10 harvests energy downhole from fluid flowing in the well tubular metal structure; para. [0066]: as shown in FIG. 5, the sensor module 15 may e.g. comprise a temperature sensor 15a and/or a pressure sensor 15b and/or a flow condition sensor 15c and/or a water content sensor 15d. The detector 14 can for example be used together with the digital processing unit 12 to form a detecting unit for determining position data of the sensor unit 10), and
the step of sensing one or more parameters includes sensing a velocity and/or or a turbulence of seawater in proximity to an external surface of the tubular structure at the plurality of spaced apart lengthwise positions of the tubular structure using the fluid velocity sensors. (para. [0014]: the sensor units may be arranged at least partly in the wall of the well tubular metal structure; para. [0059]: the self-powering device 11 of each sensor unit 10 harvests energy downhole from fluid flowing in the well tubular metal structure; para. [0066]: as shown in FIG. 5, the sensor module 15 may e.g. comprise a temperature sensor 15a and/or a pressure sensor 15b and/or a flow condition sensor 15c and/or a water content sensor 15d. The detector 14 can for example be used together with the digital processing unit 12 to form a detecting unit for determining position data of the sensor unit 10).
Dria and Nesgaard are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring tubular equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tubular structure, the plurality of sensor modules such as is described in Nesgaard into Dria, in order to run monitoring equipment, and to allow for a more permanent monitoring, sensor systems have been developed (Nesgaard, para. [0003]).
Dria, Till, and Nesgaard, do not specifically teach that the tubular structure is a subsea riser.
However, Dutoit teaches that the tubular structure is a subsea riser (para. [0036]: the strain sensor apparatus may be arranged to cooperate with a tubular structure. In the present application the term “tube” or “tubular” means any elongate structure; it includes but is not limited to elongate cylindrical structures which have a hollow centres, such as risers, pipes, flowlines and pipelines).
Dria and Dutoit are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring continuously structural and/or functional parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the riser such as is described in Dutoit into Dria, in order to monitor the status of engineered or architectonic structures (Dutoit, para. [0004]).
Claims 7, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dria in view of Till and Dutoit et al. (US 2013/0286378 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Dutoit”).
Regarding claim 7, Dria in view of Till teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Dria teaches at least one of the sensor modules (Fig. 1, 20).
Dria and Till do not specifically teach that at least one of the sensor modules is an acoustic sensor configured to sense spectral noise context external to the tubular structure.
However, Dutoit teaches at least one of the sensor modules is an acoustic sensor configured to sense spectral noise context external to the tubular structure (para. [0015]: the Stokes and anti-Stokes Brillouin peaks, generated from thermally excited acoustic waves, have a frequency depending on the temperature T and on the strain ε.).
Dria and Dutoit are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring continuously structural and/or functional parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor modules such as is described in Dutoit into Dria, in order to monitor the status of engineered or architectonic structures (Dutoit, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Dria in view of Till teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Dria and Till do not specifically teach that the tubular structure is a wind turbine tower or a subsea riser.
However, Dutoit teaches that the tubular structure is a wind turbine tower or a subsea riser (para. [0033]: the three strain sensors and the one position reference, maybe so that they are each integral to the sub-sea pipe. The strain sensor apparatus may be arranged to cooperate with a tubular structure. In the present application the term “tube” or “tubular” means any elongate structure; it includes but is not limited to elongate cylindrical structures which have a hollow centres, such as risers, pipes, flowlines and pipelines).
Dria and Dutoit are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring continuously structural and/or functional parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the subsea riser such as is described in Dutoit into Dria, in order to monitor the status of engineered or architectonic structures (Dutoit, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Dria in view of Till teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Dria and Till do not specifically teach that each sensor module within the sensor module array is configured to sense the amount of strain within the tubular structure at the respective position along the length of the tubular structure and the information relating to the sensed parameter at the positions along the length of the tubular structure is representative of strain within the tubular structure along the length of the tubular structure.
However, Dutoit teaches each sensor module within the sensor module array is configured to sense the amount of strain within the tubular structure at the respective position along the length of the tubular structure (para. [0033]: the strain sensor apparatus may be, for example, integrated into a pipe, such as a sub-sea pipe. For example, three strain sensors may be arranged to be evenly distributed along a circumference of the sub-sea pipe (e.g. at 0° with respect to a reference position (i.e. at “12 o clock”), 120° with respect to a reference position (“4 o clock”) and 240° with respect to a reference position (“8 o clock”) positions respectively; para. [0037]: the two or more strain sensors may each be configured to be elongate. The two or more strain sensors may each be arranged to cooperate with a tubular structure, along a length of the tubular structure, such that the direction of strain along a length of the tubular structure can be measured) and
the information relating to the sensed parameter at the positions along the length of the tubular structure is representative of strain within the tubular structure along the length of the tubular structure (para. [0033]: the strain sensor apparatus may be, for example, integrated into a pipe, such as a sub-sea pipe. For example, three strain sensors may be arranged to be evenly distributed along a circumference of the sub-sea pipe (e.g. at 0° with respect to a reference position (i.e. at “12 o clock”), 120° with respect to a reference position (“4 o clock”) and 240° with respect to a reference position (“8 o clock”) positions respectively; para. [0037]: the two or more strain sensors may each be configured to be elongate. The two or more strain sensors may each be arranged to cooperate with a tubular structure, along a length of the tubular structure, such that the direction of strain along a length of the tubular structure can be measured).
Dria and Dutoit are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of monitoring continuously structural and/or functional parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the each sensor module within the sensor module array such as is described in Dutoit into Dria, in order to monitor the status of engineered or architectonic structures (Dutoit, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent on claim 11 and method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
OUIS (US 20210096038 A1) teaches a testing apparatus, method and system for determining the ovaling mode in a cylindrical object, which may be excited through the synchronous application of two diametrically opposed identical vibrators to the outer perimeter. At least one vibration sensor transforms the vibrations to electrical voltage signals. Two vibration sensors placed at diametrically opposed locations, each halfway between the vibration inducers, may be used with a summer for adding the in phase response signals.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEE RODARK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858