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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11953356. Since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is disclosed in the claims of the patent claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Instant Application 18431970
Conflicting Patent US 11953356
Claim 1
Claims 1, 2 & 3
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claims 1, 2 & 3
Claim 4
Claim 1
Claim 5
Claim 1
Claim 6
Claim 1
Claim 7
Claims 1 & 7
Claim 8
Claim 5 w/base claims
Claim 9
Claim 6 w/base claims
Claim 10
Claim 6 w/base claims
Claim 11
Claims 1-3 & 6-7
Claim 12
Claims 3 & 4 w/base claims
Claim 13
Claim 3 w/base claims
Claim 14
Claim 4 w/base claims
Claim 15
Claim 7
Claim 16
Claim 1 & 7
Claim 17
Claim 1 & 7
Claim 18
Claim 5 w/base claims
Claim 19
Claim 6 w/base claims
Claim 20
Claim 6 w/base claims
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 & 11 recite the limitation “at least one moment in a second preset time period through a low-volume leakage prediction model to determine at least one candidate second leakage risk of at least one preset point of the gas pipeline network… wherein the second leakage risk refers to a risk and a risk probability related to a stable low-volume leakage of gas”, where a second preset time period with a second leakage risk require undefined steps from an undefined first preset time period and first leakage risk. Examiner looks to the specification [0101 & 0103 and Figs. 3 & 4] where the gas feature stability is a first leakage risk determined through processing a first preset time period.
Claims 1 & 11 recite the relative term “preferred detection position distribution” which is unclear what distinguishes a “preferred detection position distribution” from the comparative “detection position distribution”. Examiner looks to the specification (Fig. 5) and a preferred detection position distribution the preferred detection position distribution includes preferred detection positions of one or more ultrasonic flowmeters with predicted rates for the transportation feature of the pipeline.
All dependent claims are rejected for their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are objected to and would be allowable if:
1) Rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
2) A terminal disclaimer is filed (see above double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claims 1 & 11. The closest prior art is Shao (CN 114398987) which discloses a method and system for managing and controlling a risk in a smart gas pipeline network by combining an ultrasonic flowmeter implemented by a management platform of an Internet of things (IoT) system, wherein the IoT system further includes an object platform, a sensor network platform, a service platform, and a user platform used to distribute ultrasonic data for at least one moment from the object platform through the sensor network platform, the distributed ultrasonic data including ultrasonic data acquired by at least one ultrasonic flowmeter and the at least one ultrasonic flowmeter being deployed at least one detection position of the gas pipeline network; processing at least one group of distributed ultrasonic data with different detection position distributions.
Shao nor the prior art discloses establishing a risk probability related to a stable low-volume leakage of gas [e.g. with clarification the risk probability is the first leakage risk from a first preset time period] and then performing the claimed:
using at least one moment in a second preset time period through a low-volume leakage prediction model to determine at least one candidate second leakage risk of at least one preset point of the gas pipeline network; the low-volume leakage prediction model being a machine learning model; performing a weighted summation on the at least one candidate second leakage risk, and determining a second leakage risk of the at least one preset point; a weight corresponding to each candidate second leakage risk being related to a difference between a detection position distribution corresponding to the each candidate second leakage risk and a preferred detection position distribution… and generating warning information based on the second leakage risk, and sending the warning information to the user platform through the service platform for display to a user.
Regarding Claims 2-10 & 12-20 are rejected based on their 112(b) dependence on Claims 1 & 11 and are indicated as allowable based on their dependence on the indicated allowable material of Claims 1 & 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Monica S Young whose telephone number is (303)297-4785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-05:30 MST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-273-2375. 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.
/MONICA S YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855