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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed 11/26/2026 includes changes to the claims, remarks and arguments related to the previous rejection. The above have been entered and considered. Claims 1, 5, 7 & 9-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the drawing objection:
Applicant has amended and entered a replacement to Figure 4, which resolves the objection to the quality of the image of Figure 4. The drawing objection is withdrawn and the drawings are accepted.
With regard to the 101 rejection:
Applicant’s argument regarding the abstract concept as similar to two cases found to have eligible subject matter is not persuasive.
With regard to the Applicant’s Claims as similar to the claims in CardzoNet LLC v. InfoBzonc, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020), there is distinction of eligible subject matter present in the CardzoNet’s patent (US 7941207) not present in Applicant’s claimed invention. CardzoNet claims a cardiac particular measurement device with cardiac measured properties (e.g. a beat detector to identify a beat-to-beat timing of cardiac activity and a ventricular beat detector to identify ventricular beats). Applicant claims 1, 5, 7 & 10-16 do not cite particular sensors or measuring particular properties but instead collects generalized field data of pipelines and performs mathematical based processing to determine a condition of the pipelines. In the second recited case US 12152960, again particular measurements of acceleration and power are measured to determine whether the reduction gear indicates a sign of failure based on a change in frequency spectrum of one of load current of the motor and a current value having a correlation with the motor current with respect to a change in a rotation speed of the motor during the acceleration/deceleration period.
Applicant’s case while disparate to the argued case law is instead similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., Alstom Patent Nos. 7,233,843, 8,060,259 and 8,401,710 where the courts held Electric Power had in its claims a critical difference between patenting a particular concrete solution to a problem and attempting to patent the abstract idea of a solution to the problem in general and where the courts hypothetically stated that if the claims were recast to include specific enabling technology unique to the “context of electric power grids”, perhaps the claims could be rendered patent-eligible. In Applicant’s claims only Claim 9 recites a leak detection by processing at least one of a pressure, volumetric flow and specific mass flow measurements, at a beginning and end of the pipeline and locates the position of the leak by processing a negative pressure measurement at an inlet or outlet. These particular sensors and measurements for the pipeline would if claimed in Claim 1 would provide a subject eligible technological solution. Since claim 1 does not present the pipeline particular parameters to the pipelines technological solution, the 101 rejection of the Claims 1, 5, 7 & 10-16 (e.g. excluding Claim 9) is maintained.
With regard to the claim objections:
Applicant has amended Claims 1 & 3 to correct the grammar informalities. The claim objections are withdrawn.
With regard to the 112(a) rejection:
Applicant has amended claim to align the scope of observation of a condition to the disclosed observation of leakage in pipelines. The 112(a) rejection of the claims related to the scope of observation is withdrawn. Regarding the scope of the sensors and measurement related to field data the rejection is not argued by the applicant and the 112(a) is maintained.
With regard to the 112(b) rejection:
Applicant has amended Claim 1 to resolve the clarity of the claimed system elements by rolling up elements in Claims 2-4. The 112b rejection of the claims regarding the clarity of the overall system measuring elements associated with a pipeline is withdrawn.
Claim 1 Applicant has not amended the claim to provide the structure to perform the claimed processing such as a processor or computer configured to support the claimed software processes. No arguments are provided regarding the rejection. The 112b rejection of Claim 1 is maintained.
Claims 2-4, 6 & 8 are canceled and the 112b rejection is thereby moot.
Claim 7 is amended to remove the particular geographic locations (e.g. Guararema and Guarulhos). The 112b rejection of Claim 7 is withdrawn.
Claims 7 & 9 are amended to remove the “python program”. The 112(b) rejection regarding the implementation of the python program is withdrawn.
Claim 9 is amended to cancel the ambiguous step 10 cites an “agglomeration of nearby alarms”. The 112(b) rejection regarding step 10 is withdrawn.
