DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 3, 10-11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "wherein the user data can include information/data identifying corrosion mitigation methodologies that are used by an operator for pipeline corrosion reduction and pipeline operational conditions" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the quoted limitation is part of the claimed invention. It is further unclear whether the term “information/data” is referring to the same element of the claim or two different elements. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the decrease". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 previously recites determining “whether the corrosion deviation amount decreased by a threshold”. There is not a previous recitation of “a decrease in corrosion deviation amount” and whether the corrosion deviation amount decreased is recited conditionally.
Claim 10 also recites “a threshold”. It is unclear whether this is referring to the same threshold recited in claim 9 or to a different threshold.
Claim 18 recites the same limitations as claim 10 and has the same deficiencies.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected due to their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER (US 2019/0346338 A1) in view of PONSTINGL (US 2005/0135546 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, MEYER teaches a method comprising: computing, by one or more processors, a failure probability representative of a likelihood of a pipeline corrosion failure; computing, by the one or more processors, a consequence level representative of a consequence from the pipeline corrosion failure; (¶ 25: A “probability of failure rank” and a “failure consequence rank” are calculated for a structural component, which are equivalent to the claimed “failure probability” and “consequence level”. The structural component is a pipeline; see ¶ 20 and 26. The failure probability is at least partially representative of a likelihood of failure due to corrosion since the criteria used to determine the probability are determined from the National Association of Corrosion Engineers and corrosion inhibitors is one of the factors; see ¶ 21. Figs. 2D-E also list factors related to corrosion for determining the failure probability.)
generating, by the one or more processors, a risk matrix; (¶ 26, Fig. 3: A risk matrix (i.e. matrix 301) is generated using the failure probabilities and consequence levels.)
and addressing a pipeline based on…using the risk matrix based on the failure probability and consequence level; (¶ 30: Based on the risk matrix generated from the failure probabilities and consequence levels, the pipeline is inspected, repaired, or replaced.)
MEYER does not teach identifying, by the one or more processors, an inhibitor concentration… and computing, by the one or more processors, a dosage of a corrosion inhibitor for mitigating corrosion of a pipeline based on at least the inhibitor concentration.
However, PONSTINGL, which is directed to determining an optimum level of chemicals to reduce corrosion in a pipeline, teaches identifying, by the one or more processors, an inhibitor concentration… and computing, by the one or more processors, a dosage of a corrosion inhibitor for mitigating corrosion of a pipeline based on at least the inhibitor concentration. (¶ 49-50: A corrosion monitoring system determines a level of corrosion, and based on the level, a controller adjusts the amount of chemical inhibitors used to reduce the corrosion level. The concentration and dosage of the inhibitor chemicals is therefore based on the severity of the corrosion.)
In view of MEYER, it would have been obvious for the quantity of chemical inhibitors to be based on the calculated risk level of the pipeline. MEYER in view of PONSTINGL therefore teaches identifying, by the one or more processors, an inhibitor concentration using the risk matrix based on the failure probability and consequence level.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the repair action determined from a risk matrix for a pipeline taught by MEYER by using the risk level to determine a concentration and dosage of an inhibitor as suggested by PONSTINGL. Since the references are similarly directed to monitoring and maintenance operations for a pipeline, the combination would have yielded predictable results. MEYER at least suggests that corrosion inhibitors are used to reduce the probability of failure of a pipeline (¶ 21) and that the risk matrix is used to determine a maintenance action (¶ 30). PONSTINGL (¶ 9, 11) also suggests reducing an amount of corrosion in a cost-effective way using the minimum amount of chemical additives (¶ 9, 11) and increasing the amount of chemicals if needed to prevent a possible failure (¶ 49). The combination of their teachings would have therefore yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, MEYER in view of PONSTINGL further teaches wherein the failure probability is computed based on a probability factors table and a probability ranking table, (MEYER, ¶ 21, 24-25, Figs. 2B-H: A table of failure probability factors is accessed, which includes weights for each factor. The probability of failure for each structural component is ranked.)
and the consequence level is computed based on a consequence factors table and a consequence ranking table. (MEYER, ¶ 21, 24-25, Figs. 2A: A table of consequence level factors is accessed, which includes weights for each factor. The consequence of failure for each structural component is ranked.)
Regarding Claim 3, MEYER in view of PONSTINGL further teaches further comprising: receiving or retrieving, by the one or more processors, sensor data, wherein the sensor data includes a number of measurements from sensors distributed or located on the pipeline for measuring physical changes with respect to the pipeline that contribute to or cause corrosion of the pipeline; (
MEYER, ¶ 29: Mechanical devices called pigs are used to inspect the integrity of the pipeline using cameras or magnetic or ultrasonic measurements.
