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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 and 14-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6-12, 15, and 18 of copending Application No. 18/502,869 (Claims 11/06/2023; hereinafter ‘869) in view of Low et al. (US Patent 5,115,196; IDS dated 02/20/2025 Cite No. 1; hereinafter Low). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to claim 1, ‘869 (claim 1) recites a system for estimating location of features in a pipeline (line 1), the system comprising:
a device comprising electromagnetic sensors, the device having a cylindrical shape and sized to be deployed and travel in the pipeline (lines 3-4),;
at least one processor (line 5); and
a memory storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (lines 6-7):
acquiring measurements of signals from the electromagnetic sensors (lines 8-9);
detecting welds in walls of the pipeline based on the measurements of the signals (lines 10-11);
estimating an instantaneous velocity of the device as the device passes each weld based at least in part by the electromagnetic sensors (lines 12-14); and
estimating position of the device in the pipeline based at least in part on the estimates of the instantaneous velocity of the device over time (lines 15-16).
However, ‘869 is silent regarding the electromagnetic sensors are in a first array and a second array, wherein the first array of electromagnetic sensors axially spaced apart from the second array of electromagnetic sensors by a distance; the at least one processor to perform operations comprising acquiring measurements of signals from the first array and the second array of electromagnetic sensors; estimating an instantaneous velocity of the device as the device passes each weld based at least in part by dividing the distance between first array of electromagnetic sensors and the second array of electromagnetic sensors by time elapsed between first array of electromagnetic sensors passing the weld and the second array of electromagnetic sensors passing the weld.
Low teaches a system for estimating location of features in a pipeline (col. 2, lines 40-52) comprising electromagnetic sensors arranged in a first array (weld sensor units 30 located in 26; FIG. 1-3) and a second array (weld sensor units 30 located in 20; FIG. 1-3; col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 22), wherein the first array of electromagnetic sensors axially spaced apart from the second array of electromagnetic sensors by a distance (col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 22; FIG. 1-3); the at least one processor (including 86; FIG. 3) to perform operations comprising acquiring measurements of signals from the first array and the second array of electromagnetic sensors (FIG. 3); estimating an instantaneous velocity of the device as the device passes each weld based at least in part by dividing the distance between first array of electromagnetic sensors and the second array of electromagnetic sensors by time elapsed between first array of electromagnetic sensors passing the weld and the second array of electromagnetic sensors passing the weld (col. 8, lines 1-25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the electromagnetic sensors into a first and second array (and its method of calculating velocity) as taught by Low to the electromagnetic sensors and processor as taught by ‘869 with reasonable expectation of generating high resolution signal for measurements (col. 2, lines 61-68; Low).
With respect to claim 2, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to ‘869) the system of claim 1, wherein detecting welds in walls of the pipeline based on the measurements of the signals comprises identifying peaks in the measurements of the signals (claim 2).
With respect to claim 3, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to Low) system of claim 1, further comprising, for each weld, recording a first time when the first array of electromagnetic sensors passes the weld and recording a second time when the second array of electromagnetic sensors passes the weld (col. 8, lines 1-25).
With respect to claim 4, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to Low) system of claim 3, wherein estimating position of the device in the pipeline based at least in part on the estimates of the instantaneous velocity comprises integrating the estimated instantaneous velocities of the over time (col. 8, lines 1-25).
With respect to claim 5, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to ‘869) the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and the memory storing instructions are components of the device (claim 6).
With respect to claim 6, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to ‘869) the system of claim 1, wherein the device is a pipeline inspection gadget (claim 7).
With respect to claim 7, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to ‘869) the system of claim 1, wherein the first array of electromagnetic sensors are regularly distributed in a ring around a circumference of the device (claim 8 and FIG. 1 of Low).
With respect to claim 8, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to Low) system of claim 7, wherein the second array (see 30 arranged in 20) of electromagnetic sensors are regularly distributed in a ring around a circumference of the device (FIG. 1 of Low).
With respect to claim 9, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to ‘869) the system of claim 1, further comprising an inertial measurement unit (claim 9).
With respect to claim 10, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to ‘869) the system of claim 9, wherein the inertial measurement unit comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope (claim 10).
With respect to claim 11, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to Low) the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise calculating an average velocity of the device as the device passes a weld based at least in part on a nominal length of spools forming the pipeline (col. 8, lines 35-61).
With respect to claim 14, ‘869 (claim 11) teaches a method for localizing a traveling device in a pipeline, the traveling device comprising a plurality of electromagnetic sensors (lines 1-2), the method comprising:
acquiring measurements of signals from electromagnetic sensors axially spaced apart on a device sized to be deployed and travel in the pipeline (lines 3-4);
detecting welds in walls of the pipeline based on the measurements of the signals (line 5);
estimating an instantaneous velocity of the device as the device passes each weld based at least in part by electromagnetic sensors passing the weld (lines 6-8); and
estimating position of the device in the pipeline based at least in part on the estimates of the instantaneous velocity of the device over time (lines 9-10).
However, ‘869 is silent regarding acquiring measurements of signals from a first array and a second array of electromagnetic sensors; and estimating an instantaneous velocity of the device as the device passes each weld based at least in part by dividing the distance between first array of electromagnetic sensors and the second array of electromagnetic sensors by time elapsed between first array of electromagnetic sensors passing the weld and the second array of electromagnetic sensors passing the weld.
Low teaches a method for estimating location of features in a pipeline (col. 2, lines 40-52) comprising acquiring measurements of signals from a first array (weld sensor units 30 located in 26; FIG. 1-3) and a second array of electromagnetic sensors (weld sensor units 30 located in 20; FIG. 1-3; col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 22); and estimating an instantaneous velocity of the device as the device passes each weld based at least in part by dividing the distance between first array of electromagnetic sensors and the second array of electromagnetic sensors by time elapsed between first array of electromagnetic sensors passing the weld and the second array of electromagnetic sensors passing the weld (col. 8, lines 1-25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the electromagnetic sensors into a first and second array (and its method of calculating velocity) as taught by Low to the electromagnetic sensors and processor as taught by ‘869 with reasonable expectation of generating high resolution signal for measurements (col. 2, lines 61-68; Low).
With respect to claim 15, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to ‘869) the method of claim 14, wherein detecting welds in walls of the pipeline based on the measurements of the signals comprises identifying peaks in the measurements of the signals (claim 12).
With respect to claim 16, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to Low) the method of claim 14, further comprising, for each weld, recording a first time when the first array of electromagnetic sensors passes the weld and recording a second time when the second array of electromagnetic sensors passes the weld (col. 8, lines 1-25).
With respect to claim 17, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to ‘869) the method of claim 16, wherein estimating position of the device in the pipeline based at least in part on the estimates of the instantaneous velocity comprises integrating the estimated instantaneous velocities of the over time (claim 15).
With respect to claim 18, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to ‘869) the method of claim 14, wherein the first array of electromagnetic sensors are regularly distributed in a ring around a circumference of the device (claim 18).
With respect to claim 19, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches (citations to Low) the method of claim 14, further comprising calculating an average velocity of the device as the device passes a weld based at least in part on a nominal length of spools forming the pipeline (col. 8, lines 35-61).
Claims 12 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/502,869 (Claims 11/06/2023; hereinafter ‘869) in view of Low et al. (US Patent 5,115,196; IDS dated 02/20/2025 Cite No. 1; hereinafter Low), and further in view of Youcef-Toumi et al. (US Publication 2019/0346333; hereinafter Youcef-Toumi).
With respect to claims 12 and 20, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches the system of claim 11 and the method of claim 19, respectively. However, ‘869, as combined with Low, is silent regarding wherein the operations further comprise estimating an average velocity of the device as the device passes a weld based at least in part on two or more estimates of instantaneous velocity.
Youcef-Toumi teaches a system and method to localize a robot in a water pipe system (abstract). Youcef-Toumi further teaches wherein the operations further comprise estimating an average velocity of the device as the device passes a joint based at least in part on two or more estimates of instantaneous velocity ([0017]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of calculating the average velocity as taught by Youcef-Toumi based on instantaneous velocity values as taught by ‘869, as combined with Low, with reasonable expectation of determine a distance travelled ([0017]; Youcef-Toumi).
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/502,869 (Claims 11/06/2023; hereinafter ‘869) in view of Low et al. (US Patent 5,115,196; IDS dated 02/20/2025 Cite No. 1; hereinafter Low), and further in view of Hubert et al. (WO 2015/092463 A1; hereinafter Hubert).
With respect to claim 13, ‘869, as combined with Low, teaches the system of claim 1. However, ‘869, as combined with Low, is silent regarding wherein the operations further comprise calculating an error based on a difference between the calculated average velocity and the estimated average velocity.
Hubert teaches a method of a sensor unit having the operations comprise calculating an error based on a difference between the calculated average velocity and the estimated average velocity (page 2, lines 26-36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of calculating an error as taught by Hubert to the system as taught by ‘869, as combined with Low, with reasonable expectation of controlling the velocity as originally intended.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Low et al. (US Patent 5,115,196; IDS dated 02/20/2025 Cite No. 1; hereinafter Low).