Claim 10 is amended to remove the partial description of a Particle Filter method. Claiming a system uses a Particle Filter method without context to the system or the observation processing is indefinite. The 112(b) rejection is maintained.
Claims 1, 5, 7 & 9-16 are amended, where the element undergoing leak detection and observation is a pipeline. The 112(b) rejection of the claims regarding the observed element is withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejection:
Applicant has amended Claim 1 to roll-up the limitations of Claims 2-4 and add new limitations that require additional search and consideration.
wherein detecting the leak in the pipeline comprises at least one of: performing hypothesis tests on the error compensated field data to detect events that characterize leaks in the pipeline, using a trained neural network to estimate probability of leaks based on indicators associated with the error compensated field data, and observing statistical behavior of the error compensated field data and comparing it to normal behavior without expected leaks; locate the leak in the pipeline, wherein locating the leak in the pipeline comprises at least one of: comparing simulator generated field data for a variety of leak positions distributed along the pipeline with the error compensated field data from the detected leak, using a trained neural network, and measuring arrival time of a negative pressure wave created by the leak: and display the location of the leak in the pipeline on the graphical user interface.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments with regard to Claims 1, 5, 7 & 9-15 and new claim 16 have been considered in light of the previous references. The arguments and amended claims do not overcome the prior art at the time of the filing of the invention. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new combination of the new references of Abhulimen and Gao.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5, 7 & 10-16 (note: claim 9 is not listed as it contains eligible subject matter) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more in the claims than the abstract idea itself (See MPEP 2106 (I)). These Claims are directed to an abstract idea, which have been found ineligible by judicial exception under Supreme Court Cases including Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 2368 (2014)[hereinafter “Alice Corp.”] and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 56/826 U. S. (2012) [hereinafter “Mayo”]. The Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as addressed below. The 35 USC 101 analysis below is based on the guidance found in the Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74718-74733 (the “Guidance”). The Guidance analysis is threefold and found in the flow chart shown at 74721 of the Guidance. First, determine if the claim belongs to a valid statutory class (Step 1 of the Guidance). Second, identify if the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A of the Guidance; Part/Step 1 of the Mayo Test). Third, determine whether the claim contains something significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B of the Guidance; Part/Step 1 of the Mayo Test).
Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (MPEP 2106.03)
Applied to the present application, under step 1 of the Guidance analysis, the Claims belong to the statutory class of a machine.
Eligibility Step 2a: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception (MPEP 2106.04)
However, in step 2A of the Guidance analysis (Part/Step 1 of the Mayo test), the claims recite an abstract idea that is subject to a judicial exception. Claims 1, 5, 7 & 10-16 pertain to a judicial exception such as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Concepts The Courts Have Identified As Abstract Ideas. With regard to the instant case the following abstract applies:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) "AN IDEA 'OF ITSELF'"
This exclusion has recently been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the Alice Corp. decision. Recent Federal Circuit cases have further found that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis are directed to a composite of abstract ideas under step 2A of the guidance (Part/Step 1 of the Mayo test). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas--the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In Electric Power Group, the Federal Circuit explained that concepts of collecting and analyzing information fall within the "realm of abstract ideas" because information is intangible.
With regard to the instant case and as cited in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(b) "AN IDEA 'OF ITSELF'" the following similar cases to Applicant’s claimed invention are also directed to organizing, collecting, monitoring, comparing and analyzing data:
collecting, displaying, and manipulating data, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340, 121 USPQ2d 1940, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
creating an index, and using that index to search for and retrieve data, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
organizing information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350-51, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
And the additional non-precedential case cited in the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance of court decisions dated March 14, 2018.
collecting, organizing and analyzing sensor data, TDE Petroleum Data Solutions v. AKM Enterprise, 555 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(IV). “MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIPS/FORMULAS”
The phrase "mathematical relationships/formulas" is used to describe mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations. The courts have used the term "algorithm" to refer to both mathematical procedures and mathematical formulas, including: procedures for converting data.
With regard to the instant case and as cited in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(IV) " MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIPS/FORMULAS " the following similar cases to Applicant’s claimed invention are also directed to comparing and correlating data using mathematical relationships:
identifying a concept relating to a mathematical relationship or formula as a judicial exception is Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981).
correlating data using existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical formulas, and organizing this information into a new form Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 USPQ2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
an algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary, Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674;
a formula for computing an alarm limit, Flook, 437 U.S. at 585, 198 USPQ at 195;
a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 599, 95 USPQ2d at 1004-05.
an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 836, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1825 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
calculating the difference between local and average data values, In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 903, 214 USPQ 682, 683-84 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding Applicant's claimed invention:
Claims 1, 5, 7 & 10-16 are product claims directed to the abstract concept of estimating probability of leaks based on indicators associated with the error compensated field data.
Claim 1 recites a listing of generic elements for collecting and organizing field data in support of estimating a probability of pipeline leaks using statistical math models, modeling, simulating, mathematical correction and display directed to an idea of itself and mathematically correlating the measured or referenced parameters similar to the abstract concepts or a composite of abstract ideas of one or more of the cases set forth above and with particular similarity to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and collecting, organizing and analyzing sensor data, TDE Petroleum Data Solutions v. AKM Enterprise, 555 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More (MPEP 2106.05)
In the analysis of step 3 of the Guidance (Part/Step 2 of Mayo), the Claims when analyzed as a whole do not recite elements "significantly more" than just the abstract idea itself, and are comparable to items discussed in the cases mentioned above or are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the relevant art without providing elements or steps directed to the following guidance of significantly more:
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field
2106.05(b) Particular Machine
2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment
For Applicant’s invention, the recitation of:
Claim 1 recites graphical user interface, measurement sensors and a sensor communication module which are all generic hardware used in combination and on their own to collect, organize and view data without special arrangement or combination for use in mathematically correlating the determination of leakage in a pipeline.
The recitation of concrete steps:
perform error compensation of the field data detect a leak in the pipeline from the error compensated field data (mathematical computation).
receive field data from measurement sensors of a pipeline receive field data from measurement sensors of a pipeline (collecting data in support of mathematical computation).
performing hypothesis tests on the error compensated field data to detect events that characterize leaks in the pipeline (mathematical computation).
using a trained neural network to estimate probability of leaks based on indicators associated with the error compensated field data (mathematical computation).
observing statistical behavior of the error compensated field data and comparing it to normal behavior without expected leaks (mathematical computation).
comparing simulator generated field data for a variety of leak positions distributed along the pipeline with the error compensated field data from the detected leak, using a trained neural network (organizing data in support of mathematical computation).
measuring arrival time of a negative pressure wave created by the leak (collecting data in support of mathematical computation).
display the location of the leak in the pipeline on the graphical user interface (organizing data in support of mathematical computation results).
The elements to collect, compare and analyze the data are not significantly more than Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claims 5, 7 & 10-16 simply expand the abstract idea of Claim 1 and does not add significantly more by adding pre-solution data gathering steps and additional computational steps to be used in the abstract concept.
Claims 7 & 15 add the element of a pipeline as the observed element with no special arrangement to the sensors, GUI or communication module. The added element of a pipeline for observation of a condition further defines the abstract observation to an established element at a broad sector level.
Claims 1, 5, 7 & 10-16 as a whole do not confine the claims to a particular useful application of the abstract idea, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105.05(II)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 7 recites the limitation “recording corrected measurements comprising volumetric flow, mass flow, and pressure”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP § 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, the USPTO suggests the following approach in this situation. The examiner suggests that claim 13 should recite "a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code stored…" A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "recording to a non-transitory memory" to the claim.
