DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 6-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 6-25 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For each of claims 6-22 fall within category of process; For example each of claims 23- 25 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)),
Regarding Claims 6-22
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea of determining a pressure test plan.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
6. A method for determining a pressure test plan comprising:
obtaining, by a computer system, a layout of fluidic connections of a plurality of pressure components;
identifying, by the computer system, a set of pressure components of the plurality for pressure testing;
obtaining, by the computer system, a test plan comprising a set of one or more pressure tests;
determining, by the computer system, a fitness score for the test plan; and
outputting, by the computer system, the test plan for application to the plurality of pressure components based on the fitness score.
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., fundamental economic practice, a sales activity, managing interactions between people, and/or a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitation “d determining a pressure test [..]; identifying a set of pressure components [..]; determininga fitness score [..] ” is a mental process (i.e. a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper).
See 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 6 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The 1st additional element is “obtaining, by a computer system, a layout of fluidic connections of a plurality of pressure components;”. This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “obtaining, by the computer system, a test plan comprising a set of one or more pressure tests;”. This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The 3rd additional element is “outputting, by the computer system, the test plan for application to the plurality of pressure components based on the fitness score”. This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
For example,4th additional first element is “a computer system”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above four “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic control system with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, the limitation of Claims “a computer system”, generic computer component, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 7-22
Dependent claims 7-22 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 6 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 6-22 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 7-9 and 11-14 limitations appear to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g)
For example, the limitations of Claims 10, 15-22: claims limitations are directed to mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding Claims 23-25
Claims 23-25contains language similar to claim 6-22 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 23-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 6-12, 14-15 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokokawa et al. (US 20160306366).
Regarding Claims 6 and 23-24. Yokokawa a method for determining a pressure test plan comprising(Abstract; processor (30): fig. 8; a system comprising: 1: fig. 8):
obtaining, by a computer system (30: fig.8), a layout of fluidic connections of a plurality of pressure components (20,22,23,34, 26, q1-q9: fig.8);
identifying, by the computer system (30: fig.8), a set of pressure components (q1-q9: fig. 6) of the plurality for pressure testing(33,34: fig. 8);
obtaining, by the computer system (30: fig.8), a test plan (leakage suppression program: [0003]) comprising a set of one or more pressure tests (36, 34: fig. 8; equation 3: [0023]-[0031]);
determining, by the computer system (30: fig. 8), a fitness score for the test plan(high to low: fig. 6; [0032]); and
outputting, by the computer system(30: fig. 8), the test plan for application to the plurality of pressure components based on the fitness score(fig. 6; he display image generator 52 may display on the display 50 a visualization of the leakage suppression effect: [0033]-[0034], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 7. Yokokawa further teaches obtaining the test plan comprises generating the test plan based on the layout of fluidic connections and the set of identified pressure components (24, 26: fig. 8), each pressure test corresponding to a testing tuple for at least one of the set of identified pressure components(24,26: fig. 8), the testing tuple comprising at least one of component test side(i.e. line/ pipe), sealing state(i.e. broken state), and pressure(to extract from the minimum flow rates of nighttime and display the minimum values for each of the ejection pressures. The data surrounded by the broken line in FIG. 7 correspond to the minimum values for each ejection pressure extracted from the minimum flow rates of nighttime. Such images for each of the states of before and after applying the leakage suppression apparatus 30, are displayed to grasp the effectiveness in suppressing water leakage by the leakage suppression apparatus 30; fig. 3; [0030]).
Regarding Claim 8. Yokokawa further teaches generating the test plan comprises generating at least one pressure test for each testing tuple of the identified pressure components(fig. 4-5; [0030]).
Regarding Claim 9. Yokokawa further teaches a given pressure test may correspond to multiple testing tuples, each of the multiple testing tuples for different of the identified pressure components(fig. 4-5; [0030])-[0034]).
Regarding Claim 10. Yokokawa further teaches determining a fitness score for the test plan comprises determining the fitness score for the test plan based on at least one of test plan completeness with respect to the set of pressure components, pressure of the test plan, number of pressure tests of the test plan, and presence of flow errors in pressure tests of the test plan(fig. 7; [0033]).
Regarding Claim 11. Yokokawa further teaches flow errors comprises at least one of an open flow path, an isolated cavity, and an over pressurization ([0033]).
Regarding Claim 12. Yokokawa further teaches obtaining the test plan comprises obtaining a plurality of test plans(33, 34, 36: fig. 8), wherein determining a fitness score for the test plan comprises determining fitness scores for the plurality of test plans (fig. 6; [0032], [0041]) and wherein outputting the test plan comprises outputting at least one of the plurality of test plans for application to the plurality of pressure components based on the fitness scores([0033]-[0034]).
Regarding Claim 14. Yokokawa further teaches outputting the test plan comprises outputting one or more optimal test plan for application to the plurality of pressure components based on the fitness scores(min(p): fig.8).
