DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-20, 22-28, and 30 are pending.
Claims 4, 9, 21, and 29 are cancelled.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/10/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 16-20, 22-23, 25-28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimola, Femi, and David Hill. "Distributed fibre optic sensors for pipeline protection." Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2009, 134-143 (hereinafter Tanimola) in view of Johnson, Ben, et al. "Controlling pipe and equipment operating temperatures with trace heating systems" PCIC Europe 2013, IEEE, 2013 (hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 16-20, 22-23, 25-28, and 30, the combination of Tanimola and Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations, as outlined below.
Claim 1. Tanimola teaches a method for monitoring a pipeline temperature management system, the method comprising: communicating, via a management console over a wireless communications network, with a controller of the pipeline temperature management system, the controller configured to obtain temperature data from sensors of the pipeline; displaying, via a user interface of the management console, a current state of the pipeline based on information from the controller; receiving an alarm notification from the controller over the communications network based on the temperature data; and displaying the alarm notification via the user interface (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Tanimola fails to clearly specify sensors including resistance temperature detectors; using the obtained temperature data to selectively control application of heat to sections of the pipeline.
However, Johnson teaches sensors including resistance temperature detectors; using the obtained temperature data to selectively control application of heat to sections of the pipeline (Section labeled “The trace heating combination control and limiter” and Section labeled “Centralizing the monitoring of trace heating” - - using RTDs; and controlling heating/ trace heating).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to pipeline heating monitoring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above pipeline protection system, as taught by Tanimola, and incorporating the concept of heat control, as taught by Johnson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maintain desired pipe temperatures, ensure that both performance and economic requirements are optimized, as suggested by Johnson (See Introduction).
Claim 2. Tanimola further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the controller is located adjacent to the pipeline; and further comprising displaying the user interface on a screen in a control room (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 3. Tanimola further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, when the alarm notification is required, displaying a recommended action via the user interface (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 5. Tanimola further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, communicating, via the management console, with the controller comprises communicating via one of a local-area-network or a wide- area-network (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 6. Tanimola further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising providing access to the user interface through a web portal (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 7. Tanimola further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the alarm notification indicates a portion of the pipeline that requires operator attention (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 8. Tanimola further teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising prompting an operator to acknowledge the alarm notification (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 10. Tanimola further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the current state of the pipeline includes current operational parameters of sections of the pipeline (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 11. Tanimola further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the controller determines, based on the temperature data, if the alarm notification is required and communicates the alarm notification to the management console (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 12. Tanimola further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying operational parameters of the pipeline via the user interface (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 13. Johnson further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sections of the pipeline are heater zones; and wherein controlling application of heat to sections of the pipeline includes independently controlling heating cables within each of the heater zones (Section labeled “The trace heating combination control and limiter” and Section labeled “Centralizing the monitoring of trace heating” - - using RTDs; and controlling heating/ trace heating).
Claim 16. Tanimola teaches a method for monitoring a pipeline temperature management system, the method comprising: communicating, via a management console, with a controller of the pipeline temperature management system via a wireless communications network, the controller configured to obtain pipeline data from sensors associated with the pipeline; and displaying, via a user interface of the management console, current operational parameters, including current temperature information, of the individual sections of the pipeline based on the pipeline data (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Tanimola fails to clearly specify using the obtained pipeline data to control application of heat to individual sections of the pipeline.
However, Johnson teaches using obtained pipeline data to control application of heat to individual sections of a pipeline (Section labeled “The trace heating combination control and limiter” and Section labeled “Centralizing the monitoring of trace heating” - - using RTDs; and controlling heating/ trace heating).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to pipeline heating monitoring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above pipeline protection system, as taught by Tanimola, and incorporating the concept of heat control, as taught by Johnson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maintain desired pipe temperatures, ensure that both performance and economic requirements are optimized, as suggested by Johnson (See Introduction).
Claim 17. Tanimola further teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising displaying a schematic of the pipeline via the user interface (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 18. Tanimola teaches a pipeline temperature management system comprising: a plurality of sensors configured to record temperature data for the pipeline, the temperature data including temperature measurements for each of a plurality of locations along the pipeline; and a controller in electronic communication with the plurality of sensors, the controller comprising a processor and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to: receive the temperature data from the plurality of sensors, determine, based on the temperature data, an alarm notification, and electronically communicate with a client system remote from the controller, via a wireless communications network, to cause a graphical user interface of the client system to display a current state of the pipeline and the alarm notification (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Tanimola fails to clearly specify control application of heat to sections of the pipeline based on the temperature data.