Specification Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract cites “the invention has the following components” which is limiting as the claims relate to a system directed mainly to processing the measurements of the sensors. Applicant should relate the improvement to leakage determination in a pipeline in generalized terms. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 & 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since the claims are enabling for measuring sensors of [0010: The present invention provides the use of usual operational sensors of pressure, temperature, flow and specific mass already installed and available in oil and gas pipelines and methods of statistical inference] the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for all measuring sensors used for observation.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the scope of enablement requirement. There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement. In this case, the relevant Wand factors Examiner has considered:
2164.01(a) Undue Experimentation Factors [R-01.2024]
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Claim 1 therefore recites subject matter directed to the broadest level of a concept of system observation with any measurement sensor providing the claimed field data. The disclosure provides fluid dynamic measuring sensors for pressure, temperature, volumetric flow and mass flow [Abstract] [0010] available in oil and gas pipelines and processing of the particular fluid dynamic data for determining leaks in pipelines. In Applicant' s case the breadth of the claims extends beyond the disclosure of measuring sensors for pressure, temperature, volumetric flow and mass flow to provide data for a leak determination in a pipeline.
Applicant cites using established installed sensors as the state of the art [0010]. The disclosure does not provide additional working examples or indication of any other type of testing the inventor has reduced to practice at the time of the filling of the application beyond the enabled measuring sensors for pressure, temperature, volumetric flow and mass flow. Absence of disclosure the claimed all measuring sensors known and to be provided in the future to include undisclosed measurements of i.e. chemical, conductive or magnetic properties of the fluid, places on the public the entire quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the full scope of Claim 1 and over reaches the disclosed fluid dynamic measuring sensors for leakage detection in pipelines.
Consistent with office policy, Examiner has weighed all the evidence for and against enablement of this invention and has concluded based on guidance provided by the MPEP and case law (including the Wands factors) that there is not enough evidence in favor of the scope of the enablement of this invention.
Applicant may submit factual affidavits under 37 CFR 1.132 or cite references to show what one skilled in the art knew at the time of filing the application. A declaration or affidavit is, itself, evidence that must be considered. The weight to give a declaration or affidavit will depend upon the amount of factual evidence the declaration or affidavit contains to support the conclusion of enablement. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“expert' s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement”); cf. In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1174, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (declarations relating to the written description requirement should have been considered)”.
2) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7 & 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is a product claim that cites software processing modules: statistical tools (2) for compensation of measurement and model uncertainties, automatic leak detection techniques (3), leak locator (4) and flow simulator (7). The product claim should recite the structure to support the processing such as a processor or computer configured to support the software processes.
Claim 10 claims a Particle Filter method without context to the claimed system. It seems the Particle filter method is at least part of the error compensation of the field data [0070] cited in Claim 1. Reference should be made as how the method relates to the claimed elements of Claim 1.
All dependent claims are rejected for their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 7 & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhulimen (US 20120317058; “Abhulimen”) in view of Gao (CN 113217823: “Gao” translation provided for citations).
