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 .
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). The preliminary amendment filed 30 November 2023 does not comply with this rule because it renumbers claims. This incorrect claim renumbering also results in the claims not being compliant with 37 CFR 1.121 because the amendments are not relative to the last (original version).
These errors should have been caught upon initial case filing review but unfortunately were not. In the interests of speedy prosecution, the preliminary amendment filed 30 November 2023 will be treated as the official claims of record for examination with regard to claim numbering and text of the claims. Applicant is respectfully reminded that future amendments must fully comply with 35 CFR 1.121 and 126 such that any future claim amendments must be with respect to the claim numbering and claim text established in the 30 November 2023 preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
During the prior art search the EP Search and EP Supplementary Search Reports were discovered. D1 was cited and applied as an X or Y type reference for all pending claims (see below). It is noted that the US claim set matches the EP claim set that was examined thus making D1 apparently relevant to this US application.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Unfortunately, D1 is not readily available to the Examiner at this time. Given the apparent relevance of D1 the Examiner respectfully requests that a copy of D1 be filed in this application. In this regard, it is noted that the EPO typically provides copies of applied NPL documents to Applicants and that counsels for patent application families are typically in communication with one another such that obtaining a copy of D1 should not present an issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “complex shape” in claims 11 and 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “complex shape” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4-6, 9-11, 13, 14, 17-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Majors {Majors, Marc, et al. "Automated Corrosion Mapping AI & Machine Learning." Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference. SPE, 2020}.
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 degradation for a coating of the one or more artificial objects
{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)}; and
determining a degree of surface degradation according to the degree of degradation of each point in the point cloud
{after determining a per-point degree of degradation 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}.
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}.
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 non-planar point cloud surface is a complex shape {see the 112(b) rejection above while noting that components of drilling platforms have complex shapes. See Figs. 1-4 illustrating these complex shapes}.
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}.
Claims 14, 17-24, and 26
The rejection of method claims 1, 4-11, and 13 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of system claims 14, 17-24, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 7-8 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majors and Li (CN-111931647-A}. A marked-up machine translation of Li has been provided with this 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 7
In regards to claim 7, Majors discloses wherein the degree of surface degradation is determined by
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 (claim 7) 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 and (claim 8) 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 points between a number of points with coating degradation to a number of point without coating degradation in the received point cloud and 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.
Claims 20 and 21
The rejection of method claims 7 and 8 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of system claims 20 and 21 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..
15. (Canceled)
16. (Canceled)
25. (Canceled)
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_image2.png
380
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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