However, Johnson teaches control application of heat to sections of a pipeline based on temperature data (Section labeled “The trace heating combination control and limiter” and Section labeled “Centralizing the monitoring of trace heating” - - using RTDs; and controlling heating/ trace heating).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to pipeline heating monitoring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above pipeline protection system, as taught by Tanimola, and incorporating the concept of heat control, as taught by Johnson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maintain desired pipe temperatures, ensure that both performance and economic requirements are optimized, as suggested by Johnson (See Introduction).
Claim 19. Tanimola further teaches the pipeline temperature management system of claim 18, wherein the plurality of sensors are resistance temperature detectors (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 20. Tanimola further teaches the pipeline temperature management system of claim 18, wherein the graphical user interface is further configured to display a recommended action related to the alarm notification (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 22. Tanimola further teaches the pipeline temperature management system of claim 18, wherein the client system is accessible through a web portal (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 23. Tanimola further teaches the pipeline temperature management system of claim 18, wherein the alarm notification indicates a portion of the pipeline that requires operator attention (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 25. Tanimola further teaches the pipeline temperature management system of claim 18, wherein the graphical user interface of the client system further displays a prompt for an operator to acknowledge the alarm notification (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 26. Tanimola further teaches the pipeline temperature management system of claim 18, wherein the current state of the pipeline includes current operational parameters of sections of the pipeline (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 27. Tanimola further teaches the pipeline temperature management system of claim 18, wherein the graphical user interface of the client system further displays a graphical data related to the pipeline (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 28. Tanimola further teaches the pipeline temperature management system of claim 18, wherein the graphical user interface of the client system further displays operational parameters of the pipeline (Pages 135-137, Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 6 and Section labeled “Conclusion” - - Using DTS and sending alarms to the DCS).
Claim 30. Johnson further teaches the pipeline temperature management system of claim 29, wherein the sections of the pipeline are heater zones; and wherein controlling application of heat to sections of the pipeline includes independently controlling heating cables within each of the heater zones (Section labeled “The trace heating combination control and limiter” and Section labeled “Centralizing the monitoring of trace heating” - - using RTDs; and controlling heating/ trace heating).
Claims 14-15 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimola, Femi, and David Hill. "Distributed fibre optic sensors for pipeline protection." Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 1.4-5 (2009): 134-143 (hereinafter Tanimola) in view of Johnson, Ben, et al. "Controlling pipe and equipment operating temperatures with trace heating systems" PCIC Europe 2013, IEEE, 2013 (hereinafter Johnson) in view of Mukhi et al. US Patent No. 8,255,186 (hereinafter Mukhi).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 24, the combination of Tanimola and Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Tanimola and Johnson fails to clearly specify:
Claim 14. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the user interface on a mobile device.
Claim 15. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, via the management console, a message log of past alarm notifications.
Claim 24. The pipeline temperature management system of claim 18, wherein displaying the alarm notification further comprises displaying a message log of past alarm notifications.
However, Mukhi teaches:
Claim 14. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the user interface on a mobile device (C6 L1-25 and C6 L44-67 - - monitoring, using the historian database, laptops, and tablets).
Claim 15. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, via the management console, a message log of past alarm notifications (C6 L1-25 and C6 L44-67 - - monitoring, using the historian database, laptops, and tablets).
Claim 24. The pipeline temperature management system of claim 18, wherein displaying the alarm notification further comprises displaying a message log of past alarm notifications (C6 L1-25 and C6 L44-67 - - monitoring, using the historian database, laptops, and tablets).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to SCADA systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above supervisory and control system , as taught by the combination of Tanimola and Johnson, and incorporating the concept of utilizing historic data, as taught by Mukhi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide real-time monitoring and dynamic presentation of data, as suggested by Mukhi (see for example Abstract).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Adam, Jim, George Brady, and Dave Kosc. "EHT control systems and wireless communications: the wave of the future", IEEE, 2001.
Board, Safety. "Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) in Liquid Pipelines.", National Transportation Safety Board, 2005.
Bhatia, A. "Heat Tracing Systems." PDH Online| PDH Center, USA, Online Course (2012).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3766. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00 am- 6:30 pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119