Claim 1. Abhulimen discloses an observation system (Fig. 11)[Abstract], characterized by comprising: sensor communication module (Fig. 11: remote terminal unit RTU ) configured to receive field data from measurement sensors [0075: A sensor measures operational and design variability of the systems and sub-systems in the hierarchy and provides sensor data output. A memory device stores a database][0541] of a pipeline (Fig. 11: sensor at pipeline)[0067: The apparatus includes a plant having a pipeline layout design for transporting petroleum products]; a graphical user interface ()[0458: PROCESS Gate Simulator provides for the pictorial representation or graphical display of the PROCESS system] wherein the system (Fig. 11) is configured to perform error compensation of the field data [0476: Inputs: Inputs to fault Track simulator are the outputs from Flow Monitor, Flow Simulator and the Threshold Simulator which are basically pressure and velocity from different nodes, analyses Process System network segments and error correction values respectively] [0558-0561] detect a leak in the pipeline from the error compensated field data [0774], wherein detecting the leak in the pipeline comprises at least one of: performing hypothesis tests on the error compensated field data to detect events that characterize leaks in the pipeline [0114: A bowtie diagram is a three part graphical representation for describing and assessing risk. The first part is a fault tree, the middle is a hazard and the last part is an event tree (e.g. hypothesis)] (Fig. 21E-F: mechanical faults and leaks) [0399][0710] using a trained neural network to estimate probability of leaks based on indicators associated with the error compensated field data [0862], and observing statistical behavior of the error compensated field data [0774] and comparing it to normal behavior without expected leaks [0863: incorporating alarm voice and fax modes codes into the computer program source codes, for each variation from normal case, indicating leak detected for each of the coverage tasks to produce an instrumented program]; locate the leak in the pipeline [0588] & [1030: the probability and statistical matrix which determine the location of faults in the Process Systems location simulator determines the location of faults in the Process System], wherein locating the leak in the pipeline comprises at least one of: comparing simulator generated field data for a variety of leak positions distributed along the pipeline with the error compensated field data from the detected leak [0588] & [1030: the probability and statistical matrix which determine the location of faults in the Process Systems location simulator determines the location of faults in the Process System], using a trained neural network [0588] & [1030: the probability and statistical matrix which determine the location of faults in the Process Systems location simulator determines the location of faults in the Process System], and display the location of the leak in the pipeline on the graphical user interface [0868: The invention provides for a graphical user host and user computer system… reporting risk events and safety status, such as leak occurrence, size and location, inventory loss, assessment and risk to immediate environment, in voice, fax and virtual format]. Abhulimen, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
Location of a leak using a measuring arrival time of a negative pressure wave created by the leak.
Gao teaches precise location and quantitative early warning of leaks and minor leaks during in-situ pipeline retrofitting, an online precise location and in-situ timed quantitative pipeline integrity inspection and early warning system for aviation kerosene pipeline leak detection has been develope [0003]. Zhang further teaches location of a leak using a measuring arrival time of a negative pressure wave created by the leak [0009-0010: The existing data acquisition and monitoring control system obtains parameters such as pressure, flow rate, temperature, and density of the pipeline transport medium, and corrects the propagation speed of negative pressure waves or sound waves].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gao’s leak location processing of negative pressure with Abhulimen’s leak detection processing because the negative pressure improves leak detection by indicating a leak is and provides a measurable return signal for determining leak location [Gao 0010].
Claim 5. Dependent on the system according to claim 1. Abhulimen further discloses detection of the leak actuates locating the leak for the location in space and time of the leak [0475: The fault track works with various inputs from the RISK SIMULATOR, hazard MONITOR and THRESHOLD SIMULATOR to compute the Eigen values for velocity distance, time for various fault factors and does a pattern match to determine the event of a fault or no fault and the size and location of a fault] & [0572: The FAULTTRACK subsystem shall use the Explicit/Implicit difference method to model flow for unsteady state to evaluate velocity, pressure, mass rate for each space node J and time grid K].
Claim 7. Dependent on the system of claim 1. Abhulimen further discloses the system is configured to perform a method comprising: reading measurements from a database [0504] for the user-specified period of time [0076]; filling in missing data due to a deadband correcting measurements [0559] with systematic and recording corrected measurements comprising volumetric flow, mass flow, and pressure [0614].
Claim 15. Dependent on the system of claim 1. Abhulimen, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
locating the leak in the pipeline uses the negative pressure wave, wherein an arrival time of the negative pressure wave, or a rarefaction time, created by an opening of the leak along the pipeline is measured.
Gao teaches precise location and quantitative early warning of leaks and minor leaks during in-situ pipeline retrofitting, an online precise location and in-situ timed quantitative pipeline integrity inspection and early warning system for aviation kerosene pipeline leak detection has been develope [0003]. Gao further teaches locating the leak in the pipeline uses the negative pressure wave, wherein an arrival time of the negative pressure wave, or a rarefaction time, created by an opening of the leak along the pipeline is measured [0010: To accurately determine the time difference of the negative pressure wave propagating to the pressure sensors of the upstream and downstream stations, the starting time of the data segment retrieved for analysis must be consistent, which means that the system time of the computers at the upstream and downstream stations must be consistent.
Therefore, it is necessary to use the existing BeiDou satellite positioning system to keep the system time of the computers at each station synchronized] & [0015].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gao’s leak location processing of negative pressure with Abhulimen’s leak detection processing because the negative pressure improves leak detection by indicating a leak is and provides a measurable return signal for determining leak location [Gao 0010].
Claim 16. Dependent on the system of claim 7. Abhulimen further discloses the database includes historical and/or real time data [0068: The apparatus further includes a history of Curve Failure data stored within the database that uses real time measurements from the sensor over a specified period of time].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhulimen in view of Gao and in further view of Ichihara (JP 2001235358: “Ichihara” translation provided for citations).
Claim 9. Dependent on the system of claim 1. Abhulimen, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
the system is configured to import pressure, volumetric flow and specific mass flow measurements, at a beginning and end of the pipeline, for a selected period; determine if the pipeline is stopped using the volumetric flow; determining if there is a difference between volumetric flow and mass flow between the beginning and end of the pipeline.
Ichihara teaches the system is configured to import pressure, volumetric flow and specific mass flow measurements (7 two phase flow meter)[0006], at a beginning and end of the pipeline (Fig.1 with differential measurement config on pipe), for a selected period; determine if the pipeline is stopped using the volumetric flow [0005] determining if there is a difference between volumetric flow and mass flow between the beginning and end of the pipeline [0005].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ichihara’s differential flow and pressure measurements to identify a pipeline blockage with Abhulimen’s pipeline fluid monitoring because the differential pressure, mass flow and volumetric flow improves early indication of a blockage in a pipe with a multiphase fluid with cost efficient pressure and flow meters [Ichihara 0007].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhulimen in view of Gao and in further view of Chen (CN 109611696: “Chen” translation provided for citations).
Claim 10. Dependent on the system according to claim 1. Abhulimen, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
the system is configured to use a Particle Filter method.
Chen teaches an invention requires fewer sensors, takes a short time to detect leaks, and has high positioning accuracy; it can detect and locate slow leaks and small leaks in long-distance oil pipelines; and it has good real-time performance and large-scale application prospects [0008]. Chen further teaches the system is configured to use a Particle Filter method [0017: according to the state space equation obtained in step S2, the particle filter and the preliminary leakage amount are initialized, … is less than a preset threshold value is found, and the leakage amount, leakage coefficient and preliminary leakage position of the pipeline to be tested are obtained].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Chen’s particle filter method for determining a leak location by adjusting for the density probabilities with Abhulimen’s, as modified, processing for leak location because determining density value changes from a leak location improves leak detection as measurable changes occur to density from the leak location.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhulimen in view of Gao and in further view of He (CN 113586968: “He” translation provided for citations).
Claim 11. Dependent on the system according to claim 1. Abhulimen further discloses a Abhulimen, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
locating the leak in the pipeline uses a Monte Carlo Method with Markov Chains (MCMC) within a Bayesian approach and using a Method of Characteristics (MOC).
He teaches when it is determined that there is a leak in the pipeline to be tested, the negative pressure wave method is used to locate the leak point [0102]. He further teaches in the leak location step, it uses the Monte Carlo Method with Markov Chains (MCMC)[0062: As an optional embodiment, the method further includes: performing MCMC (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) sampling on the probability p<sub>i</sub>, and performing leakage source detection based on the sampled probability value] within a Bayesian approach [0063: This embodiment provides a technical solution for optimizing the probability pi. The probability pi belongs to the posterior distribution, which is an analytical solution obtained in relatively simple or special cases, which requires reasonable sampling of the posterior distribution. The MCMC sampling method is a simple and effective Bayesian computing method developed in recent years] and uses the Method of Characteristics (MOC)[0078: the device further includes an MCMC sampling module, which is used to perform MCMC sampling on the probability p<sub>i</sub>, and perform leakage source detection based on the sampled probability value ---e.g. The key advantage of MCMC-MOC is that it directly samples from the true, but unknown, probability distribution of the system's state at a given time].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use He’s Bayesian processing with MonteCarlo methods using Markov chains (MCMC) and solving probability distributions (MCMC-MOC) with Abhulimen’s , as modified, Bayesian leak detection processing because the (MCMC-MOC) method of leak location detection is the method improves location identification with direct samples from the true, but unknown, probability distribution of the system's state at a given time [He 0032].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhulimen in view of Gao and in further view of Ma (CN 108488638: “Ma” translation provided for citations).
Claim 12. Dependent on the system according to claim 1. Sugay, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
locating the leak in the pipeline uses a method of Maximum a Posteror.
Ma teaches making more accurate judgments on leakage of small flows, and locating leakage points more accurately [0008]. Ma further teaches the method of Maximum a Posterior [0231: Among them, J is the maximum scoring parameter, p is an arbitrary constant not equal to 0, and P is the load Matrix], in the leak location step [0237].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ma’s location processing including a step maximum a posterior with Abhulimen’s, as modified, leak location processing because a maximum a posterior improves the Bayesian model by reducing outliers which stabilizes and de- sensitizes the model from outliers or fluctuations in the data model.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhulimen in view of Gao and in further view of Qiao (CN 109000158: “Qiao” translation provided for citations).
Claim 13. Dependent on the system of claim 1. Abhulimen further discloses fault probabilities using Neural Networks with physical information [0077, 0124 & 0159] but Abhulimen, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
locating the leak in the pipeline uses Neural Networks with Physical Information
Qiao teaches a probabilistic neural network models are artificial neural networks (ANN) built upon the principles of probability theory to accurately locate pipeline leaks [0101-0102].
Qiao further teaches locating the leak in the pipeline uses Neural Networks with Physical Information [0109: This invention utilizes a probabilistic neural network model to qualitatively determine whether there is leakage in a pipeline network. Based on identifying the type of fault in the leaking pipeline, and in conjunction with existing instruments and equipment and a hydraulic model of the pipeline network, the location of the leakage can be located].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Qiao’s pipeline neural network model processing of a leak location processing of negative pressure with Abhulimen’s leak detection processing because the neural network processing model improves the reliability of leak processing by identifying the type of fault in the leaking pipeline in conjunction with existing instruments and correlates the data with a hydraulic model of the pipeline network [Qiao 0109].
Claim 14. Dependent on the system of claim 1. Abhulimen further discloses the determining of a failure uses Artificial Intelligence [00273]. Abhulimen, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
the locating the leak in the pipeline uses Artificial Intelligence by neural network
Qiao teaches a probabilistic neural network models are artificial neural networks (ANN) built upon the principles of probability theory to accurately locate pipeline leaks [0101-0102].
Qiao further teaches locating the leak in the pipeline uses Neural Networks with Physical Information [0109: This invention utilizes a probabilistic neural network model to qualitatively determine whether there is leakage in a pipeline network. Based on identifying the type of fault in the leaking pipeline, and in conjunction with existing instruments and equipment and a hydraulic model of the pipeline network, the location of the leakage can be located].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Qiao’s pipeline neural network model processing of a leak location processing of negative pressure with Abhulimen’s leak detection processing because the neural network processing model improves the reliability of leak processing by identifying the type of fault in the leaking pipeline in conjunction with existing instruments and correlates the data with a hydraulic model of the pipeline network [Qiao 0109].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Monica S Young whose telephone number is (303)297-4785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-05:30 MST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-273-2375. 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.
/MONICA S YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855