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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 page 13 recites second portion 114, and line 13 page 16 recites access channel 23
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Surbayrole (US-20210136520), in view of, Ramirez (US-11754461), in further view of,
Yates (WO-0170422).
Surbayrole teaches:
In regards to claim(s) 1, Surbayrole teaches a system comprising: a locator device comprising: (abstract, ‘teaches the concept where an object calculates a piece of geolocation information of its own position using a GPS system’; para [0046])
a global position system (GPS) module operable to determine a geolocation of the device; and (para [0046])
a transceiver operable to send and receive signals; (para [0046])
a computer sub-system operably connected to the electronic sub-system of the device, the computer sub-system comprising: (abstract, ‘the connected object calculates a piece of geolocation information of its own position based on a plurality of location data coming from various located terminals 2(.1-.5)-terminals’; para [0046], ‘recites computers, radio technology, Wifi’)
a controller; and (para [0046], ‘recites computers, radio technology, Wifi’)
one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: para [0046], ‘recites computers, radio technology, Wifi’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Surbayrole to provide a method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like.
Surbayrole does not teach:
a hollow, housing comprising:
an interior cavity,
an exterior surface defining at least one slot, and
at least one recess extending from the at least one slot of the exterior surface of the housing, towards the interior cavity of the housing;
an electronic sub-system arranged in the interior cavity of the housing, the electronic sub-system comprising:
at least one protrusion attached to the housing, wherein the at least one protrusion comprises:
a coupling at a first end of the protrusion, wherein the coupling is arranged in the recess of the housing, and
a body having a tip at a second end of the protrusion; and
determining a location of a scale deposit in a pipeline based on a received geolocation of the device.
Ramirez teaches:
an exterior surface defining at least one slot, and (1, 1’ fig(s) 1-3, ‘semicircular casings’)
at least one recess extending from the at least one slot of the exterior surface of the housing, towards the interior cavity of the housing; (7, 8 fig(s) 1-3, ‘shows connections with recesses’)
an electronic sub-system arranged in the interior cavity of the housing, the electronic sub-system comprising: (2, 13, 9 fig(s) 1-3, ‘hydrophone’, ‘signal processor’, ‘communication module’)
determining a location of a scale deposit in a pipeline based on a received geolocation of the device. (abstract, ‘anomalies or leaks can be detected’; 10-19 col. 7)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Ramiriez to provide a structure as recited above for a sensor system and employ the method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like.
Ramirez does not teach:
at least one protrusion attached to the housing, wherein the at least one protrusion comprises:
a coupling at a first end of the protrusion, wherein the coupling is arranged in the recess of the housing, and
a body having a tip at a second end of the protrusion; and
Yates teaches:
at least one protrusion attached to the housing, wherein the at least one protrusion comprises: (9 fig. 1, ‘weight changing mechanism’; lines 1-19 page 7)
a coupling at a first end of the protrusion, wherein the coupling is arranged in the recess of the housing, and (9 fig. 1, ‘weight changing mechanism’; lines 1-19 page 7)
a body having a tip at a second end of the protrusion; and (10 fig. 1, ‘piston head’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Yates to provide a structure comprising a protrusion as recited above for a sensor system and employ the method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like.
In regards to claim 2, Surbayrole , Ramirez & Yates teach a system according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Ramirez teaches wherein the housing further comprises a first portion having a first well and a second portion having a second well, wherein the first and second well define the interior cavity. (Ramirez: 7, 8 fig(s) 1-3, ‘shows connections with recesses having inner walls’)
In regards to claim 6, Surbayrole , Ramirez & Yates teach a system according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Ramirez teaches wherein the housing is a spherical housing. (Ramirez: 1, 1'-2 semicircular casings)
In regards to claim 9, Surbayrole , Ramirez & Yates teach a system according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Yates teaches wherein protrusion is releasably attached to the housing. (Yates: 9 fig. 1, ‘weight changing mechanism’; lines 1-19 page 7)
In regards to claim 15, Surbayrole , Ramirez & Yates teach a system according to claim 1, Yates teaches wherein the coupling of the protrusion comprises arms engageable with walls of the housing to hold the coupling of the protrusion in the recess of the housing. Yates: 9 fig. 1, ‘weight changing mechanism’; lines 1-19 page 7)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Surbayrole (US-20210136520), Ramirez (US-11754461), Yates (WO-0170422), in
view of van Pol (US-20180177064)
Surbayrole, Ramirez & Yates teach:
In regards to claim 7, Surbayrole , Ramirez & Yates teach a system according to claim 6, (see claim rejection 6)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Surbayrole, Ramirez & Yates to provide a method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like.
Surbayrole, Ramirez & Yates don’t teach:
wherein the housing has a diameter of about 0.1 inch to about 4 inches.
Van Pol teaches:
wherein the housing has a diameter of about 0.1 inch to about 4 inches. (para [0083])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for van Pol to provide a device comprising various materials for a method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like and to control the buoyancy of the device in a conduit.
In regards to claim 8, Surbayrole , Ramirez & Yates teach a system according to claim 6, (see claim rejection 6)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Surbayrole, Ramirez & Yates to provide a method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like.
Surbayrole, Ramirez & Yates don’t teach:
wherein the device has a diameter of about 1 inch to about 10 inches and comprises a non-metallic material.
Van Pol teaches:
wherein the device has a diameter of about 1 inch to about 10 inches and comprises a non-metallic material.
(para [0083])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for van Pol to provide a device comprising various materials for a method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like and to control the buoyancy of the device in a conduit.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Surbayrole (US-20210136520), Ramirez (US-11754461), Yates (WO-0170422), in
view of van Pol (US-20180177064)
Surbayrole, Ramirez & Yates teach:
In regards to claim 3, Surbayrole, Ramirez & Yates teach a system according to claim 2, (see claim rejection 2)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Surbayrole, Ramirez & Yates to provide a method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like.
Surbayrole, Ramirez & Yates don’t teach:
wherein the first portion comprises a first material, wherein the second portion comprises a second material.
van Pol teaches:
wherein the first portion comprises a first material, wherein the second portion comprises a second material. (para [0092], ‘recites different configurations and/or selections of materials may be used for the components of the sensor device 100’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for van Pol to provide a device comprising various materials for a method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like and to control the buoyancy of the device in a conduit.
In regards to claim 4, Surbayrole, Ramirez, Yates, & van Pol teach a system according to claim 2, (see claim rejection 2) Ramirez teaches wherein the housing comprises coupling walls defining the recess. (Ramirez: 7, 8 fig(s) 1-3, ‘shows connections with recesses having inner walls’)
In regards to claim 5, Surbayrole, Ramirez, Yates, & van Pol teach a system according to claim 4, (see claim rejection 4) Yates teaches wherein the coupling walls releasably attach the at least one protrusion to the housing of the device. (Yates: 9 fig. 1, ‘weight changing mechanism’; lines 1-19 page 7)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Surbayrole (US-20210136520), in view of, Ramirez (US-11754461).
Surbayrole teaches:
In regards to claim 26, Surbayrole teaches a method comprising:
receiving a first set of geolocation data from a device in a pipeline; (fig(s) 1-2, 5,abstract, ‘teaches the concept where an object or objects calculates a piece of geolocation information of its own position using a GPS system’; para [0046])
receiving a second set of geolocation data from the device in the pipeline; (fig(s) 1-2, 5,abstract, ‘teaches the concept where an object or objects calculates a piece of geolocation information of its own position using a GPS system’; para [0046])
determining if the device is static in the pipeline based on at least the first set of geolocation data and the second set of geolocation data; and (para [0046], ‘can determine if the object is static’; para [0073], ‘determines if the object is moving’)
in response to determining the device is static, determining static coordinates of the device based on at least the second set of data. (abstract, ‘the connected object calculates a piece of geolocation information of its own position based on a plurality of location data coming from various located terminals 2(.1-.5)-terminals’; para [0046], ‘recites computers, radio technology, Wifi’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Surbayrole to provide a method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like.
Surbayrole does not teach:
a pipeline
Ramirez teaches:
a pipeline (abstract; 1, 1’, 15 fig. 6, ‘pipeline’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Ramiriez to provide a structure as recited above for use in a pipeline for a sensor system and employ the method for a locator device system for geolocation of an object or objects and the like.
In regards to claim 27, Surbayrole & Ramirez teach a method according to claim 26, (see claim rejection 26) Surbayrole teaches wherein the coordinates contain a longitude and a latitude. (Surbayrole: fig(s) 1-2, 5,abstract, ‘teaches the concept where an object or objects calculates a piece of geolocation information of its own position using a GPS system’; para [0046])
In regards to claim 28, Surbayrole & Ramirez teach a method according to claim 26, (see claim rejection 26) Surbayrole teaches further comprising generating an alert on a display of the computer sub-system or connected to the computer sub-system, wherein the alert displays the static coordinates of the device in the pipeline. (Surbayrole: abstract, ‘the connected object calculates a piece of geolocation information of its own position based on a plurality of location data coming from various located terminals 2(.1-.5)-terminals’; para [0046], ‘recites computers, radio technology, Wifi’)
In regards to claim 29, Surbayrole & Ramirez teach a method according to claim 26, (see claim rejection 26) further comprising:
prior to receiving the first set of data, receiving measurement parameter of a pipeline, wherein the parameter is at least one of: (Surbayrole: fig 5; abstract, ‘the connected object calculates a piece of geolocation information of its own position based on a plurality of location data coming from various located terminals 2(.1-.5)-terminals’; para [0046], ‘recites computers, radio technology, Wifi’)
a pipeline pressure and a flow rate of fluid in the pipeline; and determining that the parameter suggests scale formation in a portion of the pipeline. (Ramirez: abstract, ‘anomalies or leaks can be detected’; 10-19 col. 7)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10-14, 16-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 18-25, 30 allowed.
None of the reference search suggest the method as recited by claim(s) 10, 18
that protrusions are utilized by a sensor or pigging mechanism for fastening to a scale
deposit in a pipeline by a body of a protrusion of a device moving within the pipeline;
and claim 30 having a tip at a second end of the protrusion, wherein the body is
configured to fasten the device to a scale deposit.
Upon completion of a Similarity Search and a PE2E search the closest reference found for scale detection was GB-2402738, however it was for scale deposits in a oil reservoir. The reference US 2,835,548 yields a satellite structure with hemispherical section 10 and 11, a comprising antenna 31 protruding from the sphere however the technology is unrelated and the function of the protrusions are different.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The references cited Paulson (WO 2006/081671), Yates (WO-
0170422), van Pol (US-11406035), van Pol (US-12146971) and Mcewan (WO-
0186191) references further describe a locator device as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852