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
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 12/12/2025. Applicant has submitted Claims 1 and 3-6 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding two pipe diameters, Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant argues that the cited references would not lead PHOSITA to have different winding angles depending on their diameter because the cited references do not inherently disclose such. Examiner is not persuaded. Examiner strives to be more explicit in the explanation.
Examiner generally agrees that Logan (US20190003499A1) and Rambow (CN101175970A) do not specifically discuss having two pipes and comparing their diameters and winding angles. That said, even if Logan and Rambow do not specifically discuss having two pipes and comparing their diameters and winding angles, both Logan and Rambow discuss the winding angle as it relates to the pipe (see Logan, [0147]-[0149] and Rambow, FIG. 2, P9, L40-43).
Based on Examiner’s review of the specification and the prior art, changing the diameter of the pipe inherently changes the winding angle desired by the user using the equation as discussed by Rambow (See FIG. 2, P9, L40-42). As such, applying the teaching of Logan and Rambow to a second pipe of different size would inherently change the winding angle, and the pipe with a smaller diameter would have a smaller winding angle. This inherency is due to the application of the teaching of Rambow to Logan, and applying the teaching of Rambow’s winding angle change would inherently change the winding angle as claimed. Using the teachings of Logan and Rambow, PHOSITA would reasonably understand that the winding angle would change with a change in diameter, and those two different diameters and windings angles would be easily comparable by PHOSITA. As such, Examiner is not persuaded.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan (US20190003499A1) in view of Rambow (CN101175970A).
Regarding Claim 1, Logan discloses:
A sensor device (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0107], system 100) comprising:
an optical fiber (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0107], optical fiber 112);
a plurality of FBG sensors formed in the optical fiber (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0109], FBGs 114a,b (generally, “FBGs 114”)); and
a first pipe (Logan, FIGS. 3G-3H, [0149], pipeline 198);
a second pipe whose diameter is smaller than a diameter of the first pipe (Logan, FIGS. 3G-3H, [0149], pipeline 198, see above notes on the first and the second pipe in the Response to Arguments and Remarks);
wherein a portion of the optical fiber in which the plurality of FBG sensors are formed is wound around the first pipe and the second pipe (Logan, FIGS. 3G-3H, [0149], “in an embodiment in which the fiber 112 is wrapped around the pipeline 198 in a substantially helical or spiral formation”) so as to form a winding angle which is a perpendicular or acute angle with an axis of the first pipe and the second pipe in a side view of the first pipe and the second pipe viewed from the portion of the optical fiber in which the FBG sensors are formed (Logan, FIGS. 3G-3H, [0149], “the angle is any value between 2 and 85 degrees, such as, for example, 5 degrees, 10 degrees or 45 degrees”), …
… wherein the sensor device causes light to be incident on the optical fiber and detects light reflected from at least one of the plurality of FBG sensors (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0109], “interrogator 106 generates the sensing and reference pulses and outputs the reference pulse after the sensing pulse”), and …
Logan discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the winding angle is appropriately determined in accordance with a diameter of the first pipe and the second pipe, and …
… wherein the winding angle is smaller in accordance with the smaller outer diameter of the pipe, …
… wherein the winding angle with respect to the second pipe is smaller than the winding angle with respect to the first pipe.
Logan discloses some discussion regarding the relationship of the angle (see [0149]) and the diameter and relation of the pipe, clamp, and wind (see [0147]-]0148]).
However, Rambow, in a similar field of endeavor (Method Of Applying A Strain Sensor To A Cylindrical Structure), discloses:
… wherein the winding angle is appropriately determined in accordance with a diameter of the first pipe and the second pipe (Rambow, FIG. 2, P9, L40-43, “the maximum number of strain sensors 20 that can be used on an optical fiber 30 under this technique is about 1000. Thus, a preferred manner of applying the fiber 30 and strain sensor 20 to the member 10 can be determined using a preferred winding angle (θ1), preferably a number of windings (Nw), and a preferred number of strain sensors (N),” and FIG. 2, P10, L8-9, “The sensor spacing (Sg) and the preferred number of windings (Nw) can be compared to the winding angle (θ) range”), and …
… wherein the winding angle is smaller in accordance with the smaller outer diameter of the pipe (Rambow, FIG. 2, P9, L40-43, “the maximum number of strain sensors 20 that can be used on an optical fiber 30 under this technique is about 1000. Thus, a preferred manner of applying the fiber 30 and strain sensor 20 to the member 10 can be determined using a preferred winding angle (θ1), preferably a number of windings (Nw), and a preferred number of strain sensors (N),” and FIG. 2, P10, L8-9, “The sensor spacing (Sg) and the preferred number of windings (Nw) can be compared to the winding angle (θ) range”), …
… wherein the winding angle with respect to the second pipe is smaller than the winding angle with respect to the first pipe (Rambow, FIG. 2, P9, L40-43, inherent to the teaching of Rambow).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Logan with the diameter-sensor placement analysis of Rambow. PHOSITA would have known about the diameter-sensor placement analysis as disclosed by Rambow and how to it to modify the system of Logan. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically relating the sensor location with the size of the pipe for location spacing and sensing.
Regarding Claim 6, Logan discloses:
A sensor device installation method:
of winding a sensor device around a first and a second pipe (Logan, FIGS. 3G-3H, [0149], “in an embodiment in which the fiber 112 is wrapped around the pipeline 198 in a substantially helical or spiral formation,” see above notes on the first and the second pipe in the Response to Arguments and Remarks), the sensor device including an optical fiber (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0107], optical fiber 112) in which a plurality of FBG sensors are formed (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0109], FBGs 114a,b (generally, “FBGs 114”)), wherein the sensor device causes light to be incident on the optical fiber and detects reflected light which is the light reflected from at least one of the plurality of FBG sensors (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0109], “interrogator 106 generates the sensing and reference pulses and outputs the reference pulse after the sensing pulse”),
wherein the method comprises winding a portion of the optical fiber in which the plurality of FBG sensors are formed around the first and the second pipe so as to form a winding angle which is a perpendicular or acute angle with an axis of the first and the second pipe in a side view of the first and the second pipe viewed from the portion of the optical fiber in which the FBG sensors are formed (Logan, FIGS. 3G-3H, [0149], “the angle is any value between 2 and 85 degrees, such as, for example, 5 degrees, 10 degrees or 45 degrees”), …
Logan discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… and wherein the winding angle with respect to the second pipe is smaller than the winding angle with respect to the first pipe.
Logan discloses some discussion regarding the relationship of the angle (see [0149]) and the diameter and relation of the pipe, clamp, and wind (see [0147]-]0148]).
However, Rambow, in a similar field of endeavor (Method Of Applying A Strain Sensor To A Cylindrical Structure), discloses:
… and wherein the winding angle with respect to the second pipe is smaller than the winding angle with respect to the first pipe (Rambow, FIG. 2, P9, L40-43, “the maximum number of strain sensors 20 that can be used on an optical fiber 30 under this technique is about 1000. Thus, a preferred manner of applying the fiber 30 and strain sensor 20 to the member 10 can be determined using a preferred winding angle (θ1), preferably a number of windings (Nw), and a preferred number of strain sensors (N),” and FIG. 2, P10, L8-9, “The sensor spacing (Sg) and the preferred number of windings (Nw) can be compared to the winding angle (θ) range”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Logan with the diameter-sensor placement analysis of Rambow. PHOSITA would have known about the diameter-sensor placement analysis as disclosed by Rambow and how to it to modify the system of Logan. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically relating the sensor location with the size of the pipe for location spacing and sensing.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan (US20190003499A1), in view of Rambow (CN101175970A), and in further view of Ramos (US20110292384A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Logan further discloses:
A fault diagnosis system comprising:
a first pipe (Logan, FIGS. 3G-3H, [0149], pipeline 198); and
a second pipe whose diameter is smaller than a diameter of the first pipe (Logan, FIGS. 3G-3H, [0149], pipeline 198, see above notes on the first and the second pipe in the Response to Arguments and Remarks);
a sensor device (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0107], system 100) that includes an optical fiber (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0107], optical fiber 112); and
a plurality of FBG sensors formed in the optical fiber (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0109], FBGs 114a,b (generally, “FBGs 114”));
wherein a portion of the optical fiber in which the plurality of FBG sensors are formed is wound around the first and the second pipe so as to form a winding angle which is a perpendicular or acute angle with an axis of the first and the second pipe in a side view of the pipe viewed from the portion of the optical fiber in which the FBG sensors are formed (Logan, FIGS. 3G-3H, [0149], “the angle is any value between 2 and 85 degrees, such as, for example, 5 degrees, 10 degrees or 45 degrees”) …
… wherein the sensor device causes light to be incident on the optical fiber and detects light reflected from at least one of the plurality of FBG sensors (Logan, FIG. 1A, [0109], “interrogator 106 generates the sensing and reference pulses and outputs the reference pulse after the sensing pulse”), …
… and wherein the fault diagnosis system calculates a plurality of acquired frequency response functions which are frequency response functions of the plurality of FBG sensors on the basis of detection results (Logan, [0050], “the signal processing unit comprising a processor and a computer readable medium communicatively coupled to the processor, the computer readable medium having stored thereon computer program code that, when executed by the processor, causes the signal processing unit to determine an amount of dynamic strain experienced by the length of the pipeline from the dynamic strain measurements that the optical interrogator outputs”); …
Logan discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the winding angle is appropriately determined in accordance with a diameter of the first and the second pipe, …
… wherein the winding angle is smaller in accordance with the smaller outer diameter of the first and the second pipe …
Logan discloses some discussion regarding the relationship of the angle (see [0149]) and the diameter and relation of the pipe, clamp, and wind (see [0147]-]0148]).
However, Rambow, in a similar field of endeavor (Method Of Applying A Strain Sensor To A Cylindrical Structure), discloses:
… wherein the winding angle is appropriately determined in accordance with a diameter of the first and the second pipe (Rambow, FIG. 2, P9, L40-43, “the maximum number of strain sensors 20 that can be used on an optical fiber 30 under this technique is about 1000. Thus, a preferred manner of applying the fiber 30 and strain sensor 20 to the member 10 can be determined using a preferred winding angle (θ1), preferably a number of windings (Nw), and a preferred number of strain sensors (N),” and FIG. 2, P10, L8-9, “The sensor spacing (Sg) and the preferred number of windings (Nw) can be compared to the winding angle (θ) range”), …
… wherein the winding angle is smaller in accordance with the smaller outer diameter of the first and the second pipe (Rambow, FIG. 2, P9, L40-43, “the maximum number of strain sensors 20 that can be used on an optical fiber 30 under this technique is about 1000. Thus, a preferred manner of applying the fiber 30 and strain sensor 20 to the member 10 can be determined using a preferred winding angle (θ1), preferably a number of windings (Nw), and a preferred number of strain sensors (N),” and FIG. 2, P10, L8-9, “The sensor spacing (Sg) and the preferred number of windings (Nw) can be compared to the winding angle (θ) range”) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Logan with the diameter-sensor placement analysis of Rambow. PHOSITA would have known about the diameter-sensor placement analysis as disclosed by Rambow and how to it to modify the system of Logan. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically relating the sensor location with the size of the pipe for location spacing and sensing.
The combination of Logan and Rambow discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… stores a plurality of normal frequency response functions which are frequency response functions in a plurality of portions of the first and the second pipe in which the plurality of FBG sensors are disposed, obtained from analysis results obtained by simulating a state in which fluid flows normally through the first and the second pipe or experimental results in which the fluid flows normally through the first and the second pipe; and
compares the plurality of acquired frequency response functions with the plurality of normal frequency response functions to determine whether there is an abnormality in a flow of the fluid in the first and the second pipe.
Though Examiner notes that Logan discloses some analysis for leaks (see [0142]).
However, Ramos, in the same field of endeavor (methods and systems for detecting failures in pipe structures), discloses:
… stores a plurality of normal frequency response functions which are frequency response functions in a plurality of portions of the first and the second pipe in which the plurality of FBG sensors are disposed, obtained from analysis results obtained by simulating a state in which fluid flows normally through the first and the second pipe or experimental results in which the fluid flows normally through the first and the second pipe (Ramos, FIGS. 1-7, [0054], “One or more databases of the devices and subsystems of the exemplary embodiments of FIGS. 1-7 can store the information used to implement the exemplary embodiments of the present invention. The databases can be organized using data structures (e.g., records, tables, arrays, fields, graphs, trees, lists, and the like) included in one or more memories or storage devices listed herein”); and
compares the plurality of acquired frequency response functions with the plurality of normal frequency response functions to determine whether there is an abnormality in a flow of the fluid in the first and the second pipe (Ramos, [0005], “However, such connections are subject to structural failure, for example, due to fatigue, corrosion, erosion or blockage, and the like, and which can be caused by the deposition of parts of the flow components (such as wax, hydrates, scales, asphaltenes, etc.) on such structures,” and [0019], “The present invention includes recognition that flexible pipe structures are used as umbilicals or risers or flow lines or offload lines or other subsea applications. Although flexibility of such structures helps to reduce stresses due to movement, they are susceptible to deterioration and/or rupture during transport, deployment and/or operation. They also can experience flow assurance problems”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Logan and Rambow with the memory and flow detection of Ramos. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of computer memory and flow detection as disclosed by Ramos and how to use them to modify the combination of Logan and Rambow. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of computer memory for storage and using sensors to monitor for abnormal flow.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Logan, Rambow, and Ramos discloses Claim 3, and Logan further discloses:
… wherein the system specifies a portion or range in which an abnormality has occurred in the first and the second pipe (Logan, FIG. 1B, [0118], “Some of the scattered laser light 117 is back scattered along the fiber 112 and is directed towards the optical receiver 103, and depending on the amount of time required for the scattered light 117 to reach the receiver and the phase of the scattered light 117 as determined at the receiver, the location and magnitude of the vibration or acoustics can be estimated with respect to time”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Logan, Rambow, and Ramos discloses Claim 4, and Logan further discloses:
… wherein the system determines that an abnormality has occurred in a predetermined portion of the first and the second pipe when a processing result focusing on a relationship between the acquired frequency response function and the normal frequency response function corresponding to the predetermined portion is equal to or greater than a threshold determined in advance (Logan, FIG. 1, [0141], “When either the instantaneous or cumulative dynamic strains exceeds an alert threshold, the processor 102 may issue an alert to the system's 100 operator; the threshold corresponding to instantaneous dynamic strain measurements is the “instantaneous dynamic strain alert threshold”, while the threshold corresponding to cumulative dynamic strain measurements is the “cumulative dynamic strain threshold”).
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 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 CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877