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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, specification, and drawings filed 10/15/2025 have been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding all of the claim objection(s), Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objection(s) to the Title, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objection(s) to the Drawings pertaining to reproducibility, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 101 nonstatutory claim breadth subject matter rejection(s) of claim(s) 17, Applicant argued that the amendment to include “non-transitory” overcame said rejection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Regarding the prior art rejection(s) of independent claim 1 and correspondingly similarly for independent claims 16 and 17, Applicant argued that Hansen does not teach (language of claim 1; analogous for independent claims 16 & 17) “wherein the abnormal event detector is configured to collectively output identical abnormal events as one abnormal event in a case where the abnormal event detector classifies the environment information and a type of the abnormal event is a type that is possibly generated at a location away from the long infrastructure element, the identical abnormal events being detected at a plurality of the positions on the long infrastructure element, and wherein the identical abnormal event is identified by analyzing geographical coordinates and time information relating to the detected event”. However, this argument is merely an assertion and lacks the necessary supporting evidence. MPEP § 2145(I) states:
Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
In the present case, Hansen teaches wherein the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) is configured to collectively output identical abnormal events as one abnormal event in a case where the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) classifies the environment information (based on vibrational pattern) and a type of the abnormal event (e.g., trawlers, fishing ships, vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed) is a type that is possibly generated at a location away from the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) (e.g., potential danger of movable object), the identical abnormal events being detected at a plurality of the positions on the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21), and wherein the identical abnormal event is identified by analyzing geographical coordinates and time information relating to the detected event ([0054] “vibration sensor” and “optical fibre acoustic sensor”; [0069] “distributed vibration sensor”; [0098] “integrity monitoring system comprises at least one optical fibre vibration sensor in the form of a distributed”; [0099] “The optical fibre vibration sensor and/or the computer may in one embodiment be adapted to acquire and optionally to process output signals from a plurality of selected length sections N of the optical fibre vibration sensor”; [0100] “the plurality of selected length sections N of the optical fibre vibration sensor may for example be arranged substantially systematically along the length of the optical fibre vibration sensor, thereby simplifying the calculation process to obtain the distributed vibration data. The length sections N may be overlapping sections, immediately adjacent sections or sections with a distance to each other”; [0102] “the integrity monitoring system is arranged to perform a beam forming function on the vibration data from the sensor array or distributed or quasi-distributed sensor”; [0098]-[0104] “determining a direction, a distance and/or a speed of a vibration emitting object”; [0109] “computer comprises software for sorting the position as a function of time data”; [0129] “can detect such trawlers and fishing ships”; [0023] “"Position as a function of time data" will also be referred to as "position (h)" and means a physical position to a given time. The position may be in relation to the submarine structure or in geographical coordinates. The time may be in the form of time passed from a known (e.g. selected) starting point or it may be in a standard time such as nautical standard time or UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) or other standard time zones”; [0119] “AIS position data” and “geographic information systems”). The Examiner emphasizes that Hansen teaches a distributive sensor that is collectively detecting abnormal events including with geographical coordinates, direction, distance, and speed of the moving object that is a possible abnormal danger. Therefore, the prior art rejection is retained. See also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 11-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over previously cited Hansen et al (US 20130275055 A1; hereafter “Hansen”).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1,
Hansen teaches (structure as whole best shown in fig. 3) a protection monitoring system (Title “INTEGRITY MONITORING SYSTEM AND A METHOD OF MONITORING INTEGRITY OF A STATIONARY STRUCTURE”) comprising:
an optical fiber (fig. 3, optical fibre of vibration sensor 22) ([0242] “vibration sensor 22 in the form of a fibre sensor”) provided along a long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) installed in water or at a bottom of water ([0001] “stationary structure offshore or onshore, such as a pipe or a power cable”; [0040] “monitoring of cables, pipes, optical fibres and/or combinations or parts thereof”);
an interrogator (fig. 3, computer portion for acquiring optical fibre sensor information comprising sensor system 22c; additional obviousness analysis provided for division of computer system) configured to acquire environment information at each of positions on the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) through use of the optical fiber (fig. 3, optical fibre of vibration sensor 22) ([0242]-[0243]);
an abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2); additional obviousness analysis provided for division of computer system) configured to detect an abnormal event (e.g., trawlers, fishing ships, vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed) in a periphery of a respective one of the positions in a case where the environment information acquired at the respective one of the positions satisfies an abnormal pattern provided in advance ([0244]-[0245]; [0133] “vibration pattern”; [0162] “detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern”; [0219] “alarm upon detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern”; [0252] “database memory with a calibration curve for vibration pattern versus vessel distance for one or more vessels or types of vessels”; [0206] “recording the position as a function of time data of a movable object”; [0253] “integrity monitoring system is capable of recognising a vibration pattern, such that it can be detected if the pipe has uninterdentally been uncovered by passing vessels” and “offshore integrity monitoring system can recognise the vibration pattern, it may calculate the direction, speed and other”; [0129] “approaching trawlers and fishing ships, because such vessels often have equipment drawn along the seabed, and furthermore it has often been observed that such vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed. In such situations the submarine structures may be in high danger of being damaged. The selected distance of the offshore integrity monitoring system is therefore preferably selected such that the offshore integrity monitoring system can detect such trawlers and fishing ships in sufficient time to activate an alarm and preferably warn the vessels”); and
a notificator (fig. 3, computer portion for warning/alarming; additional obviousness analysis provided for division of computer system) configured to issue a notification for calling an attention of a marine vehicle (see exemplary vessel in fig. 3), located within a predetermined range from the
respective one of the positions at which the abnormal event is detected ([0066] “integrity monitoring system may be arranged to start an alarm” and “warning may be emitted if the operating drill comes too close” and “while still avoiding emitting false warnings”; [0112] “The term "vessel" is used herein to denote any kind of seagoing ship, boat or submarine capable of crossing and/or capable of navigating on the ocean, in canals, and/or in rivers”; [0162] “risk of setting of false alarm can be highly reduced”; [0190] “an alarm arranged to be activated upon potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, the computer is arranged to calculate the potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, preferably based on at least some of the vibration data and at least some of the position as a function of time data. The system may preferably be regulated to activate the alarm upon detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern and/or with a vibration level above a max-vibration set-point for reduction of false alarm”; [0219] “activating an alarm” and “alarm may for example be activated upon potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure. The computer is preferably arranged to calculate the potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, preferably based on at least some of the vibration data and at least some of the position as a function of time data” and “reduction of false alarm”; [0207] “it may be that the operator of the movable object has ignored an alarm and that damage may be claimed from the operator or the owner of the movable object”; [0021]),
wherein the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) is configured to collectively output identical abnormal events as one abnormal event in a case where the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) classifies the environment information (based on vibrational pattern) and a type of the abnormal event (e.g., trawlers, fishing ships, vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed) is a type that is possibly generated at a location away from the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) (e.g., potential danger of movable object), the identical abnormal events being detected at a plurality of the positions on the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21), and wherein the identical abnormal event is identified by analyzing geographical coordinates and time information relating to the detected event ([0054] “vibration sensor” and “optical fibre acoustic sensor”; [0069] “distributed vibration sensor”; [0098] “integrity monitoring system comprises at least one optical fibre vibration sensor in the form of a distributed”; [0099] “The optical fibre vibration sensor and/or the computer may in one embodiment be adapted to acquire and optionally to process output signals from a plurality of selected length sections N of the optical fibre vibration sensor”; [0100] “the plurality of selected length sections N of the optical fibre vibration sensor may for example be arranged substantially systematically along the length of the optical fibre vibration sensor, thereby simplifying the calculation process to obtain the distributed vibration data. The length sections N may be overlapping sections, immediately adjacent sections or sections with a distance to each other”; [0102] “the integrity monitoring system is arranged to perform a beam forming function on the vibration data from the sensor array or distributed or quasi-distributed sensor”; [0098]-[0104] “determining a direction, a distance and/or a speed of a vibration emitting object”; [0109] “computer comprises software for sorting the position as a function of time data”; [0129] “can detect such trawlers and fishing ships”; [0023] “"Position as a function of time data" will also be referred to as "position (h)" and means a physical position to a given time. The position may be in relation to the submarine structure or in geographical coordinates. The time may be in the form of time passed from a known (e.g. selected) starting point or it may be in a standard time such as nautical standard time or UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) or other standard time zones”; [0119] “AIS position data” and “geographic information systems”).
The Examiner acknowledges that Hansen does not explicitly separate the monitoring system computer portions (see analysis above) into explicitly named distinct elements interrogator, abnormal event detector, and notificator. However, the Examiner notes that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (BPAI. 1969), and that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893); see also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), and MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate information acquiring, processing, & notifying operations to specialized circuitry components of a system as convenient, and therefore either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the aforementioned components are reasonably taught by Hansen as put forth above, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so allocate with the expected benefits that the circuitry for each task can then be more specialized and more easily replaced and/or repaired/updated.
For compact prosecution and narrower interpretation of notification to a marine vehicle (instead of merely for calling an attention thereof, the Examiner further addresses the optional intermediate action of an operator ([0276] “set off an alarm optionally after a confirmation of an operator”), the Examiner noting that it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), see MPEP § 2144.04(III), and the Examiner taking the position that automated alarms to recipients without an intermediary manual intervention of an operator is conventional (i.e., the Examiner previously took Official Notice thereof; as the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C)). Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged the exclusion (i.e., optional) is reasonably taught by Hansen as put forth above, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exclude the optional operator confirmation therebetween for the expected benefits of reduced costs and/or increased efficiency and/or increased accuracy of relayed information by automation.
Regarding independent claim 16,
Hansen teaches (structure as whole best shown in fig. 3) a protection monitoring method comprising:
acquiring environment information at each of positions on a long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) installed in water or at a bottom of water through use of an optical fiber (fig. 3, optical fibre of vibration sensor 22) provided along the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) ([0001] “stationary structure offshore or onshore, such as a pipe or a power cable”; [0040] “monitoring of cables, pipes, optical fibres and/or combinations or parts thereof”; [0242]-[0243]);
detecting an abnormal event (e.g., trawlers, fishing ships, vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed in a periphery of a respective one of the positions in case where the environment information acquired at the respective one of the positions satisfies an abnormal pattern provided in advance ([0244]-[0245]; [0133] “vibration pattern”; [0162] “detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern”; [0219] “alarm upon detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern”; [0252] “database memory with a calibration curve for vibration pattern versus vessel distance for one or more vessels or types of vessels”; [0206] “recording the position as a function of time data of a movable object”; [0253] “integrity monitoring system is capable of recognising a vibration pattern, such that it can be detected if the pipe has uninterdentally been uncovered by passing vessels” and “offshore integrity monitoring system can recognise the vibration pattern, it may calculate the direction, speed and other”; [0129] “approaching trawlers and fishing ships, because such vessels often have equipment drawn along the seabed, and furthermore it has often been observed that such vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed. In such situations the submarine structures may be in high danger of being damaged. The selected distance of the offshore integrity monitoring system is therefore preferably selected such that the offshore integrity monitoring system can detect such trawlers and fishing ships in sufficient time to activate an alarm and preferably warn the vessels”); and
issuing a notification for calling an attention of a marine vehicle (additional obviousness analysis provided with respect to claim breadth and notification to marine vehicle) located within a predetermined range from the respective one of the positions at which the abnormal event is detected ([0066] “integrity monitoring system may be arranged to start an alarm” and “warning may be emitted if the operating drill comes too close” and “while still avoiding emitting false warnings”; [0112] “The term "vessel" is used herein to denote any kind of seagoing ship, boat or submarine capable of crossing and/or capable of navigating on the ocean, in canals, and/or in rivers”; [0162] “risk of setting of false alarm can be highly reduced”; [0190] “an alarm arranged to be activated upon potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, the computer is arranged to calculate the potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, preferably based on at least some of the vibration data and at least some of the position as a function of time data. The system may preferably be regulated to activate the alarm upon detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern and/or with a vibration level above a max-vibration set-point for reduction of false alarm”; [0219] “activating an alarm” and “alarm may for example be activated upon potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure. The computer is preferably arranged to calculate the potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, preferably based on at least some of the vibration data and at least some of the position as a function of time data” and “reduction of false alarm”; [0207] “it may be that the operator of the movable object has ignored an alarm and that damage may be claimed from the operator or the owner of the movable object”; [0021]),
wherein the detecting of the abnormal event includes collectively outputting identical abnormal events as one abnormal event in a case where the environment information is classified (based on vibrational pattern) and a type of the abnormal event is a type (e.g., trawlers, fishing ships, vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed) that is possibly generated at a location away from the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) (e.g., potential danger of movable object), the identical abnormal events being detected at a plurality of the positions on the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21), and wherein the identical abnormal event is identified by analyzing geographical coordinates and time information relating to the detected event ([0054] “vibration sensor” and “optical fibre acoustic sensor”; [0069] “distributed vibration sensor”; [0098] “integrity monitoring system comprises at least one optical fibre vibration sensor in the form of a distributed”; [0099] “The optical fibre vibration sensor and/or the computer may in one embodiment be adapted to acquire and optionally to process output signals from a plurality of selected length sections N of the optical fibre vibration sensor”; [0100] “the plurality of selected length sections N of the optical fibre vibration sensor may for example be arranged substantially systematically along the length of the optical fibre vibration sensor, thereby simplifying the calculation process to obtain the distributed vibration data. The length sections N may be overlapping sections, immediately adjacent sections or sections with a distance to each other”; [0102] “the integrity monitoring system is arranged to perform a beam forming function on the vibration data from the sensor array or distributed or quasi-distributed sensor”; [0098]-[0104] “determining a direction, a distance and/or a speed of a vibration emitting object”; [0109] “computer comprises software for sorting the position as a function of time data”; [0129] “can detect such trawlers and fishing ships”; [0023] “"Position as a function of time data" will also be referred to as "position (h)" and means a physical position to a given time. The position may be in relation to the submarine structure or in geographical coordinates. The time may be in the form of time passed from a known (e.g. selected) starting point or it may be in a standard time such as nautical standard time or UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) or other standard time zones”; [0119] “AIS position data” and “geographic information systems”).
For compact prosecution and narrower interpretation of notification to a marine vehicle (instead of merely for calling an attention thereof, the Examiner further addresses the optional intermediate action of an operator ([0276] “set off an alarm optionally after a confirmation of an operator”), the Examiner noting that it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), see MPEP 2144.04(III), and the Examiner taking the position that automated alarms to recipients without an intermediary manual intervention of an operator is conventional (i.e., the Examiner previously took Official Notice thereof; as the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).). Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged the exclusion (i.e., optional) is reasonably taught by Hansen as put forth above, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exclude the optional operator confirmation therebetween for the expected benefits of reduced costs and/or increased efficiency and/or increased accuracy of relayed information by automation.
Regarding independent claim 17,
Hansen teaches (structure as whole best shown in fig. 3) a non-transitory storage medium (storage medium of computer; additional obviousness analysis provided) ([0021] “the computer may be integrated in any other elements of the integrity monitoring system, for example the computer or a part thereof may be integrated with the vibration sensor. The computer may be any kind of computing device or part of a device. A computer is herein defined as a device that is capable of computing data. In other words, the computer can receive data and can be programmed to perform calculations using the received data. The computer may be a programmable machine that can receive input data, manipulate the data, and provide an output in a useful format. A memory is usually an integrated part of the computer or it is in data communication with a computer. The computer preferably operates using digital operation system(s), and preferably uses integrated circuit technology and comprises microprocessors. In most situations it is preferred that the computer is or comprises a PC or a part thereof wherein one or more computing elements may be incorporated into another element or other elements of the system e.g. by being embedded in such other element(s)”; [0026] “computer means” and “computer comprises hardware and software”; [0077]-[0078]; [0082], [0090] “computer comprises a recording medium”; [0101] “computer comprises software”; [0104] “methods (software)”; [0093] “computer comprises hardware and software”; [0094] “Hardware means in this connection is the physical medium of the computer, and software means computer programs”; [0097] “software”; [0118] “software”; [0148] “memory”) storing a protection monitoring program causing an information processing device to execute:
acquiring environment information at each of positions on a long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) installed in water or at a bottom of water through use of an optical fiber (fig. 3, optical fibre of vibration sensor 22) provided along the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) ([0001] “stationary structure offshore or onshore, such as a pipe or a power cable”; [0040] “monitoring of cables, pipes, optical fibres and/or combinations or parts thereof”; [0242]-[0243]);
detecting an abnormal event in a periphery of a respective one of the positions in a case where the environment information acquired at the respective one of the positions satisfies an abnormal pattern provided in advance ([0244]-[0245]; [0133] “vibration pattern”; [0162] “detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern”; [0219] “alarm upon detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern”; [0252] “database memory with a calibration curve for vibration pattern versus vessel distance for one or more vessels or types of vessels”; [0206] “recording the position as a function of time data of a movable object”; [0253] “integrity monitoring system is capable of recognising a vibration pattern, such that it can be detected if the pipe has uninterdentally been uncovered by passing vessels” and “offshore integrity monitoring system can recognise the vibration pattern, it may calculate the direction, speed and other”; [0129] “approaching trawlers and fishing ships, because such vessels often have equipment drawn along the seabed, and furthermore it has often been observed that such vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed. In such situations the submarine structures may be in high danger of being damaged. The selected distance of the offshore integrity monitoring system is therefore preferably selected such that the offshore integrity monitoring system can detect such trawlers and fishing ships in sufficient time to activate an alarm and preferably warn the vessels”); and
issuing a notification for calling an attention of a marine vehicle (additional obviousness analysis provided with respect to claim breadth and notification to marine vehicle) located within a predetermined range from the respective one of the positions at which the abnormal event is detected ([0066] “integrity monitoring system may be arranged to start an alarm” and “warning may be emitted if the operating drill comes too close” and “while still avoiding emitting false warnings”; [0112] “The term "vessel" is used herein to denote any kind of seagoing ship, boat or submarine capable of crossing and/or capable of navigating on the ocean, in canals, and/or in rivers”; [0162] “risk of setting of false alarm can be highly reduced”; [0190] “an alarm arranged to be activated upon potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, the computer is arranged to calculate the potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, preferably based on at least some of the vibration data and at least some of the position as a function of time data. The system may preferably be regulated to activate the alarm upon detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern and/or with a vibration level above a max-vibration set-point for reduction of false alarm”; [0219] “activating an alarm” and “alarm may for example be activated upon potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure. The computer is preferably arranged to calculate the potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, preferably based on at least some of the vibration data and at least some of the position as a function of time data” and “reduction of false alarm”; [0207] “it may be that the operator of the movable object has ignored an alarm and that damage may be claimed from the operator or the owner of the movable object”; [0021]),
wherein the detecting includes collectively outputting identical abnormal events as one abnormal event in a case where the environment information is classified (based on vibrational pattern) and a type of the abnormal event is a type (e.g., trawlers, fishing ships, vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed) that is possibly generated at a location away from the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) (e.g., potential danger of movable object), the identical abnormal events being detected at a plurality of the positions on the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21), and wherein the identical abnormal event is identified by analyzing geographical coordinates and time information relating to the detected event ([0054] “vibration sensor” and “optical fibre acoustic sensor”; [0069] “distributed vibration sensor”; [0098] “integrity monitoring system comprises at least one optical fibre vibration sensor in the form of a distributed”; [0099] “The optical fibre vibration sensor and/or the computer may in one embodiment be adapted to acquire and optionally to process output signals from a plurality of selected length sections N of the optical fibre vibration sensor”; [0100] “the plurality of selected length sections N of the optical fibre vibration sensor may for example be arranged substantially systematically along the length of the optical fibre vibration sensor, thereby simplifying the calculation process to obtain the distributed vibration data. The length sections N may be overlapping sections, immediately adjacent sections or sections with a distance to each other”; [0102] “the integrity monitoring system is arranged to perform a beam forming function on the vibration data from the sensor array or distributed or quasi-distributed sensor”; [0098]-[0104] “determining a direction, a distance and/or a speed of a vibration emitting object”; [0109] “computer comprises software for sorting the position as a function of time data”; [0129] “can detect such trawlers and fishing ships”; [0023] “"Position as a function of time data" will also be referred to as "position (h)" and means a physical position to a given time. The position may be in relation to the submarine structure or in geographical coordinates. The time may be in the form of time passed from a known (e.g. selected) starting point or it may be in a standard time such as nautical standard time or UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) or other standard time zones”; [0119] “AIS position data” and “geographic information systems”).
