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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
3. Claims 1-15 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.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-15 are directed to an abstract idea of leak event detection in real-time conduit.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A processor implemented method, comprising:
S1: receiving, via one or more hardware processors, data associated with a first sensing unit and a second sensing unit, wherein the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit are placed in a proximity of a conduit at a test environment;
S2: processing, via the one or more hardware processors, the data associated with the first sensing unit to obtain an instant timing information (T0) of a leak event in the conduit at the test environment;
S3: processing, via the one or more hardware processors, the data associated with the second sensing unit to obtain a transient signal associated with the leak event at a specific band by applying a continuous wavelet transformation (CWT);
S4: filtering, by a bandpass filter, an accelerometer data (Accel) to obtain a band passed filtered accelerometer signal (Accelbpf) with a low pass cut-off frequency and a high pass cut-off frequency;
S5: processing, via the one or more hardware processors, the band passed filtered accelerometer signal (Accelbpf) to obtain a duration (Td) of the leak event;
S6: truncating, via the one or more hardware processors, the band passed filtered accelerometer signal (Accelbpf) in a time domain from the instant timing information (T0) to the duration (Td) of the leak event to obtain a temporal template signal (Acceltemplate);
S7: cross-correlating, via the one or more hardware processors, a band passed filtered accelerometer signal (Accelbpf) associated with a real-time conduit at a physical environment and the temporal template signal (Acceltemplate) for every successive window of T0 to Td length to obtain a cross correlation value; and
S8: dynamically detecting, via the one or more hardware processors, a leak event of the real-time conduit at the physical environment when the cross-correlation value is greater than a threshold value.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the step S2 encompasses a mental process (e.g. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment) of identifying or matching up a variation in a steady state of a pressure value of the fluid to obtain said timing information T0, which can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The limitation “one or more hardware processors” is recited at a high level of generality. It reads on a general-purpose computer performing a generic computer function of processing data which is no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process by performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, thus would not amount to significantly more than the abstract algorithm itself.
Under the BRI, the step S3 encompasses mathematical relationships (e.g. CWT), namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which also encompasses mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Again, the limitation “one or more hardware processors” reads on a general-purpose computer processor which is no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process by performing computing activities via basic function of the computer.
Under the BRI, each or the combination of the steps S4/S5/S6/S7 encompasses mathematical relationships/concepts which also encompasses mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or by a human with the aid of pen and paper using mathematical concepts. The lack of specific math equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps.
Under its BRI, the step S8 encompasses a mental process of identifying or matching up a leak event when the cross-correlation value is greater than a threshold value that can be performed by the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking and/or with pen and paper based on observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Other than reciting “via the one or more hardware processors” nothing in the bolded portion precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1, reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process, amounts to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Under its BRI, the step S1 is considered merely a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The limitations of “a first sensing unit and a second sensing unit, wherein the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit are placed in a proximity of a conduit at a test environment” are recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not specify how the sensing units are connected/coupled with the conduit and/or the “receiving” is performed to acquire the data associated the sensing units in certain particular manner. It could just as easily relate to the acquisition of the data from, e.g., look-up tables as opposed to the generation of actual measurement data by the sensing units in real-time. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that provide an inventive concept (also called "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception).
In the instant case, as discussed above in Step 2A, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation of “receiving, via one or more hardware processors, data associated with a first sensing unit and a second sensing unit, wherein the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit are placed in a proximity of a conduit at a test environment” describes merely conventional techniques of acquiring sensor data from a test environment (see e.g. discussion of the prior art KR 101876730 B1 set forth in section 4 below in this Office Action). It does not provide any inventive concept or reflect a qualified improvement. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claim 1 set forth above. Claim 6 recites the limitations of “a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces” at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, these additional elements are not qualified to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide any inventive concepts that reflect a qualified improvement. See MPEP 2106.05.
The dependent claims 2-5 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above. In particular, the limitations recited in claims 2, 3 and 5 encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use. None of these elements is considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 7-10 and 12-15 recite ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as discussed for claims 2-5 above.
