DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 6/09/2025 has been considered. The IDS filed on 8/08/2023 has not been considered because the submitted IDS is complete unclear, cannot read it.
Specification Objection
3. The specification filed on 12/21/2022 is objected to because the paragraph [0012] is missing.
Applicant is advised to correct the specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) as required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to process (claims 1, 12, and 20: method, CRM, and system), which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claims 1, 12, and 20, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using grouping of mental process including “visual reading of fitting inspected by the source at a remote location; determining that an infiltration by foreign matter has occurred in the conduit system; identifying a cause of the infiltration; and generating infiltration information for the infiltration and the cause of the infiltration.”
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claims “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation of “receiving a visual reading of a fitting” is data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity, and “proving the infiltration information for display in a graphical user interface “GUI” is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., using generic GUI to display a result. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claims significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional limitation as recited above in step 2A prong Two, is considered
insignificant extra-solution activity that is not sufficient to integrate the claims into a particular practical application.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2 and 13 recite additional elements would be considered to be significantly more, and thus, they are eligible.
Dependent claims 3-11 and 14-19 do not disclose limitations considered to be significantly more which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2022/0276116 of Sadovnychiy et al., hereinafter Sadovnychiy in view of US 2022/0345668 of Cunningham et al, hereinafter Cunningham.
As per Claims 1, 12, and 20, Sadovnychiy teaches a computer-implemented method, CRM, and system, comprising:
receiving, at a central site from a source, a visual reading of a fitting inspected by the source at a remote location, wherein the visual reading is captured by the source (acquire data and sends to monitoring center “remote” [0045], see Claim 9. Inspecting of pipeline operation system and detects leaks [0044], a pipeline monitoring system integrated by motion sensors and “a camera” considered “source” [0022], generate images of leaks, see Claim 15, a sectioning “valve” considered “fitting” is detected and sends images to the pipeline monitoring center for viewing and analyzing [0085]-[0086]. It is noted using image projection and visualization equipment for viewing and analyzing captured images considered "visual reading”), determining, by one or more processors at the central site based on evaluating the visual reading, that an infiltration by foreign matter has occurred in the conduit system (i.e., section pipe AB presence of leak “infiltration” [0053], [0060], and type of conduit system described in [0021]);
identifying, by the one or more processors based on the visual reading, a cause of the infiltration, and generating infiltration information for the infiltration and the cause of the infiltration (image projection and visualization equipment to locate the place a product leaks occurred, where these tools considered to generate an image that reveals a location of a leak [0086], i.e., leaks caused by section valves [0051], [0053], and send data contain identification of the section under analyzed and alarm generated for leaks [0045]); and
providing, for display in a user interface, the infiltration information (to location the point where the leak occurs and can be viewed on a digital map [0021], displayed occurrence of the leak event [0053], [0084]-[0086], and Claim 18).
Sadovnychiy does not explicitly teach displaying the infiltration information in a graphical user interface. Cunningham teaches displaying the infiltration information in a graphical user interface (a graphically display information to users and permit user interaction and data selection from a user considered a graphical user interface “GUI”, see Fig 10-1, Fig 12 steps 12:5-6, [0015], where spill or leak occurred based on the image data received [0178]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Sadovnychiy having a GUI for display the leak as taught by Cunningham that would facilitate recognizing focused cues within the images and identifying interest regions where the focused visual inspection might be required (Cunningham [0033]).
As per Claims 3 and 14, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham teaches the computer-implemented method and CRM of claims 1 and 12, Sadovnychiy further teaches comprising: capturing an image of the fitting (a sectioning “valve” considered “fitting” is detected and images is sent to the pipeline monitoring center for viewed and analyzed [0085]).
As per Claims 4 and 15, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham teaches the computer-implemented method and CRM of claims 1 and 12, Sadovnychiy does not teach further comprising: detecting, by the source, a color reading of the fitting. Cunningham teaches detecting, by the source, a color reading of the fitting (each image detected the presence of a valve “fitting” [0020], determine color contrast or colors within the image [0041]-[0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Sadovnychiy to determine color in the image of the valve as taught by Cunningham that would facilitate recognizing focused cues within the images and identifying interest regions where the focused visual inspection might be required (Cunningham [0033]).
As per Claims 6 and 17, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham teaches the computer-implemented method and CRM of claims 1 and 12, Sadovnychiy further teaches wherein determining that the infiltration by the foreign matter has occurred in the conduit system comprises: obtaining a baseline visual reading of the fitting; storing the baseline visual reading of the fitting (initial data “images” of the pipeline of leak detection to be analyzed are uploaded to the database considered obtaining a baseline visual reading, where “image” considered “visual reading” [0059], [0056], Abstract. Sadovnychiy does not teach comparing the visual reading to the stored baseline visual reading; determining, in response to comparing, that a difference between the visual reading to the stored baseline visual reading exceeds a threshold; and determining that the infiltration has occurred in response to determining that the difference exceeds the threshold. Cunningham teaches comparing the visual reading to the stored baseline visual reading and determining (images “visual reading” captured and stored in memory of the server, see Fig 10 steps 10-1, 11-3, [0028]-[0029], identification of data “image” patterns correlating to failure conditions considered comparative analysis of “data patterns” considered by including both previous “historical” and current data, i.e., by comparing new information against established patterns, analysts can detect anomalies “leaks” [0120], [0062]-[0063]), in response to comparing, that a difference between the visual reading to the stored baseline visual reading exceeds a threshold; and determining that the infiltration has occurred in response to determining that the difference exceeds the threshold (Fig 12-4 “yes” considered a failure of infiltration that exceeds a threshold and step 12-5 in response to user, i.e., the image detects the presence of a particular type of colored object indicating an anomaly “leak” requiring further inspection considered to exceed a threshold of anomaly [0121]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Sadovnychiy to determine color in the image as taught by Cunningham that would facilitate recognizing focused cues within the images and identifying interest regions where the focused visual inspection, i.e., anomaly “leak” might be required (Cunningham [0033]).
As per Claims 7 and 18, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham teaches the computer-implemented method and CRM of claims 1 and 12, Sadovnychiy does not teach wherein identifying the cause of the infiltration includes identifying one or more likely nearby sources of the infiltration using information corresponding to a location of the fitting, equipment located near the fitting, external objects in a vicinity of the fitting, a time-of-day, and current weather conditions at the remote location. Cunningham teaches identifying the cause of the infiltration includes identifying one or more likely nearby sources of the infiltration using information corresponding to a location of the fitting, equipment located near the fitting, external objects in a vicinity of the fitting, a time-of-day, and current weather conditions at the remote location (Fig 1 shows “valve” 7 considered “equipment” located near fitting 4 [0123], the joint of the wellhead tubular 5 in the area of valve 7 and fitting 4 most likely causing a leak [0124], [0177]-[0178]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Sadovnychiy to determine leak in the area of the valve located near fitting as taught by Cunningham that would facilitate identifying interest regions where the focused visual inspection, i.e., anomaly “leak” might be required (Cunningham [0033]).
As per Claims 8 and 19, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham teaches the computer-implemented method and CRM of claims 1 and 12, Sadovnychiy does not explicitly teach wherein the infiltration information includes a geographic location of the fitting, equipment types of equipment in proximity to the fitting; and a history of previous readings obtained from the fitting. Cunningham teaches the infiltration information includes a geographic location of the fitting, equipment types of equipment in proximity to the fitting (Fig 1 shows a geographic location of “valve” 7 considered “equipment” located near fitting 4 [0123], the joint of the wellhead tubular 5 in the area of valve 7 and fitting 4 most likely causing a leak [0124], [0177]-[0178]); and a history of previous readings obtained from the fitting (identification of data “image” patterns correlating to failure conditions considered comparative analysis of “data patterns” considered by including both previous “historical” and current data [0120], [0015], Fig 10:11-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Sadovnychiy having the leak includes a geographic location of the fitting as taught by Cunningham that would facilitate identifying interest regions where the focused visual inspection, i.e., anomaly “leak” might be required (Cunningham [0033]).
As per Claim 9, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Sadovnychiy does not teach wherein the display in a graphical user interface displays information about fittings when it is determined that the infiltration exceeds a threshold infiltration threshold. Cunningham teaches the display in a graphical user interface displays information about fittings when it is determined that the infiltration exceeds a threshold infiltration threshold (Fig 12: 12:5-6 show displaying in GUI a result of detected failure “leak” and captured user interaction considered infiltration exceeds a threshold, [0015], where spill or leak occurred based on the image data received [0178], and Fig 1 displayed the area of valve 7, fitting 4, and joint 5 most likely causing a leak [0124], [0177]-[0178]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Sadovnychiy to displaying in GUI the leak includes the area of the fitting location as taught by Cunningham that would facilitate identifying interest regions where the focused visual inspection, i.e., anomaly “leak” might be required (Cunningham [0033]).
8. Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham and further US 2021/0173396 of Zhang et al., hereinafter Zhang.
As per Claims 2 and 13, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham teaches the computer-implemented method and CRM of claims 1 and 12, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham does not teach comprising: flying the source into proximity of the fitting, wherein the source is a drone. Zhang teaches flying the source into proximity of the fitting, wherein the source is a drone (Fig 43 shows an “aerial system”, i.e., a “drone” integrated with cameras [0045], controlling aerial system to move “fly” to a designated position [0007]. It is noted a designated position can represent a fitting). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sadovnychiy and Cunningham having an aerial system to be moved to a designated position as taught by Zhang that would facilitate identifying and tracking the imaging target (Zhang [0147]).
9. Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham and further US 2003/0217585 of Duncan.
As per Claims 5 and 16, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham teaches the computer-implemented method and CRM of claims 1 and 12, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham does not explicitly teach wherein the foreign matter is water and the fitting is a moisture-sensitive fitting that changes colors based on a level of exposure to the water. Duncan teaches the foreign matter is water and the fitting is a moisture-sensitive fitting that changes colors based on a level of exposure to the water (a visual indicator of humidity included a viewing such as a sight glass for detecting moisture considered “moisture-sensitive fitting, see Abstract, the humidity indicator that changes color after absorbing “moisture” (considered water) exceed [0020], [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sadovnychiy and Cunningham having a moisture-sensitive fitting to detect moisture as taught by Duncan that would facilitate absorbing moisture, thus producing an indication at different humidity levels (Duncan [0024]).
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham and further US patent 9,568,392 of Peleg et al., hereinafter Peleg.
As per Claim 10, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Sadovnychiy teaches comprising: storing, in response to generating the infiltration information, historical data for areas corresponding to fittings inspected by sources at remote locations (a geographic position of the pipeline previous uploaded and using GPS coordinates to locate the place where a leak occurred [0086], [0045], digital maps of leak points previous uploaded into database, see Claim 15); and determining the stored infiltration information, critical locations for which inspection is to be performed regularly (regulations required for its operation in high-risk areas [0045] considered regulations require pipeline operators to conduct regular, periodic inspections of pipelines located in high-risk leak “critical” area).
Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham does not teach storing water infiltration accumulation areas corresponding to fittings inspected, and determining critical location using machine learning. Peleg teaches historical data for infiltration of water accumulation areas (an accumulated a total water loss since the leak began and stored in database 208, see col 12 lines 27-42, col 19 lines 37-42) corresponding to fittings inspected (water monitoring network includes pipes and network devices such as :pressure-reducing valves” considered “fitting” having leak events, col 3 lines 1-6 and 18-22), and machine learning (predictor using machine learning, see col 9 line 65 to col 10 line 14, col 3 lines 1-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sadovnychiy and Cunningham having water leak accumulated and using machine learning as taught by Peleg that would identify water network events including leakage events and providing event decision and classification of machine learning for accumulating total water loss (Peleg, col 3 lines 18-20 and 12 lines 25-31).
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham, Peleg, and further US2023/0273629 of Papaleo et al., “Papaleo”, EP 3729146A1 of Elkabetz et al., “Elkabetz”, and CN 113759972 A of Wang.
As per Claim 11, Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham and Peleg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10, Sadovnychiy teaches for inspection of fittings in the critical locations (“connections in a section AD of the pipe” to be inspected considered fittings [0050], location of leaks and intrusion into the pipeline [0049], using GPS coordinates to locate the place where a product leak event takes place considered a critical location when a leak involves, i.e., oil and gas [0086]). Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham and Peleg does not teach further comprising: receiving weather forecast information in one or more of the critical locations; linking the stored infiltration information to the weather forecast information; determining, using the weather forecast information, an occurrence of a weather event in the critical locations; and dispatching at least one source to the critical locations. Papaleo teaches receiving weather forecast information in one or more of the critical locations; linking the stored infiltration information to the weather forecast information (receive weather forecast data and possible leakage data on leakage in the water distribution network [0064], [0036], [0081]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sadovnychiy, Cunningham, and Peleg having weather forecasting and pipe leaking as taught by Papaleo that would facilitate predict forecasting weather and possible critical leakage in water distribution to be able to determine and change the current position of the water flow regulating valve from the closed position (Papaleo [0069]).
Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham, Peleg, and Papaleo does not teach determining, using the weather forecast information, an occurrence of a weather event in the critical locations. Elkabetz teaches determining, using the weather forecast information, an occurrence of a weather event in the critical locations (receiving forecast weather [0039], forecasting a thunderstorm moving across a geographic area, page 15, para 2). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sadovnychiy, Cunningham, Peleg, and Papaleo to determining a thunderstorm event as taught by Elkabetz that would facilitate by determining current weather and predicting weather based on real-time (Elkabetz, page 3, [0004]).
Sadovnychiy in view of Cunningham, Peleg, Papaleo, and Elbetz does not teach
dispatching at least one source to the critical locations for inspection. Wang teaches dispatching at least one source to the critical locations for inspection (oil gas pipeline area which is affected by disaster S1, dispatching a patrol inspecting vehicle to disaster area S2-S3, page 3). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sadovnychiy, Cunningham, Peleg, Papaleo, and Elbetz to dispatching a patrol to a disaster area as taught by Wang that would be able to exam the area when severe weather and unforeseen pipeline leakage (Wang, page 6, para 2 of background section).
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US9010356 od Adler et al (Fluid spill containment, location, and real time notification device with acoustic based sensor); US2020/0258369 of Davis et al (Fluid leak detection methods, systems and apparatus); US2013/0037129 of Murphy (Integral Fluid Detection and Containment Apparatus); US2021/0018393 of Downey (Fluid leakage control apparatus, system and method); US2007/0157705 of Bilstad et al (Leak detection system with addressable sensors); and US patent 5343191 of McAtamney et al (Pipeline leak detection system).
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM-6 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857