DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 - 15 have been presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of the application on 11/28/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for generating a pipe layout for a platform, the method comprising: generating, using the design data, geometry data representing a set of pipework runs comprising at least one pipe section for the pipe layout, a pipe section defined by a conduit comprising a point of ingress for the conduit in fluid communication with a point of egress for the conduit; determining, using the design data, a set of pipe layout features; generating, using the geometry data, an editable simulated pipe layout; generating, using the editable simulated pipe layout, output layout data defining the pipe layout for the platform. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generating” and “determining” amount to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the method is computer-implemented; receiving design data representing a pipe geometry defining an initial pipe layout; receiving data representing at least one of a component for the editable simulated pipe layout, an annotation for the editable simulated pipe layout, an additional pipework run, and a corrected pipework run. The “computer-implemented” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “generating” and “determining” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer-implemented” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited “receiving” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “receiving” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 – 5 and 10 - 12 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 2 using the output layout data, generating data representing at least one of a load profile for a pipework run, and a load profile for a component; Claim 3 defining a set of configuration data comprising at least one of a material definition for a pipework run, and a material definition for a component; Claim 4 using the configuration data and the output layout data to perform an analysis for the pipe layout, whereby to simulate a reaction of at least one pipework run under a predefined load; Claim 5 and 10 - 12wherein the geometry data comprises a marked-up set of data forming an extendable project. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generating” and “defining” and “perform an analysis” amount to modeling and predicting actions recited at a high-level of generality. The “geometry data comprises” further limits the parent claim(s) abstract idea “generating”. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 6 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) apparatus for generating a pipe layout for a platform, the apparatus to: generate, using the design data, geometry data representing a set of pipework runs comprising at least one pipe section for the pipe layout, a pipe section defined by a conduit comprising a point of ingress for the conduit in fluid communication with a point of egress for the conduit; determine, using the design data, a set of pipe layout features; generate, using the geometry data, an editable simulated pipe layout; generate, using the editable simulated pipe layout, output layout data defining the pipe layout for the platform. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generate” and “determine” amount to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the method is computer-implemented; receive design data representing a pipe geometry defining an initial pipe layout; receive data representing at least one of a component for the editable simulated pipe layout, an annotation for the editable simulated pipe layout, an additional pipework run, and a corrected pipework run. The “processor” and “memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “receive” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “generate” and “determine” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” and “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited “receive” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “receive requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 7 – 9 and 13 – 15 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 7 using the output layout data, generate data representing at least one of a load profile for a pipework run, and a load profile for a component; Claim 8 and 13 define a set of configuration data comprising at least one of a material definition for a pipework run, and a material definition for a component. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generate” and “define” amount to modeling and predicting actions recited at a high-level of generality. The “geometry data comprises” further limits the parent claim(s) abstract idea “generating”. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further recite(s): Claim 9 and 14 - 15 simulate a reaction of at least on pipework run under a predefined load using the configuration data and the output layout data. The “simulate” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to reciting the words “apply-it”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “simulate” amounts to reciting the words “apply-it”. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “simulate” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garimella et al. (US 2017/0032057) (henceforth “Garimella (057)”) in view of Golinveaux et al. (US 2010/0299122) (henceforth “Golinveaux (122)”). Garimella (057) and Golinveaux (122) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of design of pipe layouts, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of pipeworks.
With regard to claim 1, Garimella (057) teaches a computer-implemented method for generating a pipe layout for a platform, the method comprising: (Garimella (057) Figure 3 CAD model of pipe routing
PNG
media_image1.png
387
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
receiving design data representing a pipe geometry defining an initial pipe layout; (Garimella (057) Paragraph 33 and Figure 4 a CAD file defines a routing path “Such a structure could be managed using a routing assembly CAD file. FIG. 4 illustrates a schematic representation of such a CAD file 400 for the pipeline routing run 324 shown in Fig. 3”
PNG
media_image2.png
457
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and Paragraph 30 the design can be retrieved and later modified (a initial pipe layout) “The GUI may be used by a user to generate, modify, and display a three dimensional (3D) representation of a mechanical routing system including at least one routing run 120 and the elements that comprise the routing run.”)
generating, using the design data, geometry data representing a set of pipework runs comprising at least one pipe section for the pipe layout, a pipe section defined by a conduit comprising a point of ingress for the conduit in fluid communication with a point of egress for the conduit; (Garimella (057) Paragraph 30 and Figure 3 the routing path comprising various pipe sections is displayed (generating geometry data) from the CAD file “The GUI may be used by a user to generate, modify, and display a three dimensional (3D) representation of a mechanical routing system including at least one routing run 120 and the elements that comprise the routing run.”)
generating, using the geometry data, an editable simulated pipe layout; receiving data representing at least one of a component for the editable simulated pipe layout, an annotation for the editable simulated pipe layout, an additional pipework run, and a corrected pipework run; and generating, using the editable simulated pipe layout, output layout data defining the pipe layout for the platform (Garimella (057) Paragraph 59 aspects of the elements displayed by the GUI can be modified (editable simulated), and then the modified elements saved back (generating, using the editable simulated layout, output layout data) “The software application component may further enable a user to modify aspects of some of the elements such as their sizes and shapes, which may be saved back to the data store as a revised version of the routing path.”, and Paragraph 32 the elements include pipes (a pipework run) “In this example, the intermediate elements include a first flange 304, a first pipe 306, a first elbow 308, a second pipe 310, a second flange 312, a third flange 314, a third pipe 316, a second elbow 318, and several additional elements 320.”)
Garimella (057) does not appear to explicitly disclose: determining, using the design data, a set of pipe layout features.