The Examiner acknowledges that Hansen does not explicitly state a single storage medium storing the whole protection monitoring program causing an information processing device to execute the aforementioned method steps (see analysis above). However, the Examiner notes that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (BPAI. 1969), and that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893); see also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), and MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate the software into a single storage medium to store the information necessary for computer execution of the information acquiring, processing, & notifying operations as convenient, and therefore either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the aforementioned computer executed operations are reasonably taught by Hansen as put forth above to be part of a computer storage medium, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so store said software within a storage medium with the expected benefits expected benefits of commercial distribution and/or for more easily replacing the storage medium hardware and/or for simpler single location easier updating of the software thereon.
For compact prosecution and narrower interpretation of notification to a marine vehicle (instead of merely for calling an attention thereof, the Examiner further addresses the optional intermediate action of an operator ([0276] “set off an alarm optionally after a confirmation of an operator”), the Examiner noting that it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), see MPEP 2144.04(III), and the Examiner taking the position that automated alarms to recipients without an intermediary manual intervention of an operator is conventional (i.e., the Examiner previously took Official Notice thereof; as the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).). Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged the exclusion (i.e., optional) is reasonably taught by Hansen as put forth above, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exclude the optional operator confirmation therebetween for the expected benefits of reduced costs and/or increased efficiency and/or increased accuracy of relayed information by automation.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Hansen teaches wherein the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) is configured to correct a sensitivity degree for sensing the environment information for each of the positions on the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21), and to attempt to detect the abnormal pattern ([0024] “sufficiently sensitive to even monitor lesser damage to the submarine structure or even prevent damage by monitoring parameter indicating increased risk of damage of the submarine structure”; [0058] “mechanism applied to regulate the activity and/or the sensitivity of the vibration sensor”; [0060] “Generally, noise in the environment around the stationary structure and also within the monitoring site will not be constant over time and not be homogenous along the complete stationary structure. In order to have a suitable sensitivity it is therefore beneficial if the vibration sensor comprises such automatically or semi-automatically regulating mechanism for filtering noise. The automatically or semi-automatically regulating mechanism may for example comprise a range and time dependent gain control for taking account of changes in background noise levels along the stationary structure and/or over time”; [0065] “filter off noise and a more correct integrity monitoring of the stationary structure may be obtained”; [0133] “the vibration pattern offshore is often relatively stable and simple to identify, such that such noise can be filtered off. The burden of having long range/highly sensitive vibration sensors is often that such vibration sensors also capture a large amount of noise, but as mentioned this burden may be simple to overcome by filtering off the major amount or all of the noise”; [0137] “sensitivity of the monitoring system can be increased; [0203] “regulating the operation of the vibration sensor, for example in relation to the amount of noise, in relating to the number of movable objects within the selected distance, in relating to weather, in relation to time (night/day/working day/holiday . . . etc.) and/or in relation to other”; [0157] “sensitivity” and “activating set point of the alarm depends on the weather”; [0204] “regulating the sensitivity of the vibration sensor, preferably in dependence on the concentration of vibrations within the selected distance of the monitoring site”; [0205] “filtering off noise, preferably at least a part of background noise is filtered off. Methods of filtering off noise are well known to a skilled person”; [0271] “vibration as a function of time data is sorted, optionally filtered to remove stationary noise and is further analysed e.g. by beamforming”; [0275] “filtered off”).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1,
Hansen teaches wherein the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) is configured to track an occurrence point of the abnormal event by applying a moving model, in a case where the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) classifies the environment information (based on vibrational pattern), and a type of the abnormal event (e.g., trawlers, fishing ships, vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed) is a type whose occurrence point is likely to move ([0098]-[0104] “determining a direction, a distance and/or a speed of a vibration emitting object”; [0109] “computer comprises software for sorting the position as a function of time data”; [0129] “can detect such trawlers and fishing ships”; [0154] “The computer may for example be arranged to acquire one or more of unique identification, course, speed, direction of movement, warnings, weather conditions and predictions/forecasts of the mentioned data”; [0160] “calculating a potential danger of damaging of the submarine structure by a vessel or vessel equipment. This calculation may for example be based on at least some of the vibration data and the position as a function of time data and optionally other data from a database memory, such as for example weather related data and/or speed, direction of movement and/or course of the moving object”; [0023] “"Position as a function of time data" will also be referred to as "position (h)" and means a physical position to a given time. The position may be in relation to the submarine structure or in geographical coordinates. The time may be in the form of time passed from a known (e.g. selected) starting point or it may be in a standard time such as nautical standard time or UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) or other standard time zones”; [0119] “AIS position data” and “geographic information systems”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1,
Hansen teaches further comprising:
a marine vehicle location information acquisitor (at least portion of computer communicating with AIS; additional obviousness analysis provided for division of computer system) configured to acquire navigation history (position as a function of time data) of a marine vehicle (e.g., trawlers and fishing ships; [0112] “vessel”) in a water area in a periphery of the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21),
wherein the notificator (fig. 3, computer portion for warning/alarming) is configured to call an attention of only (reasonably so envisaged from being reliable, low false positive, and likewise utilizing similar AIS and uniqueness determinations; additional obviousness analysis provided) a marine vehicle (vehicle calculated to have/potential cause/d damaging) that is highly likely to cause the abnormal event, based on a location and a travel direction of a marine vehicle at a time in a case where the abnormal event occurs (reference claim 115 “acquiring data from an Automatic Identification System (AIS), the data being acquired directly from the transmitter of the vessel, via internet transmission, via a vessel traffic service (VTS) and/or via an external antenna, the transmitter of the vessel being a transponder"; [0116]-[0121] AIS details; [0186] “computer is arranged to acquire additional data, the additional data comprises at least one of unique identification, course, speed, direction of movement, warnings, weather conditions and predictions/forecasts of the mentioned data. The additional data may preferably at least comprise unique identification”; [0098]-[0104] “determining a direction, a distance and/or a speed of a vibration emitting object”; [0109] “computer comprises software for sorting the position as a function of time data”; [0129] “can detect such trawlers and fishing ships”; [0149] “build up a database of at least some of the vibration as a function of time data and/or some of the position as a function of time data acquired by the computer, and the database may be used e.g. for calibration of the system, for predicting incidents, for regulating conditions for activation of an alarm or for other things”; [0154] “The computer may for example be arranged to acquire one or more of unique identification, course, speed, direction of movement, warnings, weather conditions and predictions/forecasts of the mentioned data”; [0160] “calculating a potential danger of damaging of the submarine structure by a vessel or vessel equipment. This calculation may for example be based on at least some of the vibration data and the position as a function of time data and optionally other data from a database memory, such as for example weather related data and/or speed, direction of movement and/or course of the moving object”; [0162] “alarm arranged to be activated upon potential or actual danger of damaging of the submarine structure” and “calculation may preferably be based on at least some of the vibration data and at least some of the position as a function of time data”; [0066] “integrity monitoring system may be arranged to start an alarm” and “warning may be emitted if the operating drill comes too close” and “while still avoiding emitting false warnings”; [0162] “risk of setting of false alarm can be highly reduced and a more reliable alarm system is obtained”).
Substantially similar to the analysis in the independent claim (see nomenclature analysis therein), the Examiner acknowledges that Hansen does not explicitly separate the monitoring system computer portions into the explicitly named distinct elements now further including a marine vehicle location information acquisitor. However, the Examiner notes that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (BPAI. 1969), and that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893); see also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), and MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate the aforementioned operations—now further including the marine vehicle location information acquisitor—to specialized circuitry components of a system as convenient, and therefore either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the aforementioned components are reasonably taught by Hansen as put forth above, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so allocate with the expected benefits that the circuitry for each task can then be more specialized and more easily replaced and/or repaired/updated.
With further respect to the notificator calling an attention of only a marine vehicle that is highly likely to cause the abnormal event, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the Hansen’s reliable, low false positive, notification to vessels having potential or actual danger including based on AIS and uniqueness determinations is reasonably interpretable as “only”, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so exclude calling the attention of other vessels that are not highly likely to cause the abnormal event in order to avoid said false positives and/or to avoid misunderstandings from miscommunications to the wrong vessels.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1,
Hansen teaches/suggests wherein, the notificator (fig. 3, computer portion for warning/alarming) is configured to issue a notification for calling an attention of only a fishing boat among marine vehicles within a water area in a periphery of the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21), in a case where the notificator (fig. 3, computer portion for warning/alarming) classifies the abnormal event as a type caused by a fishing tool (equipment of trawler & fishing ships; additional obviousness provided for narrower interpretation of fishing tool as an exclusive category from fishing vessel tools such as anchors) hitting against a bottom of water (dropped equipment drawn along the seabed) ([0129] “approaching trawlers and fishing ships, because such vessels often have equipment drawn along the seabed, and furthermore it has often been observed that such vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed. In such situations the submarine structures may be in high danger of being damaged. The selected distance of the offshore integrity monitoring system is therefore preferably selected such that the offshore integrity monitoring system can detect such trawlers and fishing ships in sufficient time to activate an alarm and preferably warn the vessels”; [0134] “arranged to detect vibrations of an ordinary anchor drop and/or a draw of an anchor or a similar tool” and “possible to set off an alarm in sufficient time to prevent damage from an approaching vessel with an anchor or other equipment drawn along the seabed”).
The Examiner acknowledges that Hansen teaches classifying the abnormal event as a type caused by a fishing tool and/or a fishing vessel anchor and does not explicitly state discerning the difference in the pattern (i.e., does not explicitly state classifying anchors separately from other fishing vessels tools such as trawling nets).
However:
Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).”
In the present case, Hansen further explicitly teaches the “computer comprises software for determining a direction, a distance and/or a speed of a vibration emitting object, where the vibration emitting object optionally is the movable object” ([0101]), that “a direction of the vibration (sound) can be calculated which allows for the direction estimation of an incoming sound wave” ([0103]), “that the integrity monitoring system is capable of recognising a vibration pattern” ([0152]), and “that the vibration pattern offshore is often relatively stable and simple to identify” ([0133]).
The Examiner further takes the position that it is commonsensical that an anchor being dragged will be emitting from a specific direction (i.e., is not a well dispersed event across the seabed), whereas a fishing tool such as a trawling net being dragged along a seabed will be more dispersed (i.e., is spread out to catch the fish, rather than being condensed like an anchor), and further that the vibration patterns will similarly be recognizably different (for example based on such factors as shape, weight, &/or size—the Examiner re-emphasizing Hansen’s own point that such vibration patterns are relatively stable and simple to identify and recognize.
In view of the above it is the Examiner’s position that either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged the separate exclusive classifying is reasonably taught by Hansen as put forth above, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect success with Hansen’s computer software to be able classify the different types of fishing vessel tools such as fishing trawler nets from other fishing vessel tools such as anchors, thereby providing more specific information to relay to the fishing vessel in an effort to mitigate the issue and to avoid damage.
With further respect to the notificator calling an attention of only a fishing boat marine vehicle that is highly likely to cause the abnormal event amongst other marine vessels, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the Hansen’s reliable, low false positive, notification to vessels having potential or actual danger including based on AIS and uniqueness determinations is reasonably interpretable as “only”, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so exclude calling the attention of other vessels that are not highly likely to cause the abnormal event in order to avoid said false positives and/or to avoid misunderstandings from miscommunications to the wrong vessels.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1,
Hansen teaches wherein the abnormal event is a sound or a vibration generated by a contact of an object with the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21), dropping of an object onto a bottom of water near the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21), dragging of a heavy object on a bottom of water near the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21), or an action of damaging the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) ([0025] “"Vibrations" should herein be construed to mean vibrations of any wavelength, but in particular acoustic vibrations, which herein should be construed to mean mechanical waves in liquids, and optionally in solids”; [0054] “vibration sensor” and “optical fibre acoustic sensor”; [0069] “distributed vibration sensor”; [0024] “sensitive to even monitor lesser damage to the submarine structure or even prevent damage by monitoring parameter indicating increased risk of damage of the submarine structure”; [0129] “approaching trawlers and fishing ships, because such vessels often have equipment drawn along the seabed, and furthermore it has often been observed that such vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed. In such situations the submarine structures may be in high danger of being damaged. The selected distance of the offshore integrity monitoring system is therefore preferably selected such that the offshore integrity monitoring system can detect such trawlers and fishing ships in sufficient time to activate an alarm and preferably warn the vessels”; [0134] “arranged to detect vibrations of an ordinary anchor drop and/or a draw of an anchor or a similar tool” and “possible to set off an alarm in sufficient time to prevent damage from an approaching vessel with an anchor or other equipment drawn along the seabed”).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1,
Hansen teaches wherein the abnormal event is a sound or a vibration generated by any one of dropping of a heavy object (e.g., object comprising anchor) onto a water surface near the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) and paying-out of an anchor chain (i.e., the chain part of an anchor while dropping) onto a water surface (portion of object dropping onto the water surface, Examiner emphasizing that such causes at least a portion of the detectable vibrations/sounds) near the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) ([0025] “"Vibrations" should herein be construed to mean vibrations of any wavelength, but in particular acoustic vibrations, which herein should be construed to mean mechanical waves in liquids, and optionally in solids”; [0054] “vibration sensor” and “optical fibre acoustic sensor”; [0069] “distributed vibration sensor”; [0024] “sensitive to even monitor lesser damage to the submarine structure or even prevent damage by monitoring parameter indicating increased risk of damage of the submarine structure”; [0129] “approaching trawlers and fishing ships, because such vessels often have equipment drawn along the seabed, and furthermore it has often been observed that such vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed. In such situations the submarine structures may be in high danger of being damaged. The selected distance of the offshore integrity monitoring system is therefore preferably selected such that the offshore integrity monitoring system can detect such trawlers and fishing ships in sufficient time to activate an alarm and preferably warn the vessels”; [0134] “arranged to detect vibrations of an ordinary anchor drop and/or a draw of an anchor or a similar tool” and “possible to set off an alarm in sufficient time to prevent damage from an approaching vessel with an anchor or other equipment drawn along the seabed”).
The Examiner further notes for compact prosecution with regards to a more narrow claim interpretation that the aforementioned abnormal event is constrained to only the portion of the drop onto the water surface or the paying-out of an anchor chain. The Examiner previously took Official Notice that such segmented events (e.g., the sound of the anchor splash and/or the sound of the anchor chain rattling while unraveling) are conventionally discernable (at least for large anchors) from the remainder of the event of the dropping of the anchor (e.g., the sound of the anchor hitting a structural object or dragging along bottom); as the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C). In view of the aforementioned, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect said abnormal event(s) for the expected reason of earlier detection and possibly reduction of damage as opposed to waiting to determine the abnormal event from the entirety of the drop.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1,
Hansen teaches wherein the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) is configured to detect a failure (e.g., damage, loss of integrity) due to a dropping of the object in a case where the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) detects a sound generated by dropping an object (e.g., object comprising anchor) onto a water surface (portion of object dropping onto the water surface, Examiner emphasizing that such causes at least a portion of the detectable vibrations/sounds), and the environment information is not acquired from the optical fiber (fig. 3, optical fibre of vibration sensor 22) (e.g., information acquired from AIS, weather information, etc.), and
wherein the notificator (fig. 3, computer portion for warning/alarming) is configured to issue a notification for calling an attention of a marine vehicle located within a predetermined range (selected distance and/or detection range) from a location at which the abnormal event occurs ([0025] “"Vibrations" should herein be construed to mean vibrations of any wavelength, but in particular acoustic vibrations, which herein should be construed to mean mechanical waves in liquids, and optionally in solids”; [0054] “vibration sensor” and “optical fibre acoustic sensor”; [0069] “distributed vibration sensor”; [0024] “sensitive to even monitor lesser damage to the submarine structure or even prevent damage by monitoring parameter indicating increased risk of damage of the submarine structure”; [0129] “approaching trawlers and fishing ships, because such vessels often have equipment drawn along the seabed, and furthermore it has often been observed that such vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed. In such situations the submarine structures may be in high danger of being damaged. The selected distance of the offshore integrity monitoring system is therefore preferably selected such that the offshore integrity monitoring system can detect such trawlers and fishing ships in sufficient time to activate an alarm and preferably warn the vessels”; [0134] “arranged to detect vibrations of an ordinary anchor drop and/or a draw of an anchor or a similar tool” and “possible to set off an alarm in sufficient time to prevent damage from an approaching vessel with an anchor or other equipment drawn along the seabed”; reference claim 115 “acquiring data from an Automatic Identification System (AIS), the data being acquired directly from the transmitter of the vessel, via internet transmission, via a vessel traffic service (VTS) and/or via an external antenna, the transmitter of the vessel being a transponder"; [0116]-[0121] AIS details; [0154]; [0186] “computer is arranged to acquire additional data, the additional data comprises at least one of unique identification, course, speed, direction of movement, warnings, weather conditions and predictions/forecasts of the mentioned data. The additional data may preferably at least comprise unique identification”; [0154]-[0159] information such as weather; [0243] “[0243] Additional data, such as weather related data or other as described above may be transmitted to the second computer 23(2) either via the onshore data acquiring element 20a and/or the offshore data acquiring element 20b and/or via another acquiring element 20(1)”; [0123]-[0141] discussion of “selected distance” and “detection range”; [0177]-[0178]).
The Examiner further notes for compact prosecution with regards to a more narrow claim interpretation that the aforementioned abnormal event is constrained to only the portion of the drop onto the water surface, the Examiner previously took Official Notice that such segmented events (e.g., the sound of the anchor splash) are conventionally discernable (at least for large anchors) from the remainder of the event of the dropping of the anchor (e.g., the sound of the anchor hitting a structural object or dragging along bottom), and as the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned conventional discernment with Hansen’s detector to detect said abnormal event(s) for the expected reason of earlier detection and possibly reduction of damage as opposed to waiting to determine the abnormal event from the entirety of the drop.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1,
Hansen teaches wherein the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) is configured to detect dropping of the object as an abnormal event in a case where the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) detects a sound generated by dropping an object (e.g., object comprising anchor) onto a water surface (portion of object dropping onto the water surface, Examiner emphasizing that such causes at least a portion of the detectable vibrations/sounds), and the environment information is acquired from the optical fiber (fig. 3, optical fibre of vibration sensor 22) (see citations of independent claim), and
wherein the notificator (fig. 3, computer portion for warning/alarming) is configured to issue a notification for calling an attention of a marine vehicle located within a predetermined range from a location in which the abnormal event occurs ([0025] “"Vibrations" should herein be construed to mean vibrations of any wavelength, but in particular acoustic vibrations, which herein should be construed to mean mechanical waves in liquids, and optionally in solids”; [0054] “vibration sensor” and “optical fibre acoustic sensor”; [0069] “distributed vibration sensor”; [0024] “sensitive to even monitor lesser damage to the submarine structure or even prevent damage by monitoring parameter indicating increased risk of damage of the submarine structure”; [0129] “approaching trawlers and fishing ships, because such vessels often have equipment drawn along the seabed, and furthermore it has often been observed that such vessels by mistake are sailing with their anchor drawn along the seabed. In such situations the submarine structures may be in high danger of being damaged. The selected distance of the offshore integrity monitoring system is therefore preferably selected such that the offshore integrity monitoring system can detect such trawlers and fishing ships in sufficient time to activate an alarm and preferably warn the vessels”; [0134] “arranged to detect vibrations of an ordinary anchor drop and/or a draw of an anchor or a similar tool” and “possible to set off an alarm in sufficient time to prevent damage from an approaching vessel with an anchor or other equipment drawn along the seabed”; [0123]-[0141] discussion of “selected distance” and “detection range”; [0177]-[0178]).
The Examiner further notes for compact prosecution with regards to a more narrow claim interpretation that the aforementioned abnormal event is constrained to only the portion of the drop onto the water surface, the Examiner previously took Official Notice that such segmented events (e.g., the sound of the anchor splash) are conventionally discernable (at least for large anchors) from the remainder of the event of the dropping of the anchor (e.g., the sound of the anchor hitting a structural object or dragging along bottom), and as the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned conventional discernment with Hansen’s detector to detect said abnormal event(s) for the expected reason of earlier detection and possibly reduction of damage as opposed to waiting to determine the abnormal event from the entirety of the drop.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Hansen in view of previously cited Farhadiroushan et al (US 20140025319 A1; hereafter “Farhadiroushan”).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1,
Hansen teaches wherein the abnormal event detector (fig. 3, computer portion for detecting abnormality/damage/risk comprising computer 23(2)) is configured to detect the abnormal pattern ([0244]-[0245]; [0133] “vibration pattern”; [0150]-[0152] “vibration pattern”; [0162] “detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern”; [0190] “predefined pattern”; [0219] “alarm upon detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern”; [0219]-[0221]; [0252] “database memory with a calibration curve for vibration pattern versus vessel distance for one or more vessels or types of vessels”; [0253]; Examiner further notes some discussion of frequency in at least [0135]-[0141] & [0181], exemplary including “about 500 Hz to about 1 kHz”).
Hansen does not explicitly state dividing the environment information to frequency bands before detecting the abnormal pattern.
However:
The Examiner respectfully notes that it had been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP § 2144.05. In the present case, Hansen teaches specifically frequency ranges associated with vibrations for which Hansen is looking in for specific vibration patterns correlating to specific events and it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art would be required to divide a conventional commercial sensor’s frequency range into a frequency band in which the events are to occur to so remove unwanted noise from the possible patterns of interest within known frequency band (e.g., to specifically divide the bandwidth to pass a frequency range of 500 Hz to about 1kHz to look therein for Hansen’s vibrational patterns that identify events such as pertaining to specific vessels.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence, Farhadiroushan teaches dividing environment information into frequency bands, and attempting to detect the ab/normal pattern (Title “STRUCTURE MONITORING”; Abstract “monitoring a structure using an optical fiber based distributed acoustic sensor (DAS) extending along the length of the structure”; [0019] “frequency filtering of the signal detected by the optical fibre DAS is undertaken to divide the signal into low frequencies and high frequencies, wherein the low frequencies (<100 Hz) are used for vibration detection, and the high frequencies (>1 kHz) are used for position and/or shape monitoring”; [0054] “band-pass filter (26) to filter out the ASE noise”; [0062] “vibration detection program 362 is arranged to control the processor 34 to process the determined acoustic data to look at significantly lower frequencies, and specifically to detect low frequency resonant vibrations of the riser structure, such as vortex induced vibrations”; [0066] “resonant vibrations of the structure, which occur at much lower, and generally inaudible, frequencies, due to the expansion and compression of the structure under the vibration being transferred to the fiber”; [0069] “Each acoustic source is at a known location, and emits an identifiable acoustic signal, for example at a specific, known, frequency, or of a particular pattern”; [0122] “a simple series of band pass filters can be used to distinguish the vibration-induced strain from the acoustic excitation” and “optic fiber DAS can be used to detect low frequency resonant type vibrations in structures such as risers, buildings, antenna towers, or any other large structure which may have resonant vibration modes”; [0128] “DAS signal from the fiber (s.19.2) may be frequency filtered (s.19.4), for example by respective band pass filters or low and high pass filters to split the signal into low frequencies (s.19.8) and high frequencies (s.19.14), the low frequencies typically being of the order of a few Hz and resulting from mechanical vibrations in the structure, and the high frequencies being typically in the kHz range, and resulting from the frequencies used by the acoustic sources”; [0129] “ DAS can also provide passive acoustic data relevant to the structural health of the structure to which the fiber relates, as shown at s. 19.6. This capability can be used to identify for instance high amplitude events linked to crack propagation or, where the structure is a riser, riser support disengagement. The technology can be enabled via a thresholding method, wherein events of energy in a particular frequency band exceeding a given threshold trigger alarms which can be stored and listened to by an operator, and linked with any changes in the physical shape of the structure given by the position sensing embodiments described above”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Hansen’s detector configuration for frequency ranged pattern determinations by dividing information into frequency bands for determination of events—as factually supported by Farhadiroushan’s explicit frequency band divisions—for the expected purposes of increasing signal-to-noise ratio by filtering out irrelevant frequencies for the pattern of the event being analyzed and therefore increasing accuracy, precision, and/or sensitivity and thus decreasing false alarms and/or possibilities/amount of damage from abnormal events.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Hansen in view of Applicant cited* Wu et al (CN 107328465 A; hereafter “Wu”).
*machine translation previously provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1,
Hansen does not teach further comprising: an imager configured to capture an image of a periphery, wherein the imager is configured to capture an image of a periphery of a location at which the abnormal event occurs.
Wu teaches further comprising: an imager (video monitoring device) configured to capture an image of a periphery, wherein the imager (video monitoring device) is configured to capture an image of a periphery of a location at which the abnormal event occurs (Title “Submarine Cable Vibrating Monitoring System”; Abstract “optical fibre vibrating detecting”; page 2, third full paragraph “vibrating monitoring route corridor image pattern recognition, submarine, alarm system, database and video monitoring”; page 2, fourth full paragraph “identifying and judging the submarine cable vibration is caused by passing ships and ship violation anchoring external force, and possible hazards to the submarine cable running state, through vibrating monitoring system respectively sends the trigger signal to the alarm and video monitoring device. to linkage control, possible anchor damage accident ship for early eviction and accident evidence”; page 2, second-to-last paragraph “video monitoring according to the received trigger signal, all video monitoring device linked submarine cable near the landing point, vibrating the offending ship real-time tracking shooting suspect and provide evidence for later settlement”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wu’s video monitoring and image pattern recognition fusion for Submarine Cable Vibrating Monitoring System with Hansen’s integrity monitoring for the expected purpose of identifying the offending ship, providing accident evidence including for later settlement.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Hansen in view of previously cited Chua (US 20170287314 A1; hereafter “Chua”).
Regarding claim 9 and claim 10, where claim 9 depends on claim 1 and where claim 10 depends on claim 9,
Hansen teaches wherein the notificator (fig. 3, computer portion for warning/alarming) is configured to issue a notification when the abnormal event occurs (see analysis of independent claim), and (limitation of claim 10) wherein, the notificator (fig. 3, computer portion for warning/alarming) is configured to classify the abnormal event as a type caused by an act of damaging the long infrastructure element (structure, exemplary as pipe 21) ([0190] “an alarm arranged to be activated upon potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, the computer is arranged to calculate the potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, preferably based on at least some of the vibration data and at least some of the position as a function of time data. The system may preferably be regulated to activate the alarm upon detection of vibration data with a predefined pattern and/or with a vibration level above a max-vibration set-point for reduction of false alarm”; [0219] “activating an alarm” and “alarm may for example be activated upon potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure. The computer is preferably arranged to calculate the potential or actual danger of damaging of the stationary structure, preferably based on at least some of the vibration data and at least some of the position as a function of time data” and “reduction of false alarm”; [0024] [0024] "Integrity monitoring" means that the monitoring is at least capable of detecting if the part of the submarine structure to be monitored is severely damaged, such as damage that obstacles its ordinary operation. Preferably the integrity monitoring is sufficiently sensitive to even monitor lesser damage to the submarine structure or even prevent damage by monitoring parameter indicating increased risk of damage of the submarine structure”; [0207] “If for example a monitored stationary structure suddenly is subjected to damage the recorded position as a function of time data preferably in combination with recorded vibration data can be used for analysing the accident and optionally identifying the movable object. For example it may be that the operator of the movable object has ignored an alarm and that damage may be claimed from the operator or the owner of the movable object”).
Hansen does not teach wherein the notificator is configured to issue a notification to a public security department or a security company in such a way as to patrol a periphery of a location at which the abnormal event occurs, nor wherein, when the notificator is configured to issue a notification to a public security department or a security company in a case where the notificator classifies the abnormal event as a type caused by an act of damaging the long infrastructure element.
However:
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that it is within ordinary skill for an operator to notify security of trouble and furthermore the Examiner previously took Official Notice that is conventional to call a commercial security and/or emergency services including for a public security department (e.g. calling for fire and/or police services) when there is either imminent threat of damage or after an accident has occurred including informing of the extent of trouble/damage. The Examiner further previously took Official Notice that it is likewise conventional for security services to patrol in the vicinity of an event location after being notified. As the Applicant had not adequately traversed these assertions, these are considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertions, Chua teaches wherein a notificator (model means of sending alert signal and intelligence/updates) is configured to issue a notification (alert signal) to a public security department (e.g., government security agency force) or a security company (non-government security) in such a way as to patrol a periphery of a location at which an abnormal event occurs, wherein, the notificator (model means of sending alert signal and intelligence/updates) is configured to issue a notification to a public security department or a security company in a case where the notificator (model means of classifying) classifies the abnormal event as a type caused by an act of damaging the infrastructure element (e.g., damage inclusive of explosion, fire, power failure) (Title “An Offshore Security Monitoring System And Method”; Abstract “waterborne vessel is configured to respond to an alert signal transmitted from at least one of the plurality of offshore properties when the monitoring system receives the alert signal”; [0061] “Waterborne vessel 100 may be configured to patrol around at least one of the plurality of offshore properties”; [0054] “When the person detects a breach in security, e.g. intruder, fire, the operator may operate the base module 210 by activating the base module 210, e.g. hitting a help button, to transmit the alert signal. Base module 210 may be used to detect security breaches. Base module 210 may include at least one of a fire detection module configured to detect fire, a motion detection module configured to detect motion within the offshore property 10 or a hazardous gas detection module configured to detect hazardous gas within the offshore property 10 or a shock module configured to detect impact, e.g. due to explosion” and “may be configured to automatically transmit the alert signal to the waterborne vessel 100 when a security breach is detected”; [0055] “receive live intelligence/updates of the situation of the plurality of offshore properties 10. Functional teams may use this information to assess and determine the course of action required and respond accordingly. For example, the functional team may be able to determine if the alert signal is a false alarm”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine conventional notification of damage to authorities such as government/company security that patrols as well as ordinary skilled automation thereof—as factually supported by Chua’s offshore automatic alerts of detected damage to patrolling security monitoring monitoring—for the expected purpose of reduced reaction time, lower wage costs, and/or more accurate notification by said automated notification and the desired reactive thwarting by security patrols of further damage from hostile/careless vessels and/or rendering of emergency assistance thereby.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is (303) 297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 29OCT2025
Prosecution Insights