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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3 is 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.
Claim 3: The terms “the upper set value” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fourie et al (US 20030074162 A1).
Claim 19: Fourie discloses an oil and gas facility (see e.g. [0048]), comprising:
a pipeline network comprising a buried section disposed in underground soil (see e.g. (see e.g. Fig 1; [0050]); and
a pipeline corrosion prediction system (see e.g. abstract; [0118]; [0126]) comprising functionality for:
obtaining a measurement of a CP current produced by a cathodic protection (CP) system disposed in a vicinity of the pipeline network (see e.g. #32 on Fig 1; [0050]);
comparing the measurement of the CP current to a pre-determined threshold to generate a designated level of the CP current (see e.g. [0133]); and
selectively facilitating, in response to said comparing and based on the designated level of the CP current, a maintenance operation of the pipeline network selectively facilitating the maintenance operation of the pipeline network (see e.g. [0126]).
Claim 20: Fourie discloses that the CP system comprises:
an anode bed comprising a series of electrodes disposed in an electrolytic environment of underground soil where at least a section of the pipeline network is buried (see e.g. #32 on Fig 1; [0050]);
a direct current (DC) power source connected to the anode bed and a buried section of the pipeline network to form a CP current loop where the CP current flows (see e.g. #24 on Fig 1; [0054]); and
a current meter inserted in the CP current loop to generate the measurement of the CP current (see e.g. #50 on Fig 4; [0059]).
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourie in view of Meyer (“Predicting corrosion on protected buried steel natural gas distribution pipelines”, 2015, pages 1-61).
Claim 1: Fourie discloses a method to predict external corrosion risk and facilitate maintenance operation of a pipeline network (see e.g. abstract; [0118]; [0126]), comprising:
disposing a cathodic protection (CP) system in a vicinity of the pipeline network (see e.g. Fig 1), wherein the CP system comprises:
an anode bed comprising a series of electrodes disposed in an electrolytic environment of underground soil where at least a section of the pipeline network is buried (see e.g. #32 on Fig 1; [0050]);
a direct current (DC) power source connected to the anode bed and a buried section of the pipeline network to form a CP current loop where the CP current flows (see e.g. #24 on Fig 1; [0054]); and
a current meter inserted in the CP current loop to generate the measurement of the CP current (see e.g. #50 on Fig 4; [0059]);
obtaining a measurement of a CP current produced by the CP system (see e.g. [0059]);
comparing the measurement of the CP current to a pre-determined threshold to generate a designated level of the CP current (see e.g. [0133]);
selectively performing maintenance operation of the pipeline network (see e.g. [0126]).
Fourie discloses determining the state of corrosion of the pipeline (see e.g. [0125]) but does not explicitly teach selectively determining an external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network based on the designated level of the CP current, a conductor surface area of the pipeline, a coating factor of the pipeline network, and an exposure time of the CP current. However, Fourie does teach monitoring the designated level of the CP current (see e.g. [0059]) and a coating factor of the pipeline network (using the leak detection device, see e.g. [0052]; [0059]), and that other parameters can be monitored (see [0125]).
Meyer teaches method of determining the state of corrosion of pipelines using modeling (see e.g. abstract; page 56, paragraph starting with “We found”). The method of Meyer determines the state of corrosion based on a conductor surface area of the pipeline (dimensions of the pipe, page 31, “Amount of pipe”; page 35, “Diameter of pipe), a coating factor of the pipeline network (see e.g. page 16, “Coatings”; page 32, paragraph starting with “The age of the steel…”), and an exposure time of the CP current (“…serve as a proxy for the age of the cathodic protection systems and pipe coatings.”, see e.g. page 32, “Age of steel pipe”). This modeling allows the system to more accurately predict if corrosion will occur (see e.g. page 56, paragraph starting with “The residual”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Fourie to include the steps of selectively determining an external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network based on the designated level of the CP current, a conductor surface area of the pipeline, a coating factor of the pipeline network, and an exposure time of the CP current as taught in Meyer to accurately predict if corrosion will occur along the pipeline. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use this prediction to affect the maintenance operation of the pipeline network to prevent future corrosion events.
Claim 2: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said comparing the measurement of the CP current to the pre-determined threshold to generate the designated level of the CP current comprises:
designating the CP current as a high level based on the measurement of the CP current exceeding an upper set value of the pre-determined threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0014]); and
withholding, in response to designating the CP current as the high level, the maintenance operation of the pipeline network (the pipe is receiving sufficient CP current and thus does not need maintenance, see e.g. Fourie - [0014]).
Claim 3: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said comparing the measurement of the CP current to the pre-determined threshold to generate the designated level of the CP current comprises:
designating the CP current as a medium level based on the measurement of the CP current being in-between the upper set value and a lower set value of the pre-determined threshold (see e.g. Meyer - page 19, paragraph starting with “Current measurements”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined, in response to designating the CP current as the medium level, based on the conductor surface area of the pipeline and the coating factor of the pipeline network (see e.g. Meyer - page 19, paragraph starting with “Current measurements”).
Claim 4: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said selectively determining the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network comprises:
comparing the conductor surface area of the pipeline to a pre-determined surface area threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 31, “Amount of pipe”); and
comparing, the coating factor of the pipeline network to a pre-determined coating factor threshold (Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 23, paragraph starting with “The indirect”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a high external corrosion threat based on the coating factor of the pipeline network being less than the pre-determined coating factor threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]; [0059]), and
wherein a high external corrosion threat maintenance operation is selected to be performed for the pipeline network (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]).
Claim 5: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said selectively determining the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network comprises:
comparing the conductor surface area of the pipeline to a pre-determined surface area threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 31, “Amount of pipe”); and
comparing, the coating factor of the pipeline network to a pre-determined coating factor threshold (Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 23, paragraph starting with “The indirect”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a medium external corrosion threat based on the conductor surface area of the pipeline being less than the pre-determined surface area threshold or based on the coating factor of the pipeline network exceeding the pre-determined coating factor threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]; [0059]), and
wherein a medium external corrosion threat maintenance operation is selected to be performed for the pipeline network (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]).
Claim 6: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that comparing the measurement of the CP current to the pre-determined threshold to generate the designated level of the CP current comprises:
designating the CP current as a low level based on the measurement of the CP current being less than a lower set value of the pre-determined threshold (see e.g. Meyer - page 19, paragraph starting with “Current measurements”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined, in response to designating the CP current as low level, based on the conductor surface area of the pipeline, the coating factor of the pipeline network, and the exposure time of the CP current (see e.g. Meyer - page 19, paragraph starting with “Current measurements”).
Claim 10: Fourie discloses a pipeline corrosion prediction system to predict external corrosion risk and facilitate a maintenance operation of a pipeline network (see e.g. abstract; [0118]; [0126]), comprising:
a computer processor (see e.g. [0087]: “control circuit 110 may include a microprocessor”); and
memory storing instructions (see e.g. [0117]), when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality for:
obtaining a measurement of a CP current produced by a cathodic protection (CP) system disposed in a vicinity of the pipeline network (see e.g. [0024]: “The remote monitoring unit may optionally include a pipeline current measurement unit”; [0059]), wherein the CP system comprises:
an anode bed comprising a series of electrodes disposed in an electrolytic environment of underground soil where at least a section of the pipeline network is buried (see e.g. #32 on Fig 1; [0050]);
a direct current (DC) power source connected to the anode bed and a buried section of the pipeline network to form a CP current loop where the CP current flows (see e.g. #24 on Fig 1; [0054]); and
a current meter inserted in the CP current loop to generate the measurement of the CP current (see e.g. #50 on Fig 4; [0059]);
comparing the measurement of the CP current to a pre-determined threshold to generate a designated level of the CP current (see e.g. [0133]);
selectively facilitating the maintenance operation of the pipeline network (see e.g. [0126]).
Fourie discloses determining the state of corrosion of the pipeline (see e.g. [0125]) but does not explicitly teach selectively determining an external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network based on the designated level of the CP current, a conductor surface area of the pipeline, a coating factor of the pipeline network, and an exposure time of the CP current. However, Fourie does teach monitoring the designated level of the CP current (see e.g. [0059]) and a coating factor of the pipeline network (using the leak detection device, see e.g. [0052]; [0059]), and that other parameters can be monitored (see [0125]).
Meyer teaches method of determining the state of corrosion of pipelines using modeling (see e.g. abstract; page 56, paragraph starting with “We found”). The method of Meyer determines the state of corrosion based on a conductor surface area of the pipeline (dimensions of the pipe, page 31, “Amount of pipe”; page 35, “Diameter of pipe), a coating factor of the pipeline network (see e.g. page 16, “Coatings”; page 32, paragraph starting with “The age of the steel…”), and an exposure time of the CP current (“…serve as a proxy for the age of the cathodic protection systems and pipe coatings.”, see e.g. page 32, “Age of steel pipe”). This modeling allows the system to more accurately predict if corrosion will occur (see e.g. page 56, paragraph starting with “The residual”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the instructions of Fourie to include the steps of selectively determining an external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network based on the designated level of the CP current, a conductor surface area of the pipeline, a coating factor of the pipeline network, and an exposure time of the CP current as taught in Meyer to accurately predict if corrosion will occur along the pipeline. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use this prediction to affect the maintenance operation of the pipeline network to prevent future corrosion events.
Claim 11: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said comparing the measurement of the CP current to the pre-determined threshold to generate the designated level of the CP current comprises:
designating the CP current as a high level based on the measurement of the CP current exceeding an upper set value of the pre-determined threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0014]); and
withholding, in response to designating the CP current as the high level, the maintenance operation of the pipeline network (the pipe is receiving sufficient CP current and thus does not need maintenance, see e.g. Fourie - [0014]).
Claim 12: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said comparing the measurement of the CP current to the pre-determined threshold to generate the designated level of the CP current comprises:
designating the CP current as a medium level based on the measurement of the CP current being in-between the upper set value and a lower set value of the pre-determined threshold (see e.g. Meyer - page 19, paragraph starting with “Current measurements”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined, in response to designating the CP current as the medium level, based on the conductor surface area of the pipeline and the coating factor of the pipeline network (see e.g. Meyer - page 19, paragraph starting with “Current measurements”).
Claim 13: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said selectively determining the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network comprises:
comparing the conductor surface area of the pipeline to a pre-determined surface area threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 31, “Amount of pipe”); and
comparing, the coating factor of the pipeline network to a pre-determined coating factor threshold (Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 23, paragraph starting with “The indirect”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a high external corrosion threat based on the coating factor of the pipeline network being less than the pre-determined coating factor threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]; [0059]), and
wherein a high external corrosion threat maintenance operation is selected to be performed for the pipeline network (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]).
Claim 14: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said selectively determining the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network comprises:
comparing the conductor surface area of the pipeline to a pre-determined surface area threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 31, “Amount of pipe”); and
comparing, the coating factor of the pipeline network to a pre-determined coating factor threshold (Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 23, paragraph starting with “The indirect”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a medium external corrosion threat based on the conductor surface area of the pipeline being less than the pre-determined surface area threshold or based on the coating factor of the pipeline network exceeding the pre-determined coating factor threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]; [0059]), and
wherein a medium external corrosion threat maintenance operation is selected to be performed for the pipeline network (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]).
Claim 15: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said comparing the measurement of the CP current to the pre-determined threshold to generate the designated level of the CP current comprises:
designating the CP current as a low level based on the measurement of the CP current being less than a lower set value of the pre-determined threshold (see e.g. Meyer - page 19, paragraph starting with “Current measurements”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined, in response to designating the CP current as low level, based on the conductor surface area of the pipeline, the coating factor of the pipeline network, and the exposure time of the CP current (see e.g. Meyer - page 19, paragraph starting with “Current measurements”).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourie in view of Meyer as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and in further view of Steele et al (US 4940944 A).
Claim 7: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network comprises:
comparing the conductor surface area of the pipeline to a pre-determined surface area threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 31, “Amount of pipe”), and comparing the coating factor of the pipeline network to a pre-determined coating factor threshold (Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 23, paragraph starting with “The indirect”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a high external corrosion threat based on the coating factor of the pipeline network being less than the pre-determined coating factor threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]; [0059]), and
wherein a high external corrosion threat maintenance operation is selected to be performed for the pipeline network (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]).
Fourie in view of Meyer does not include the steps of comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold. Steele discloses a method of monitoring cathodic protection (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Steele “Another parameter of interest which may be calculated is the integral of the cathodic protection voltage level over the time period between t1 and t2 in which it exceeded the selected protection threshold level. The integrated value combines the voltage and time when the protection exceeds the threshold and may indicate the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion” (see e.g. col 3, lines 35-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Fourie to include the step of comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold as taught in Steele to determine the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion.
Claim 8: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said selectively determining the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network comprises:
comparing the conductor surface area of the pipeline to a pre-determined surface area threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 31, “Amount of pipe”), and comparing, the coating factor of the pipeline network to a pre-determined coating factor threshold (Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 23, paragraph starting with “The indirect”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a medium external corrosion threat based on the conductor surface area of the pipeline being less than the pre-determined surface area threshold or based on the coating factor of the pipeline network exceeding the pre-determined coating factor threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]; [0059]), and
wherein a medium external corrosion threat maintenance operation is selected to be performed for the pipeline network (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]).
