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 .
Summary
Claims 1-4, 8-15, 18, 20-23, 42, and 43 are pending. Claims 1-4, 8-15, 18, 20-23, 42, and 43 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 19 Nov 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 5 is not clear and is not suitable for reproduction. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-15, 18, 20-23, 42, and 43 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.
Regarding claims 1, 22, and 42: The language “locating a source of the fluid leakage by identifying one or more sensors of said plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network that is closest to the source of the fluid leakage based on comparing said sum values of the peak magnitude values associated across said plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network over a period of time” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the phrase “based on comparing said sum values of the peak magnitude values associated across said plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network over a period of time” refers back to “locating a source…” or “identifying one or more sensors…” Both interpretations make grammatical and technical sense. The claim has been interpreted as if the “based on…” phrase refers back the “identifying one or more sensors…” phrase. In other words, a comparison of sum values of peak amplitude across a plurality of sensors is performed. This data is used to identify one or more sensors that is closest to the leak. Then a source of fluid leakage is located based on the identification of these sensors.
Regarding claims 2-4, 8-15, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 43: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 12, 14, 15, 20-22, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by FORSTER-KNIGHT et al. (US 2020/0072661).
Regarding claim 1: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: A method of detecting and locating a fluid leakage in a fluid pipeline network (title, abstract, para. 1), the method comprising: providing a plurality of sensors (One such sensor is shown in FIG. 3 and comprises a housing 300, water meter 100, vibration sensor 500, and additional sensors 340. Multiple separate sensors are discussed in para. 285.) in an area of the pipeline network (Different water meters and pipelines connecting them in para. 285.), each of said sensor being configured to output data relating to an acoustic or vibration measurement associated with a part of the pipeline network proximate said sensor (from vibration sensor 500; transmitted data in para. 153), recording the acoustic or vibration measurement output data from said plurality of sensors (para. 127), transforming the output data from a time domain to a frequency domain (using FFT in para. 128), wherein the transformed output data in the frequency domain is separated into discrete frequency bins each containing a range of frequency values (Different bins are shown in FIG. 7 and discussed in para. 128-129), and a peak magnitude value associated with each frequency bin is recorded (FIG. 7 shows frequency data recorded.), determining a leakage condition by comparing, within a predetermined frequency range, the peak magnitude values of the transformed output data in the frequency domain with predetermined threshold values for corresponding frequency bins, computing, for each sensor of said plurality of sensors, a sum value of the peak magnitude values within a predetermined frequency range of the transformed output data in the frequency domain (That sum value is an integral of a frequency range as discussed in para. 129. “One or more sensors” in para. 61), and locating a source of the fluid leakage by identifying one or more sensors of said plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network that is closest to the source of the fluid leakage (para. 245) based on comparing said sum values of the peak magnitude values across said plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network over a period of time (para. 129; 245).
Regarding claim 3: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: locating a source of the fluid leakage comprises comparing each of said sum values of said plurality of sensors against a predetermined sum threshold value (para. 23).
Regarding claim 12: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) process is used to convert the output data from a time domain to a frequency domain (para. 23, 128-129).
Regarding claim 14: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: the predetermined frequency range is between zero and 1,200 Hz (para. 259).
Regarding claim 15: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: the predetermined frequency range is between 350 Hz and 1,000 Hz (para. 25, 259).
Regarding claim 20: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: each of said sensors is connected to an associated water meter (100 in FIG. 3 associated with vibration meter 500 and other sensors 340; para. 61), which records the acoustic or vibration measurement output data from the connected sensor (at sensor 500; para. 119-121), transforms the output data from a time domain to a frequency domain (para. 128-129), and sends the data to a remote server (para. 116, 127).
Regarding claim 21: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: locating a source of the fluid leakage further comprises the steps of (1) obtaining water usage readings from the associate water meter during the step of recording the acoustic or vibration measurement output data from said sensors to determine water usage (para. 282), and (2) discarding any acoustic or vibration measurement output data collected from said sensor during a period of water usage (para. 282).
Regarding claim 22: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: A system for detecting and locating a fluid leakage in a fluid pipeline network (title, abstract, para. 1), the system comprising: a plurality of water meters (100 in FIG. 3; a plurality of meters is discussed in para. 285) installed in an area of the pipeline network (para. 285), a sensor connected to each of the plurality of water meters (500, 340), each sensor being configured to output data relating to an acoustic or vibration measurement associated with a part of the pipeline network proximate said sensor (vibration sensor 500; para. 119-122), wherein the at least one of water meter and the sensor is configured to record the acoustic or vibration measurement output data (para. 127), transform the output data from a time domain to a frequency domain (using FFT in para. 128), and send the output data to a remote server (para. 116, 127), wherein the transformed output data in the frequency domain is separated into discrete frequency bins each containing a range of frequency values (Different bins are shown in FIG. 7 and discussed in para. 128-129), and a peak magnitude value associated with each frequency bin is recorded (amplitude threshold discussed in para. 130), and wherein the remote server comprises a processor configured to: determine a leakage condition by comparing, within a predetermined frequency range, the peak magnitude values of the transformed output data in the frequency domain with a predetermined threshold values for corresponding frequency bins compute, for each sensor of the plurality of sensors, a sum value of the peak magnitude values within a predetermined frequency range of the transformed output data in the frequency domain (That sum value is an integral of a frequency range as discussed in para. 129.) and associating said sum value of the peak magnitude values with a corresponding sensor of said plurality of sensors (To locate leaks in the vicinity of a particular sensor as discussed in para. 245), and locate a source of the fluid leakage by identifying one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network that is closest to the source of the fluid leakage (para. 245) based on comparing said sum values of the peak magnitude values across the plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network over a period of time (para. 129, 245).
Regarding claim 42: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: A remote server (210 in FIG. 2) when used for detecting and locating a fluid leakage in a fluid pipeline network (title. Abstract, para. 1), the server comprising a processor configured to: receive output data (from vibration sensors 500 and water meters 100 in FIG. 3; para. 153), from at least one of a plurality of water meters (100 in FIGS. 2-3) and sensors (500) in an area of the pipeline network (Different water meters and pipelines connecting them in para. 285.), relating to acoustic or vibration measurements as measured by sensors associated with a part of the pipeline network proximate said sensors (from vibration sensor 500; transmitted data in para. 153), transform any time domain output data to data in a frequency domain (using FFT in para. 128), wherein the transformed output data in the frequency domain is separated into discrete frequency bins each containing a range of frequency values, and a peak magnitude value associated with each frequency bin is recorded, determine a leakage condition by comparing, within a predetermined frequency range, the peak magnitude values of the transformed output data in the frequency domain with a predetermined threshold value for a corresponding frequency bins, compute, for each sensor of a plurality of sensors, a sum value of the peak magnitude values within a predetermined frequency range of the transformed output data in the frequency domain (That sum value is an integral of a frequency range as discussed in para. 129.) and associating said sum value of the peak magnitude values with a corresponding sensor (To locate leaks in the vicinity of a particular sensor as discussed in para. 245), and locate a source of the fluid leakage by identifying one or more sensors in the area of the pipeline network that is closest to the source of the fluid leakage (para. 245) based on comparing said sum values of the peak magnitude values across the plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network over a period of time (para. 129, 245).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 10, 11, 18, 23, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORSTER-KNIGHT in view of INOUE et al. (US 2017/0102286).
Regarding claims 2, 23, and 43: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: locating a source of the fluid leakage further comprises identifying at least two sensors of the plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network that is closest to the source of the fluid leakage (para. 248) based on comparing said sum values associated with said plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network over a period of time (para. 248-249), and estimating a location of the source of the fluid leakage based on the identified sensors' respective sum values (para. 248-250).
FORSTER-KNIGHT does not specify that the location determination is based on (1) a relative geographical pipeline distance between the identified sensors, and (2) configuration of pipelines between the identified sensors.
INOUE however does teach using vibration measurements to determine a leak in a pipeline (abstract) where several sensors (101-1-n in FIG. 7) are used, and the calculation of the specific location of the leak is based on (1) a relative geographical pipeline distance between the identified sensors (equation 1), and (2) configuration of pipelines between the identified sensors (type and material of pipe and soil around the pipe in para. 51).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the specific leak locating method of INOUE with the vibration data of FORSTER-KNIGHT because it allows the location of a leak to be more precisely located.
Regarding claim 4: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: each of said sum values of said plurality of sensors is adjusted by: a predetermined pressure sensitivity multiplier calibrated to accord with a fluid pressure of the corresponding pipeline in the network (para. 132) a predetermined flow sensitivity multiplier calibrated to accord with a fluid flow type of the corresponding pipeline in the network (para. 132).
FORSTER-KNIGHT does not disclose a predetermined soil condition sensitivity multiplier calibrated to accord to a soil condition of the area of the pipeline network or a predetermined material sensitivity multiplier calibrated to the material of the corresponding pipeline in the network.
INOUE however does teach accounting for these parameters (Para. 51 teaches that both pipe material and the surrounding soil will affect how the vibration signal travels to the sensor.)
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to account for pipe material and surrounding soil as taught by INOUE when performing the signal processing of FORSTER-KNIGHT because the way mechanical waves travel through bulk materials is very dependent on the properties of those materials.
Regarding claim 10: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: the step of determining the magnitude of fluid leakage based on said sum values of said plurality of sensors in the area (para. 246).
Regarding claim 11: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: the step of determining the magnitude of fluid leakage further comprises adjusting said sum values of said plurality of sensors in the area with any one or more of the sensitivity multipliers (para. 132 discusses adjusting for temperature or pressure).
Regarding claim 18: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: each of said sensors is configured to take acoustic or vibration measurements associated with a part of the pipeline network proximate said sensor at spaced intervals during a predetermined time period (para. 48).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORSTER-KNIGHT in view of HOSHUYAMA (US 2015/0241297).
Regarding claim 8: FORSTER-KNIGHT does not disclose determining whether said acoustic or vibration measurement output data was collected during a period of rainfall in the area of the pipeline network and, if so, adjusting a predetermined threshold value when comparing measured frequency values and/or sum values of any output data collected during the period of rainfall.
HOSHUYAMA however does teach determining whether said acoustic or vibration measurement output data was collected during a period of rainfall in the area of the pipeline network and, if so, adjusting a predetermined threshold value when comparing measured frequency values and/or sum values of any output data collected during the period of rainfall (para. 28, 57).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to account for ambient noise such as rainfall, traffic, and construction (para. 57 of HOSHUYAMA) because this allows the sound signature of a leak to be accurately detected because a signature of environmental noise can be identified.
Regarding claim 9: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses: comparing the measured frequency values and/or the sum values of said plurality of sensors across a plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network against a baseline threshold value and outputting a difference value for each sensor (para. 129, 245), comparing said difference value for each sensor over consecutive days (para. 39, 182).
FORSTER-KNIGHT does not disclose using weather forecast data.
HOSHUYAMA does teach using weather data for area where the vibration measurements are taken (para. 28, 57).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to account for ambient noise such as weather (para. 57 of HOSHUYAMA) because this allows the sound signature of a leak to be accurately detected because a signature of environmental noise can be identified.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORSTER-KNIGHT.
Regarding claim 13: FORSTER-KNIGHT discloses discrete bins, but gives a range of 360 to 1200 Hz with 10 or 20 Hz bands (para. 259), which yields 84 or less bins.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the computing arts to use a maximum value of 256 because it is the largest 8-bit number, and lends itself readily for processing.
Furthermore, FORSTER-KNIGHT teaches most aspects of the instant invention, except the specific number of 256 bins. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that number of bins would determine how precise the calculations are as well as determining the processing requirements.
The specific claimed number of bins, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” number disclosed by FORSTER-KNIGHT that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired precision of calculation, processing resources, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the number of bins is used, as already suggested by FORSTER-KNIGHT.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the number of bins stated and since these bandwidths are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of FORSTER-KNIGHT.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed number of bins or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Amendment
The replacement drawings are acknowledged and the objection to FIG. 6 is withdrawn. FIG. 5 is still objected to because all of the text is completely unreadable.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous objections are acknowledged and said objections are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are acknowledged and said rejections are accordingly withdrawn. Please note that there is still an outstanding 112 rejection based on the claim language as currently amended.
The Applicant has argued (page 11 of the Response) that FORSTER-KNIGHT does not disclose the limitations of computing for each sensor a sum value of the peak magnitude values and comparing those sums across a plurality of sensors. The Applicant further argues that this comparison allows for more specific geolocation of the leak in the pipeline and concludes that FORSTER-KNIGHT “fails to disclose these two locating features that transform mere leak detection into leak source location in a pipeline network” (original emphasis). This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The language of claim 1 is broad enough that FORSTER-KNIGHT reads on these limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The specific location determination to which the Applicant is referring is not contained in the language of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “locating a source of the fluid leakage by identifying one or more sensors of said plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network that is closest to the source of the fluid leakage based on comparing said sum values of the peak magnitude values associated across said plurality of sensors in the area of the pipeline network over a period of time.” This language only requires determining location based on which sensors detect the leak. There is no further determining of a more specific location. There is no “geospatial location estimation based on comparative signal strength statistics” as argued on page 13 of the Response. Please note that claim 2 does specify a more precise location calculation and INOUE was used to address this limitation. The combination of FORSTER-KNIGHT and INOUE was not addressed in the Response.
A note on interpretation: It appears that the Applicant is interpreting claim 1 more narrowly than the Examiner. It is possible that the Examiner is using one of the interpretations discussed in the 112 rejection above and the Applicant is using the other. If that is the case, then rewording the claim could overcome this difficulty and a more specific algorithm would be necessary to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 1. A more specific and precise method of locating a fluid leak is explicitly taught in INOUE, therefore any response by the Applicant should discuss the combination of FORSTER-KNIGHT and INOUE.
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 NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896