However, Golinveaux (122) teaches:
determining, using design data, a set of pipe layout features (Golinveaux (122) Paragraph 59 and Figure 2A model is generated from user defined inputs (using design data) “The computer program 20 can provide for data entry step 42 for entering user defined or selected system parameters that can be used in generating a model of the dry pipe system 10, as provided by modeling or model generation step 44.”, and Paragraph 379 pipe network attributes (a set of pipe layout features) are generated from the model “That is, the computer program can model the physical attributes of the pipe design as a set of nodes and pipes where the attributes of the nodes represent at least a point of transition from one pipe size to another, elbows or bend”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine editing and saving a model disclosed by Garimella (057) with the pipe model disclosed by disclosed by Golinveaux (122). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze a pipe network (Golinveaux (122) Abstract).
With regard to claim 6,recites the same steps as claim 1, which is taught by Garimella (057) in view of Golinveaux (122). Claim 6 further recites: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory configured to store program code executable by the processor, the program code comprising one or more instructions, whereby to cause the apparatus to perform the steps of claim 1.
Garimella (057) teaches: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory configured to store program code executable by the processor, the program code comprising one or more instructions, whereby to cause the apparatus to perform the steps of claim 1 (Garimella (057) Paragraph 25).
With regard to claim 2 and 7, Garimella (057) in view of Golinveaux (122) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 6, and further teaches:
using the output layout data, generating data representing at least one of a load profile for a pipework run, and a load profile for a component. (Golinveaux (122) Figure 3 the liquid movement through the pipes is calculated (a load profile)
PNG
media_image3.png
263
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine editing and saving a model disclosed by Garimella (057) with the pipe model disclosed by disclosed by Golinveaux (122). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze a pipe network (Golinveaux (122) Abstract).
With regard to claim 3 and 8 and 13, Garimella (057) in view of Golinveaux (122) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2 and 6 - 7, and further teaches:
defining a set of configuration data comprising at least one of a material definition for a pipework run, and a material definition for a component. (Golinveaux (122) Paragraph 69 at least roughness properties of the pipes are specified “Additional entry fields can provide for entry or specification of fittings such as, for example, elbows or tees, entry or specification of piping schedule, diameter size, C-factor and absolute roughness (wet and dry) and/or other material specifications”, and Figure 6B
PNG
media_image4.png
112
520
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine editing and saving a model disclosed by Garimella (057) with the pipe model disclosed by disclosed by Golinveaux (122). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze a pipe network (Golinveaux (122) Abstract).
With regard to claim 4, Garimella (057) in view of Golinveaux (122) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 3, and further teaches:
using the configuration data and the output layout data to perform an analysis for the pipe layout, whereby to simulate a reaction of at least one pipework run under a predefined load. (Golinveaux (122) Abstract liquid flow is simulated (performed an analysis) “The method and computer program can provide for computing fluid time based parameters to simulate the liquid flowing from the wet portion to determine at least flow time of the liquid from the wet portion to the open devices.”, and Figure 3 and Paragraph 80 the simulation is under specific pressure conditions (under a predefined load ) “More specifically, the computational engine can include calculation of the model fire prevention system 100 to account for: (i) the condition of the system with BFP is closed or more specifically where the liquid motion is by inertia with no supply power influence; (ii) Fire Pump switching on and boosting pressure;”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine editing and saving a model disclosed by Garimella (057) with the pipe model disclosed by disclosed by Golinveaux (122). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze a pipe network (Golinveaux (122) Abstract).
With regard to claim 9 and 14 - 15, Garimella (057) in view of Golinveaux (122) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 6 - 8, and further teaches:
simulate a reaction of at least one pipework run under a predefined load using the configuration data and the output layout data. (Golinveaux (122) Abstract liquid flow is simulated (simulate a reaction) “The method and computer program can provide for computing fluid time based parameters to simulate the liquid flowing from the wet portion to determine at least flow time of the liquid from the wet portion to the open devices.”, and Figure 3 and Paragraph 80 the simulation is under specific pressure conditions (under a predefined load ) “More specifically, the computational engine can include calculation of the model fire prevention system 100 to account for: (i) the condition of the system with BFP is closed or more specifically where the liquid motion is by inertia with no supply power influence; (ii) Fire Pump switching on and boosting pressure;”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine editing and saving a model disclosed by Garimella (057) with the pipe model disclosed by disclosed by Golinveaux (122). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze a pipe network (Golinveaux (122) Abstract).
With regard to claim 5 and 10 – 12 , Garimella (057) in view of Golinveaux (122) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 - 4, and further teaches:
wherein the geometry data comprises a marked-up set of data forming an extendable project. (Garimella (057) Paragraph 59 user can make edits (marked-up set of data) based on the displayed routing path “The software application component may further enable a user to modify aspects of some of the elements such as their sizes and shapes, which may be saved back to the data store as a revised version of the routing path.”, and Paragraph 26 the initial and edited design is part of PLM software (an extendable project) “Examples of PLM software and/or CAD/CAM/CAE software that may be adapted to include at least some of the functionality described herein for collaborative development of virtual mechanical routing systems include the Teamcenter PLM and/or NX suites of applications that are available from Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. (Plano, Tex.).”)
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner’s notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chao et al. (US 2023/0153494) teaches validating a fluid system for propulsion.
Ahuja et al. (US 2021/0141982) teaches design piping support and taking into account mechanical load exerted on the support structure.
Tang et al. "Pipe Stress Optimization Analysis Based on MIGA Algorithm" teaches modeling pipe stress in a pipe layout of a steam power conversion system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