Fourie in view of Meyer does not include the steps of comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold. Steele discloses a method of monitoring cathodic protection (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Steele “Another parameter of interest which may be calculated is the integral of the cathodic protection voltage level over the time period between t1 and t2 in which it exceeded the selected protection threshold level. The integrated value combines the voltage and time when the protection exceeds the threshold and may indicate the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion” (see e.g. col 3, lines 35-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Fourie to include the step of comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold as taught in Steele to determine the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion.
Claim 9: Fourie in view of Meyer does not explicitly teach comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold, wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a low external corrosion threat based on the exposure time being less than the pre-determined time threshold.
Steele discloses a method of monitoring cathodic protection (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Steele “Another parameter of interest which may be calculated is the integral of the cathodic protection voltage level over the time period between t1 and t2 in which it exceeded the selected protection threshold level. The integrated value combines the voltage and time when the protection exceeds the threshold and may indicate the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion” (see e.g. col 3, lines 35-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Fourie to include the step of comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold as taught in Steele to determine the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a low external corrosion based on the exposure time being less than the pre-determined time threshold because of the teaching Steele when the time has not exceeded the threshold and a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would select a low external corrosion threat maintenance operation for this situation.
Claim 16: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network comprises:
comparing the conductor surface area of the pipeline to a pre-determined surface area threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 31, “Amount of pipe”), and comparing the coating factor of the pipeline network to a pre-determined coating factor threshold (Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 23, paragraph starting with “The indirect”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a high external corrosion threat based on the coating factor of the pipeline network being less than the pre-determined coating factor threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]; [0059]), and
wherein a high external corrosion threat maintenance operation is selected to be performed for the pipeline network (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]).
Fourie in view of Meyer does not include the steps of comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold. Steele discloses a method of monitoring cathodic protection (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Steele “Another parameter of interest which may be calculated is the integral of the cathodic protection voltage level over the time period between t1 and t2 in which it exceeded the selected protection threshold level. The integrated value combines the voltage and time when the protection exceeds the threshold and may indicate the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion” (see e.g. col 3, lines 35-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Fourie to include the step of comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold as taught in Steele to determine the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion.
Claim 17: Fourie in view of Meyer teaches that said selectively determining the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network comprises:
comparing the conductor surface area of the pipeline to a pre-determined surface area threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 31, “Amount of pipe”), and comparing, the coating factor of the pipeline network to a pre-determined coating factor threshold (Fourie - [0059]; Meyer - page 23, paragraph starting with “The indirect”),
wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a medium external corrosion threat based on the conductor surface area of the pipeline being less than the pre-determined surface area threshold or based on the coating factor of the pipeline network exceeding the pre-determined coating factor threshold (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]; [0059]), and
wherein a medium external corrosion threat maintenance operation is selected to be performed for the pipeline network (see e.g. Fourie - [0052]).
Fourie in view of Meyer does not include the steps of comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold. Steele discloses a method of monitoring cathodic protection (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Steele “Another parameter of interest which may be calculated is the integral of the cathodic protection voltage level over the time period between t1 and t2 in which it exceeded the selected protection threshold level. The integrated value combines the voltage and time when the protection exceeds the threshold and may indicate the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion” (see e.g. col 3, lines 35-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Fourie to include the step of comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold as taught in Steele to determine the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion.
Claim 18: Fourie in view of Meyer does not explicitly teach comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold, wherein the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a low external corrosion threat based on the exposure time being less than the pre-determined time threshold.
Steele discloses a method of monitoring cathodic protection (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Steele “Another parameter of interest which may be calculated is the integral of the cathodic protection voltage level over the time period between t1 and t2 in which it exceeded the selected protection threshold level. The integrated value combines the voltage and time when the protection exceeds the threshold and may indicate the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion” (see e.g. col 3, lines 35-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Fourie to include the step of comparing the exposure time to a pre-determined time threshold as taught in Steele to determine the relative susceptibility of the pipe to instantaneous corrosion. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the external corrosion risk level of the pipeline network is determined as a low external corrosion based on the exposure time being less than the pre-determined time threshold because of the teaching Steele when the time has not exceeded the threshold and a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would select a low external corrosion threat maintenance operation for this situation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights