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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Please remove all the figure elements in the parenthesis (e.g. (21), (1a, 1b), etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
(original) Method for evaluating a compensation joint inserted in a section of a line for the transport of hydrocarbons or other fluids, said compensation joint being interposed between consecutive sections of said section line, said method comprising:
the acquisition, by means of deformation detecting means installed between different points of said segments and/or between the latter and said compensation joint, of deformation data concerning the response of said segment line (1) to mechanical stresses on it;
forwarding to a computerized central unit, equipped with an interface for said deformation detection means, of the aforementioned data in the form of digital or analog signals;
said method being characterized in that it moreover comprises:
the processing, by means of computer programs that implement suitable evaluation algorithms, of the aforementioned deformation data and including the number, directions and extent of the aforementioned deformations, to obtain an indicative evaluation of the predictable residual useful life of the aforementioned compensation joint, said evaluation being based on a plurality of reference parameters and/or threshold values stored in said programs or algorithms, and comprising the comparison of said deformation data detected by all said deformation detection means (102) with at least one stress threshold value and with at least one breaking threshold value, to respectively signal the occurrence, for the aforementioned compensation joint, of a stress situation or a breakage risk situation, with the consequent reduction of the condition of integrity and/or residual useful life of the same,
the periodic production of a report relating to the state of integrity of the aforementioned compensation joint and to the residual useful life that can be assumed for it.
Breaking down the claim into the method steps. All of the processing of the deformation data can be practically done mentally. All the other elements are “additional elements”. The production of reports of the processed data are extra solution activity (just displaying or reporting a result). The forwarding of data to the computerized central unit is just collecting and delivering collected data, which is also an extra solution activity.
The acquisition of the deformation data by da deformation detecting means is simply a method for gathering data.
Therefore the claimed subject matter is not eligible because it does not contain language of a practical application or anything significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-7 do not contain language of a practical application or anything significantly more.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barbagli (WO 2018/167668 submitted in an IDS by applicant).
With regards to Claim 1, Barbagli teaches a method for evaluating a compensation joint inserted in a section of a line for the transport of hydrocarbons or other fluids, said compensation joint being interposed between consecutive sections of said section line, said method comprising:
the acquisition, by means of deformation detecting means installed between different points of said segments and/or between the latter and said compensation joint, of deformation data concerning the response of said segment line to mechanical stresses on it (Page 6, Line 17 – Page 7, Line 3; Page 10, Line 11-18)
forwarding to a computerized central unit, equipped with an interface for said deformation detection means, of the aforementioned data in the form of digital or analog signals (Page 10, Line 19-23);
said method being characterized in that it moreover comprises:
the processing, by means of computer programs that implement suitable evaluation algorithms, of the aforementioned deformation data and including the number, directions and extent of the aforementioned deformations (Page 13, Lines 12-17), to obtain an indicative evaluation of the predictable residual useful life of the aforementioned compensation joint, said evaluation being based on a plurality of reference parameters and/or threshold values stored in said programs or algorithms (Page 12, Line 30 – Page 13, Line 4, “comparing references”, and comprising the comparison of said deformation data detected by all said deformation detection means with at least one stress threshold value and with at least one breaking threshold value, to respectively signal the occurrence, for the aforementioned compensation joint, of a stress situation or a breakage risk situation (Page 10, Lines 11-18), with the consequent reduction of the condition of integrity and/or residual useful life of the same (Page 10, Lines 11-18),
the periodic production of a report relating to the state of integrity of the aforementioned compensation joint and to the residual useful life that can be assumed for it (Page 10, Lines 11-18, monitoring seems to be in real time and comparisons are made to previous readings with the central unit 3).
With regards to Claim 6, Barbagli teaches characterized in that the aforementioned processing of the deformation data is carried out in said central unit (3), before transmission, by means of remote data transmission (4) means of said periodic report to at least an operations center and/or at least on person in charge of the surveillance of said line section (“authorized entity” – Page 10, Lines 11-18).
With regards to Claim 7, Barbagli teaches characterized in that the aforementioned processing of deformation data is carried out by means of remote operating center, after the transmission carried out by means of remote data transmission, said central unit being designated the transmission of the aforementioned raw data to said operations center, the latter being responsible for producing the aforementioned periodic report (Page 10, Lines 11-23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are 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 and dependent on the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections being overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sujoy K Kundu whose telephone number is (571)272-8586. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
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.
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471 February 5, 2026