Regarding Claim 15. Yokokawa further teaches determining the fitness scores for the plurality of test plans comprises(fig. 7; [0032]-[0034]):
determining a given fitness score for each of the test plans of the plurality of test plans(fig. 7; [0032]-[0034]);
selecting a subset of test plans from the plurality based on their fitness scores(data surrounded by the broken line in FIG. 7 correspond to the minimum values for each ejection pressure extracted from the minimum flow rates of nighttime: [0033], fig.7); and
generating a subsequent plurality of test plans from the selected subset of test plans(fig. 7; [0032]-[0034]);
wherein outputting at least one of the plurality of test plans comprises outputting at least one of the subsequent plurality of test plans(fig. 7; [0032]-[0034]; min(p): fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 21. Yokokawa further teaches comprising applying the test plan(42: fig.8) to the plurality of pressure components(22, 23,20: fig. 8; [0019], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 22. Yokokawa further teaches determining characteristics of the plurality of pressure components based on the applied test plan(a continuous process: fig. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 25. Yokokawa further teaches comprising one or more pressure component of the plurality of pressure components, the processor further configured to control the one or more pressure component to apply the output test plan(40: fig. 8;[0019],[0024], [0025] ).
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) 13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokawa et al. (US 20160306366) in view of Tao et al. (US 2020/0319057).
Regarding Claim 13. Yokokawa silent about a test plan comprises a gene, and wherein outputting at least one of the plurality of test plans for application comprises steps for application of a genetic algorithm.
However, Tao teaches a test plan comprises a gene, and wherein outputting at least one of the plurality of test plans for application comprises steps for application of a genetic algorithm([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Yokokawa, a test plan comprises a gene, and wherein outputting at least one of the plurality of test plans for application comprises steps for application of a genetic algorithm, as taught by Tao, so as to acquire water leakage amounts of different areas obtained by the virtual division.
Regarding Claim 16. Yokokawa silent about generating the subsequent plurality of test plans comprises generating the subsequent plurality of test plans based on genetic evolution of the selected subset of test plans.
However, Tao teaches generating the subsequent plurality of test plans comprises generating the subsequent plurality of test plans based on genetic evolution of the selected subset of test plans ([0054]-[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Yokokawa, generating the subsequent plurality of test plans comprises generating the subsequent plurality of test plans based on genetic evolution of the selected subset of test plans, as taught by Tao, so as to acquire water leakage amounts of different areas obtained by the virtual division.
Regarding Claim 17. Tao further teaches generating the subsequent plurality of test plans further comprises generating additional test plans by methods other than genetic evolution(an optimal spatial distribution of water leakage amounts is searched by a genetic algorithm, and water leakage amounts of different areas in the water distribution system are calculated: [0071]).
Regarding Claim 18. Tao further teaches selecting a subset of test plans from the plurality comprises ranking the test plans of the plurality based on their fitness scores and selecting the subset based on the ranking (The generation process includes selection, crossover, mutation and reservation of elite individuals: [0062]-[0065]).
Regarding Claim 19. Tao further teaches comprising iteratively generating the subsequent plurality of test plans based on the plurality of test plans until a termination criterion is reached and outputting the at least one of the subsequent plurality of test plans after the termination criterion is reached (Three termination conditions are set for searching the optimal spatial distribution of water leakage amounts by the genetic algorithm. The calculation is terminated if any one of the conditions is satisfied: [0062]-[0065], [0091]).
Regarding Claim 20. Tao further teaches comprising steps for mutation of genes, wherein the test plans of the plurality comprise genes ([0062], [0091]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Hornacek et al. (US 20210356350 ) disclose a method for identifying the occurrence of a defect in a pipeline by estimation, wherein at least one first indicator is identified by a first detector assigned to a first detection location, from which a first estimation value regarding the occurrence of the defect in the pipeline is determined, and at least one second indicator is identified by at least one second detector assigned to a second detection location, from which at least one second estimation value regarding the occurrence of the defect in the pipeline is determined. An overall estimation value is determined from the first estimation value and the at least one second estimation value by an overall estimation function by taking into account the respective positions of the first detection location and the second detection location, from which overall estimation value the occurrence of the defect is estimated.
b) Abhu,. et al. (US 20050246112) disclose There is provided a method for detecting and locating leaks in a pipeline network in real-time. A flow model is provided that characterizes flow behavior for at least one of steady and unsteady states respectively corresponding to an absence and a presence of model leaks in the pipeline network, the flow model including a leaking factor kL. A deterministic model is provided to evaluate at least one of a leak status and a no leak status relating to the pipeline network using deterministic criteria. The deterministic criteria is based on a Liapunov Stability Theory. A deviation matrix is constructed based on the flow model and the deterministic model to generate eigenvalues. A leak alarm is generated when at least one of the eigenvalues is less than a predetermined value.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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 at 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857