With regards to claims 1 and 14, Low discloses a system and method for estimating location of features in a pipeline (col. 2, lines 27-32), the system comprising:
a device (16) comprising a first array (weld sensor units 30 located in 26; FIG. 1-3) and a second array of electromagnetic sensors (weld sensor units 30 located in 20; FIG. 1-3; col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 22), the device having a cylindrical shape and sized to be deployed and travel in the pipeline (col. 3, lines 39-66), wherein the first array of electromagnetic sensors axially spaced apart from the second array of electromagnetic sensors by a distance (col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 4);
at least one processor (a part of 86; FIG. 3); and
a memory (a part of 86) storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations (col. 8, lines 1-25) comprising:
acquiring measurements of signals from the first array and the second array of electromagnetic sensors (col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 22; FIG. 3);
detecting welds in walls of the pipeline based on the measurements of the signals (col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 22; FIG. 3);
estimating an instantaneous velocity of the device as the device passes each weld based at least in part by dividing the distance between first array of electromagnetic sensors and the second array of electromagnetic sensors by time elapsed between first array of electromagnetic sensors passing the weld and the second array of electromagnetic sensors passing the weld (col. 8, lines 1-25); and
estimating position of the device in the pipeline based at least in part on the estimates of the instantaneous velocity of the device over time (col. 1, lines 33-45 and col. 2, lines 27-32).
With regards to claims 2 and 15, Low discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 14, respectively, wherein detecting welds in walls of the pipeline based on the measurements of the signals comprises identifying peaks in the measurements of the signals (col. 6, lines 17-38; FIG. 2).
With regards to claims 3 and 16, Low discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 14, respectively, the system of claim 1, further comprising, for each weld, recording a first time when the first array of electromagnetic sensors (30 mounted on 26) passes the weld and recording a second time when the second array of electromagnetic sensors (30 mounted on 20) passes the weld (col. 8, lines 1-25).
With regards to claims 4 and 17, Low discloses the system of claim 3 and the method of claim 16, respectively, the system of claim 3, wherein estimating position of the device in the pipeline based at least in part on the estimates of the instantaneous velocity comprises integrating the estimated instantaneous velocities of the over time (col. 1, lines 33-45, col. 2, lines 27-32, and col. 8, lines 1-25).
With regards to claim 5, Low discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor (a part of 86) and the memory (a part of 86) storing instructions are components of the device (col. 5, lines 46-66 and col. 8, lines 1-25).
With regards to claim 6, Low discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the device (16) is a pipeline inspection gadget (col. 3, lines 39-66).
With regards to claims 7 and 18, Low discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 14, respectively, wherein the first array of electromagnetic sensors (30 mounted on 26) are regularly distributed in a ring around a circumference of the device (FIG. 1).
With regards to claim 8, Low discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the second array of electromagnetic sensors (30 mounted on 20) are regularly distributed in a ring around a circumference of the device (FIG. 1).
With regards to claims 11 and 19, Low discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 14, respectively, wherein the operations further comprise calculating an average velocity of the device as the device passes a weld based at least in part on a nominal length of spools forming the pipeline (col. 8, lines 46-61).
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low et al. (US Patent 5,115,196; IDS dated 02/20/2025 Cite No. 1; hereinafter Low) in view of Lara (US Patent 4,747,317).
With regards to claim 9, Low teaches the system of claim 1. However, Low is silent regarding the system further comprising an inertial measurement unit.
Lara teaches a pipeline survey pig (system) similar to Low (abstract). Lara further teaches the system further comprising an inertial measurement unit (col. 2, lines 51-61).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the inertial measurement unit as taught by Lara to the system as taught by Low to additionally provide measurement of curvature of the pipeline (col. 2, lines 42-50; Lara).
With regards to claim 10, Low, as combined with Lara, teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the inertial measurement unit comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope (col. 2, lines 51-61; Lara).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low et al. (US Patent 5,115,196; IDS dated 02/20/2025 Cite No. 1; hereinafter Low) in view of Youcef-Toumi et al. (US Publication 2019/0346333; hereinafter Youcef-Toumi).
With respect to claims 12 and 20, Low teaches the system of claim 11 and the method of claim 19, respectively. However, Low is silent regarding wherein the operations further comprise estimating an average velocity of the device as the device passes a weld based at least in part on two or more estimates of instantaneous velocity.
Youcef-Toumi teaches a system and method to localize a robot in a water pipe system (abstract). Youcef-Toumi further teaches wherein the operations further comprise estimating an average velocity of the device as the device passes a joint based at least in part on two or more estimates of instantaneous velocity ([0017]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of calculating the average velocity as taught by Youcef-Toumi based on instantaneous velocity values as taught by Low with reasonable expectation of determine a distance travelled ([0017]; Youcef-Toumi).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low et al. (US Patent 5,115,196; IDS dated 02/20/2025 Cite No. 1; hereinafter Low) in view of Hubert et al. (WO 2015/092463 A1; hereinafter Hubert).
With respect to claim 13, Low teaches the system of claim 1. However, Low is silent regarding wherein the operations further comprise calculating an error based on a difference between the calculated average velocity and the estimated average velocity.
Hubert teaches a method of a sensor unit having the operations comprise calculating an error based on a difference between the calculated average velocity and the estimated average velocity (page 2, lines 26-36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of calculating an error as taught by Hubert to the system as taught by Low with reasonable expectation of controlling the velocity as originally intended.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853