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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-11, 13-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dankers et al (WO 2020/160663 A1) in view of Bryant et al (US 20030038231 A1) in view of Farhadiroushan et al (US 2017/0248462 A1).
As per claim 1 and similarly in claim 11, Dankers teaches the following:
A method for re-using distributed fiber optic sensing to detect leaks at multiple locations (Ab, para 004, 006, 0069), the method comprising:
installing an above ground pipe at a location, wherein the above ground pipe has a longitudinal axis (para 0052, 0061, 0071);
laying a fiber optic cable on the above ground pipe (Figs 8-12);
attaching the fiber optic cable to the above ground pipe along a path (Figs 8-12);
wherein the path has a curvature with respect to the longitudinal axis of the above ground pipe, wherein such curvature of the path results in the fiber optical cable being disposed at different positions around the above ground pipe as it runs along the above ground pipe, and wherein the curvature of the path avoids at least all positions between five o'clock and seven o'clock on a clock face formed through any cross-section of the above ground pipe where six o'clock on the clock face points directly to the ground (Figs 8-12, para 0015, 0071);
detecting fluid leaks along the above ground pipe based on measurement using the fiber optic cable (para 004, 006, 0069).
Dankers does not expressly teach the fiber optic may be removed and reused.
However, Bryant teaches temporary attachment and removal of the optical fiber at para 0034.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify Dankers by temporary attaching the optical fiber in order to repair or upgrade the sensor.
Dankers in view of Bryant do not explicitly teach reusing the fiber optics in another location.
However, Farhadiroushan teaches fiber optics reuse in another location (ab, para 008).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify Dankers in view of Bryant by reusing the optical fiber in another location in order to reduce waste and/or cost.
As per claims 3 and 11, Dankers teaches a surface laid pipe (para 0061-63, 0071).
As per claims 4-6, 14-16, Dankers teaches periodic path and increase contact and positions between 7 and 5 (Figs 8-12, para 0015, 0071).
As per claims 7 and 17, Dankers teaches the fiber optic is stretched (Fig 2, para 0063-64).
As per claims 10 and 20, Dankers teaches teaches of fluid leaks (para 004, 006, 0069).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dankers in view of Bryant in view of Farhadiroushan as applied to claims above, and further in view of Disko et al. (US2019/0203591).
Dankers in view of Bryant in view of Farhadiroushan teaches an above ground pipe but does not teach the above ground pipe is installed at the location for hydraulic fracturing of a well; and the above ground pipe operates as a flowline to transport fluid for the hydraulic fracturing of the well.
However, Disko, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an above ground pipe ([0042]) is installed at the location for hydraulic fracturing of a well ([0064-0065]); and the above ground pipe ([0042]) operates as a flowline to transport fluid for the hydraulic fracturing of the well ([0064]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dankers in view of Bryant in view of Farhadiroushan with the teachings of Disko, in order to use fiber optic cables ([0072]) to monitor information ([0067-0068]) of the operation of a hydraulic fracturing well ([0065]).
Claims 8-9, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dankers in view of Bryant in view of Farhadiroushan as applied to claims above, and further in view of Pionetti et al. (US2019/0041242).
As per claims 8 and 18, Dankers in view of Bryant in view of Farhadiroushan does not teach locating pinch-points along the pipe based on the measurement using the fiber optic cable attached to the pipe.
However, Pionetti, in a similar field of endeavor teaches locating pinch-points or kinks along the pipe ([0062]: mechanical deformations]) based on measurements using the fiber optic cable attached to the pipe (Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dankers in view of Bryant in view of Farhadiroushan with the teachings of Pionetti, to monitor the mechanical behavior and stresses of the pipe ([0036]), in order to provide information about issues with the pipe requiring attention.
As per claims 9 and 19, Dankers in view of Bryant in view of Farhadiroushan does not teach identifying one or more kinks in the above ground pipe at the pinch-points; and fixing the one or more kinks in the above ground pipe.
However, Pionetti teaches identifying one or more kinks in the pipe at the pinch-points ([0062]: mechanical deformations]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Dankers in view of Bryant in view of Farhadiroushan with the teachings of Pionetti, to monitor the mechanical behavior and stresses of the pipe ([0036]), in order to provide information about when issues with the pipe require attention, so that they can be fixed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E BREENE whose telephone number is (571)272-4107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571)272-4483. 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.
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights