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that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.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that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.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that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.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“non-transitory” overcame said rejection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said rejection(s) have been withdrawn.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 noti