Examiner’s Note
4. While there are related references that discuss techniques of leak event detection in real-time conduit, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the limitations as recited in instant claim 1, 6 or 11 of the present application, including: processing, via the one or more hardware processors, the band passed filtered accelerometer signal (Accelbpf) to obtain a duration (Td) of the leak event; truncating, via the one or more hardware processors, the band passed filtered accelerometer signal (Accelbpf) in a time domain from the instant timing information (T0) to the duration (Td) of the leak event to obtain a temporal template signal (Acceltemplate); cross-correlating, via the one or more hardware processors, a band passed filtered accelerometer signal (Accelbpf) associated with a real-time conduit at a physical environment and the temporal template signal (Acceltemplate) for every successive window of T0 to Td length to obtain a cross correlation value; and dynamically detecting, via the one or more hardware processors, a leak event of the real-time conduit at the physical environment when the cross-correlation value is greater than a threshold value. It is these limitations found in each of the claims 1-15 in combination with the rest of the limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant, that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which make these claims distinguish over the prior art of record. As such, pending claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten/amended to overcome the rejection as set forth in sections 2-3 above in this Office Action.
The most pertinent prior art of record is KO (KR 101876730 B1, machine translation). KO discloses a processor implemented method (Abstract; para. 0008, 0010), comprising: receiving, via one or more hardware processors (e.g., 50 of Fig. 1), data associated with a first sensing unit (digital pressure gauges 10) and a second sensing unit (vibration sensor 30), wherein the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit are placed in a proximity of a conduit at a test environment (Fig. 1; para. 0028-0031, 0039-0042); processing, via the one or more hardware processors, the data associated with the first sensing unit to obtain an instant timing information (T0) of a leak event in the conduit at the test environment (para. 0014, 0031: it is possible to detect a water leak and the location of the water leak in real time by detecting the water pressure of the adjacent digital pressure gauge (10) momentarily decreasing when a water leak occurs; see also claim 3); processing, via the one or more hardware processors, the data associated with the second sensing unit (30) to obtain a transient signal associated with the leak event at a specific band by applying a continuous wavelet transformation (CWT) (para. 0067-0069: vibration sensor 30 senses “elastic waves” or “seismic waves” generated when leakage occurs in the water pipe 2 and propagated in both directions; para. 0101: “selects a frequency band in which the value of the coherence function is high and the size of the auto spectral density associated with the water leak noise is large”); filtering, by a bandpass filter, an accelerometer data (Accel) to obtain a band passed filtered accelerometer signal (Accelbpf) with a low pass cut-off frequency and a high pass cut-off frequency (para. 0101: filters the detection signals x(t) and y(t) using a band-pass filter corresponding to the selected frequency band); and dynamically detecting, via the one or more hardware processors, a leak event of the real-time conduit at the physical environment based on the filtered signal (para. 0088, 0099, 0101-0103, 0112). However, KO does not teach those limitations regarding the temporal template signal as recited in instant claims 1-15 identified above.
Chen et al. (US 20230332976 A1) discloses systems and methods to detect pipeline leaks base on measurement data from a plurality of sensors (pressure sensor, sonic (acoustic) sensor, accelerometer transducer, temperature sensor, fluid density sensor, and flow velocity sensor). Chen also teaches processing the measurement data using one or more filtering algorithms, selecting representative data patterns from a windowed time series, assigning the representative data patterns into different classes, creating 3D images from the representative data patterns using continuous wavelet transform (CWT), and generating a leak alarm by detecting leak patterns in the 3D images using a convolutional neural network. However, Chen does not teach those limitations regarding the temporal template signal as recited in instant claims 1-15 identified above.
Adegboye et al. ("Recent Advances in Pipeline Monitoring and Oil Leakage Detection Technologies: Principles and Approaches", SENSORS, vol. 19, no. 2548, 4 June 2019 (2019-06-04), pages 1-36, XP055808103, DOI: 10.3390/s19112548) performs comparative performance analysis to provide a guide in determining which leak detection method is appropriate for particular operating settings, including techniques based on acoustic emission which employs noise or vibration generated as a result of a sudden drop in pressure to detect the occurrence of pipeline leakage. However, Adegboye does not teach those limitations regarding the temporal template signal as recited in instant claims 1-15 identified above.
Nash et al. (US 11359989 B2) discloses a leak detection system and a method for locating the leak source based on multiple sensing means, calibration means and a noise cancellation means. However, Nash does not teach those limitations regarding the temporal template signal as recited in instant claims 1-15 identified above.
Contact Information
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857