PONSTINGL, ¶ 43, 71: A sensor is used to measure an amount of corrosion in a pipeline.)
and receiving or retrieving, by the one or more processors, user data, wherein the user data can include information/data identifying corrosion mitigation methodologies that are used by an operator for pipeline corrosion reduction and pipeline operational conditions, and consequences from corrosive effects on the pipeline, (MEYER, ¶ 20-21, Figs. 2A-2H: User data is retrieved that includes historical information as well as standards from different agencies regarding mitigation methodologies (including using inhibitors), pipeline operational conditions, and consequences from corrosive effects (See Figs. 2A and 2D-E, in particular.))
and wherein the probability ranking table is computed based on the sensor and user data, and the consequence ranking table can be computed based on the user data. (MEYER, ¶ 24-25, 29: The consequence level rankings are determined from the factors shown in Fig. 2A obtained from the user data. The probability rankings are determined from the user data as well as sensors, as discussed in ¶ 29.)
Regarding Claim 12, MEYER teaches a system comprising: memory to store machine-readable instructions and data, the data comprising a probability factors table, a probability ranking table, a consequence factors table and a consequence ranking table; (¶ 21, 24-25, Figs. 2B-H: A table of failure probability factors is accessed, which includes weights for each factor. The probability of failure for each structural component is ranked. Figs. 2A: A table of consequence level factors is accessed, which includes weights for each factor. The consequence of failure for each structural component is ranked.)
one or more processors operable to access the memory and execute the machine-readable instructions, the machine-readable instructions comprising a corrosion inhibitor optimizer that includes: a failure probability and consequence calculator programmed to: compute a failure probability representative of a likelihood of a pipeline corrosion failure based on the probability factors table and the probability ranking table; compute a consequence level representative of a consequence from the pipeline corrosion failure based on the consequence factors table and the consequence ranking table; (¶ 25: A “probability of failure rank” and a “failure consequence rank” are calculated for a structural component, which are equivalent to the claimed “failure probability” and “consequence level”. The structural component is a pipeline; see ¶ 20 and 26. The failure probability is at least partially representative of a likelihood of failure due to corrosion since the criteria used to determine the probability are determined from the National Association of Corrosion Engineers and corrosion inhibitors is one of the factors; see ¶ 21. Figs. 2D-E also list factors related to corrosion for determining the failure probability. The probability and consequence level are determined from the probability factors tables and ranking as discussed in ¶ 21 and 24.)
a concentration engine programmed to identify a risk level using a risk matrix… (¶ 26, Fig. 3: A risk matrix (i.e. matrix 301) is generated using the failure probabilities and consequence levels.)
MEYER does not teach that the risk table is to identify an associated inhibitor concentration based on the failure probability and consequence level; and an inhibitor dosage controller programmed to compute a dosage for the corrosion inhibitor based on the identified risk level
However, PONSTINGL, which is directed to determining an optimum level of chemicals to reduce corrosion in a pipeline, teaches that the risk table is to identify an associated inhibitor concentration… and an inhibitor dosage controller programmed to compute a dosage for the corrosion inhibitor based on the identified risk level. (¶ 49-50: A corrosion monitoring system determines a level of corrosion, and based on the level, a controller adjusts the amount of chemical inhibitors used to reduce the corrosion level. The concentration and dosage of the inhibitor chemicals is therefore based on the severity of the corrosion.)
In view of MEYER, it would have been obvious for the quantity of chemical inhibitors to be based on the calculated risk level of the pipeline. MEYER in view of PONSTINGL therefore teaches that the risk table is to identify an associated inhibitor concentration based on the failure probability and consequence level.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the repair action determined from a risk matrix for a pipeline taught by MEYER by using the risk level to determine a concentration and dosage of an inhibitor as suggested by PONSTINGL. Since the references are similarly directed to monitoring and maintenance operations for a pipeline, the combination would have yielded predictable results. MEYER at least suggests that corrosion inhibitors are used to reduce the probability of failure of a pipeline (¶ 21) and that the risk matrix is used to determine a maintenance action (¶ 30). PONSTINGL (¶ 9, 11) also suggests reducing an amount of corrosion in a cost-effective way using the minimum amount of chemical additives (¶ 9, 11) and increasing the amount of chemicals if needed to prevent a possible failure (¶ 49). The combination of their teachings would have therefore yielded predictable results.
Claims 4-8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER (US 2019/0346338 A1) in view of PONSTINGL (US 2005/0135546 A1) and further in view of SALU (US 2021/0317006 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, MEYER in view of PONSTINGL teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 4 depends.
MEYER in view of PONSTINGL does not explicitly teach wherein the computing the dosage comprises modifying, by the one or more processors, the dosage to provide a modified dosage based on a modification factor computed at least based on a corrosion rate measured for the pipeline.
However, SALU, which is similarly directed to optimizing inhibitor injection rates in a pipeline, teaches wherein the computing the dosage comprises modifying, by the one or more processors, the dosage to provide a modified dosage based on a modification factor computed at least based on a corrosion rate measured for the pipeline. (¶ 44, 56-57 and Table 1: A corrosion rate is measured and a modification factor is determined based on the corrosion rate. The modification factor adjusts the dosage of the inhibitor.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination of a dosage for an inhibitor to treat corrosion in a pipeline based on a calculated risk matrix as taught by MEYER in view of PONSTINGL by adjusting the dosage based on a measured rate of corrosion as taught by SALU. Since the references are similarly directed to optimizing the maintenance of a pipeline, the combination would have yielded predictable results. SALU shares a similar goal as PONSTINGL of optimizing the amount of a chemical inhibitor used to treat corrosion in a pipeline, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered advantageous to pipeline maintenance. As SALU teaches (¶ 8), “a need exists within the industry for a control system that optimizes usage of corrosion and scale inhibition chemicals and minimizes cost of the treatment chemicals, resulting in a more efficient and economical processes.”
Claim 13 recites the same limitations as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 5, MEYER in view of PONSTINGL and SALU further teaches wherein adjusting the inhibitor dosage comprises, multiplying, by the one or more processors, the inhibitor dosage by the modification factor to provide an updated inhibitor dosage. (SALU, See Table 1 on Page 5: For example, for a level 1 corrosion rate deviation, the inhibitor dosage (i.e. corrosion injection rate) is multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to produce the updated dosage. See the table on Page 6 for an example of the algorithm for updating the dosage.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 4 applies to claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, MEYER in view of PONSTINGL and SALU further teaches further comprising causing, by the one or more processors, the corrosion inhibitor to be injected at an injection rate into the pipeline based on the modified dosage. (SALU, ¶ 56, 59, 61: The injection rates are automatically adjusted using a controller and controllable pipes.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 4 applies to claim 6.
Claim 14 recites the same limitations as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, MEYER in view of PONSTINGL and SALU further teaches further comprising: receiving or retrieving, by the one or more processors, an expected corrosion rate and the corrosion rate measured for the pipeline; (SALU, ¶ 11, 43, 56, 59: The current corrosion rate is measured and compared to an expected set point for the corrosion rate.)
computing, by the one or more processors, a corrosion deviation amount from the expected corrosion rate; and determining, by the one or more processors, whether the corrosion deviation amount is greater than a corrosion deviation amount threshold. (SALU, See Table 1 on Page 5 and the Table illustrating the algorithm on Page 6: A corrosion deviation amount is determined based on the comparison. It is determined whether the deviation amount is above various thresholds, the highest one being at level 1.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 4 applies to claim 7.
Claim 15 recites the same limitations as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 8, MEYER in view of PONSTINGL and SALU further teaches further comprising one of: providing, by the one or more processors, the modification factor with a first value or percentage in response to determining that the corrosion deviation amount is less than the corrosion deviation amount threshold; (SALU, See Table 1 on Page 5: At Level 2, the CR deviation amount is below the threshold of Level 1. The medication factor of 15% would be the first value.)
and providing, by the one or more processors, the modification factor with a second value or percentage that is larger than the first value or percentage in response to determining that the corrosion deviation amount is greater than the corrosion deviation amount threshold. (SALU, See Table 1 on Page 5: At Level 1, the CR deviation amount is above the threshold. The medication factor of 50% (or 25%) would be the second value, which is larger than the first value.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 4 applies to claim 8.
Claim 16 recites the same limitations as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, MEYER in view of PONSTINGL and SALU further teaches wherein in response to providing the modification factor with the second value or percentage, the dosage is not modified based on the modification factor for a period of time, (SALU, See steps 6 and 7 or 14 and 16 in the algorithm illustrated on Page 6: After providing the modification value, the dosage is not modified for a period of one day.)
However, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations “and after the period of time, the method further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, whether the corrosion deviation amount decreased by a threshold; and decreasing the modification factor in response to determining that the corrosion deviation amount did not decrease by the threshold.”
These limitations, in specific combination as recited by claims 9 and 17, including all intervening claims, define the patentability of the claims.
Claims 10-11 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pilloni (US 2017/0030508 A1) teaches determining severity levels of corrosion for a pipeline and administering a proper dosage of inhibitor. (¶ 109, 116)
Hournbuckle (US 2019/0087990 A1) teaches a GUI for aiding a user in selecting a proper type and dosage of corrosion inhibitor. (¶ 81)
Nielsen (US 2008/0036476 A1) teaches methods for determining a corrosion risk for a pipeline. (Abstract, Background)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 EST.
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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118