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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s comments on the D1 reference are appreciated and apologies extended for any confusion caused. It is noted that no only was this reference already in the file record but it was the same reference, Majors, applied in the first office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Major fails to disclose “determining a degree of degradation, using the associated data, for each point in the point cloud, the degree of degradation being a measure of coating damage at each point of the one or more artificial objects, the degree of surface degradation being determined by a ratio of points between a number of points with coating degradation to a number of points without coating degradation in the received point cloud” as recited in claim 1.
Moreover, despite claim 14 being amended in a different manner than claim 1, Applicant ignores this distinction and lumps claim 14 together with claim 1.
In an attempt to rebut the 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicant admits that Majors discloses aggregating detected corrosion statistics and determining corrosion in a per pixel manner but nonetheless argues that “accordingly, the teaching of Majors is directed to determining corrosion per pixel and not for each point in the point cloud; as such there is no teaching of ratios of points as required by claim 1”.
In response, the “ratio of points” limitation is taught by Li not Majors. See the prior rejection of claim 7 from which this amendment was derived and the revised rejection of claim 1 below. Furthermore, the notion of “pixels” in a point cloud directly corresponds to “points”. In other words, Majors clearly processes 3D point clouds to determine a degree of degradation (e.g. rust) on a per-datum basis. While Major’s uses the term “pixel” the more accurate term for a 3D point cloud datum is “point” such that Majors determines a degree of degradation on a per-point basis. Majors also determines a degree of degradation on a per-equipment basis and also determines corrosion area, dimensions, and location of detected corrosion degrees thus supplying all of the data needed to determine the ratio of such points (degraded/not degraded) calculated by Li. As such the combining Majors with Li merely involves outputting per-point corrasion and/or corrosion area data from Majors and applying Li’s ratio calculations which significantly contributes to the combinability and predictability of these references.
Applicant then admits that Li teaches a variety of ratio calculations relating to the degree of surface degradation including rust area ratio and rust volume ratio. Applicant then states “As such this information about the rust pit is determined by first determining the size, shape and location of the rust pit and is not directed to the classified point cloud data as required by Applicant's amended claim 1.”. As best as can be understood from this confusing logic, claim 1 does not recite classifying or “classified point cloud data”.
Applicant then argues that Li’s ratio information is only directed towards rust pits and does not provide information for other types of corrosion which limits the usefulness of the approach of Li compared to the approach of the claimed invention.
In response, the claimed invention is directed to the broad category of a “coating damage of an artificial object” with a broadly recited “degree of degradation” being a measure of such coating damage. Rust and rust pits are properly within this broad category because coating/surface oxidation, aka rust, and the pits formed by rust are indeed “coating damage of an artificial object”. Furthermore, Majors’ determinations of no-corrosion, light severity, medium severity, and severe atmospheric corrosion corresponds to and is otherwise withing the plain meaning of “degree of degradation”. Still further, the BRI of these terms clearly includes rust. See Fig. 16 “assign a degree-of-rusting score” and [0020], [0033], [0055] of the instant specification (as published) that defines surface degradation to be rust.
Furthermore, the alleged limited usefulness of Li is irrelevant and seemingly contrary to instant specification which uses the term “coating damage” synonymously with surface degradation (e.g, see [0162] and cites above) and otherwise does not disclose other types of coating damage besides rust.
Applicant then makes a self-defeating argument by alleging there is no motivation to combine Majors and Li while admitting that, if combined, “the combination would only provide more information on rust pits.” Providing “more information” regarding the coating damage/rust such as Li’s ratios is itself motivation to add Li’s teachings on such ratios to Majors because it increases the range of analytic data regarding surface degradation thereby providing a richer array of information on which to evaluate the condition of critical infrastructure such as the large, deep water oil facilities of both Majors and Li. Lastly, Applicant has not addressed the motivation set forth in the first action but instead merely alleges impermissible hindsight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14, 17-20, 22-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majors {Majors, Marc, et al. "Automated Corrosion Mapping AI & Machine Learning." Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference. SPE, 2020} and Li (CN-111931647-A}. A marked-up machine translation of Li has been provided with the first office action, all cross-references are with respect to this translation and the mark-ups are hereby incorporated by reference to further demonstrate claim mapping.
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Majors discloses a method of determining a degree of surface degradation for one or more artificial objects {see abstract and cites below}, the method comprising:
receiving a non-planar point cloud, generated from a plurality of viewpoints, for the one or more artificial objects, each point in the point cloud having associated data
{see Pg. 1 Methods, Procedures, Process; pg. 3 Inspection Data discussing laser scans and 360-degree panoramic imagery captured of an offshore platform using a data capture device and in which the collected, received, and processed data includes 3D point-cloud generated from a plurality of viewpoints and stitched together};
determining a degree of degradation, using the associated data, for each point in the point cloud, the degree of degradation being a measure of coating damage at each point of of the one or more artificial objects, the degree of surface degradation being determined by
{see Pg. 1 pgs. 2-3 disclosing a machine learning algorithm that analyzes each point in the point cloud to detect and classify the degree of degradation (atmospheric corrosion/ rust) is determined/classified into separate degrees/classes (no-corrosion, light severity, medium severity, and severe atmospheric corrosion).
Furthermore, the notion of “pixels” in a point cloud directly corresponds to “points”. In other words, Majors clearly processes 3D point clouds to determine a degree of degradation (e.g. rust) on a per-datum basis. While Major’s uses the term “pixel” the more accurate term for a 3D point cloud datum is “point” such that Majors determines a degree of degradation on a per-point basis. Majors also determines a degree of degradation on a per-equipment basis and also determines corrosion area, dimensions, and location of detected corrosion degrees thus supplying all of the data needed to determine the ratio of such points (degraded/not degraded) calculated by Li. As such the combining Majors with Li merely involves outputting per-point corrasion and/or corrosion area data from Majors and applying Li’s ratio calculations which significantly contributes to the combinability and predictability of these references}; and
determining a degree of surface degradation for each one of the one or more artificial objects according to the degree of degradation of each point in the point cloud
{after determining a per-point degree of degradation for each one of the one or more artificial objects the method also further analyzes this data to determine area, dimensions, and location of detected corrosion degrees for individual pieces of equipment such that the degree of surface degradation can be determined on a per—surface/equipment basis as per pgs. 3-5}.
Li is a highly analogous reference from the same field of corrosion detection and determining degree of surface degradation of artificial objects including offshore production platforms. See abstract, technical field, background, and cites below teaching a method and system for determining rust on steel structure surfaces using a 3-D point cloud, determines rust extent and severity/degree.
Li also teaches wherein the degree of surface degradation is determined by a ratio of points between a number of points with coating degradation to a number of points without coating degradation in the received point cloud
{see pgs. 2-4, 6-8 including rust hole area ratio and rust hole volume ratio and S8 evaluation of rust hole while noting that ratio of surface area and ratio of points are equivalent terms particularly because of the point-cloud nature of the data.
Moreover, the claimed invention is directed to the broad category of a “coating damage of an artificial object” with a broadly recited “degree of degradation” being a measure of such coating damage. Rust and rust pits are properly within this broad category because coating/surface oxidation, aka rust, and the pits formed by rust are indeed “coating damage of an artificial object”. Furthermore, Majors’ determinations of no-corrosion, light severity, medium severity, and severe atmospheric corrosion corresponds to and is otherwise withing the plain meaning of “degree of degradation”. Still further, the BRI of these terms clearly includes rust. See Fig. 16 “assign a degree-of-rusting score” and [0020], [0033], [0055] of the instant specification (as published) that defines surface degradation to be rust.
Furthermore, the instant specification uses the term “coating damage” synonymously with surface degradation (e.g, see [0162] and cites above) and otherwise does not disclose other types of coating damage besides rust.}.
It 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 to have modified Major which already determines a highly similar measure and determines all of the data needed to calculate the ratio of this data such that wherein the degree of surface degradation is determined by a ratio of points between a number of points with coating degradation to a number of point without coating degradation in the received point cloud as taught by Li because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As noted above Majors determines a degree of degradation on a per-point and per-equipment basis and also determines corrosion area, dimensions, and location of detected corrosion degrees thus supplying all of the data needed to determine the ratio of such points (degraded/not degraded) calculated by Li. As such the combining Majors with Li merely involves outputting per-point corrasion and/or corrosion area data from Majors and applying Li’s ratio calculations which significantly contributes to the combinability and predictability of these references.
The combination is further motivated by Applicant’s own admission that Li provides “more information” regarding the coating damage/rust such as Li’s ratios which is itself motivation to add Li’s teachings on such ratios to Majors because it increases the range of analytic data regarding surface degradation thereby providing a richer array of information on which to evaluate the condition of critical infrastructure such as the large, deep water oil facilities of both Majors and Li.
2. (Canceled)
3. (Canceled)
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Majors discloses wherein the associated data is a data type selected from a set comprising color information, range from scanner information and reflective characteristics, wherein the reflective characteristics include intensity {Majors employs a Z+F IMAGER® 5016 Laserscanner on pg. 3 that captures HDR images having reflective characteristics that include intensity and color information as well as range/depth information}.
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Majors discloses wherein each point of the point cloud is assigned to a component of the one or more artificial objects {see pgs. 5-6 in which detected corrosion anomalies are registered/assigned to individual pieces of equipment in the offshore drilling facility such that corrosion condition assessment may be provided and displayed to the operator on a per-equipment basis}.
Claim 6
In regards to claim 6, Majors discloses wherein the received point cloud for the one or more artificial objects is a subset of a larger point cloud for the one or more artificial objects {see pgs. 5-6, in which detected corrosion anomalies are registered/assigned to subset of the stitched-together point cloud (individual pieces of equipment in the offshore drilling facility) such that each piece of equipment may be individually assessed for corrosion condition. See also the color-coded display (e.g. cyan for light and red for severe corrosion) on pg. 3, fig. 2 that also demonstrates a subset of the larger point cloud concept}.
7. (Canceled)
Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Majors discloses
wherein the degree of surface degradation is determined by a
{see pg. 5 determining physical area and dimensions of the corrosion, Fig. 3 display illustrating that Major determines an area of the observed asset area and area of the detected corrosion. As such, Major determines a highly similar measure and determines all of the data needed to calculate the ratio of this data but does not explicitly disclose employing a ratio of this data}.
Li is a highly analogous reference from the same field of corrosion detection and determining degree of surface degradation of artificial objects including offshore production platforms. See abstract, technical field, background, and cites below teaching a method and system for determining rust on steel structure surfaces using a 3-D point cloud, determines rust extent and severity/degree.
Li also teaches wherein the degree of surface degradation is determined by a ratio of a surface area with coating degradation to a surface area without coating degradation in the received point cloud
{see pgs. 2-4, 6-8 including rust hole area ratio and rust hole volume ratio and S8 evaluation of rust hole while noting that ratio of surface area and ratio of points are equivalent terms particularly because of the point-cloud nature of the data}.
It 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 to have modified Major which already determines a highly similar measure and determines all of the data needed to calculate the ratio of this data such that wherein the degree of surface degradation is determined by a ratio of a surface area with coating degradation to a surface area without coating degradation in the received point cloud as taught by Li because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As noted above Majors determines a degree of degradation on a per-point and per-equipment basis and also determines corrosion area, dimensions, and location of detected corrosion degrees thus supplying all of the data needed to determine the ratio of such areas (degraded/not degraded) calculated by Li. As such the combining Majors with Li merely involves outputting respective areas of corroded and not corroded area data from Majors and applying Li’s ratio calculations which significantly contributes to the combinability and predictability of these references.
The combination is further motivated by Applicant’s own admission that Li provides “more information” regarding the coating damage/rust such as Li’s ratios which is itself motivation to add Li’s teachings on such ratios to Majors because it increases the range of analytic data regarding surface degradation thereby providing a richer array of information on which to evaluate the condition of critical infrastructure such as the large, deep water oil facilities of both Majors and Li.
Claim 9
In regards to claim 9, Majors discloses wherein the degree of surface degradation is determined for a component of the one or more artificial objects {see mappings in claims 5 and 6 wherein the components being individually assessed for corrosion degree are part of an offshore drilling platform (artificial object like the one discussed in the instant specification)}.
Claim 10
In regards to claim 10, Majors discloses wherein the degree of surface degradation for the component is based on the degree of degradation for each point in the point cloud associated with the component
{see pgs. 5-6, in which detected corrosion anomalies are registered/assigned to subset of the stitched-together point cloud (individual pieces of equipment in the offshore drilling facility) such this point cloud subset for the component is used to determine the degree of surface degradation for that component. In other words, each piece of equipment is individually assessed for corrosion degree based on the degradation degree for each point in the corresponding point-cloud subset. See also the color-coded display (e.g. cyan for light and red for severe corrosion) on pg. 3, fig. 2 that also demonstrates a subset of the larger point cloud concept}.
Claim 11
In regards to claim 11, Majors discloses wherein the one or more artificial objects is a compound shape {components of drilling platforms have compound shapes. See Figs. 1-4 illustrating these compound shapes}.
12. (Canceled)
12. (Canceled)
Claim 13
In regards to claim 13, Majors discloses displaying the degree of surface degradation {See the color-coded display (e.g. cyan for light and red for severe corrosion) on pg. 3, fig. 2. See also Fig. 5}.
15. (Canceled)
16. (Canceled)
21. (Cancelled)
25. (Canceled)
Claims 14, 17-20, 22-24, and 26
The rejection of method claims 8, 4-6, 7, 9-11, and 13 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of system claims 14, 17-19, 20, 22-24, and 26 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures and further noting that the system claims are broadly stated—merely reciting “at least one processing system” in the preamble which is clearly met by the operational system disclosed by Majors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanizawa US 2020/0380653 A1 discloses determining surface deterioration degree (rust level), number of pixels and rust area on a per-object basis. See fig. 5 copied below. See also Figs. 3, 6, and 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights