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 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.
(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grosswig et al. (Grosswig, Stephan & Hurtig, E. & Luebbecke, S. & Vogel, B.. (2005). Pipeline leakage detection using distributed fibre optical temperature sensing. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering. 10.1117/12.623803).
As per claim 1, Grosswig teaches the following:
Method for monitoring defects in an aboveground or underground, non-subsea pipeline section or container with an insulation layer, said defects relating to moisture ingress in the insulation layer (see abstract), comprising the steps of,
attaching a sensor line (see fig. 1, pipeline, Fibre optical temperature sensing cable)
comprising a single optical fiber or a bundle of optical fibers, along the length of the insulated pipeline section or along the surface of the insulated container and positioned on the exterior of the insulation layer (see fig. 1);
operatively coupling the sensor line to a temperature sensing system (see fig. 1, Fibre optical temperature sensing cable, temperature measuring device);
determining an exterior temperature profile over the length of the insulated pipeline section or over the surface of the insulated container via the temperature sensing system (see figs. 2 & 3);
detecting defects in the insulated pipeline section or over the surface of the insulated container (see fig. 3, Section 3.2 Brine pipeline),
wherein external information is collected (figs. 2 and 3, soil temperature before opening the leakage),
said external information comprising data regarding external heat/cold sources in the vicinity of the pipeline section or container and/or said external information comprising environmental data, wherein said environmental data comprises local environment temperature information (figs. 2 and 3, soil temperature),
local precipitation information, local solar radiation information, meteorological information, comprising wind information; and wherein said data regarding external heat/cold sources at least comprises the position of the external heat/cold sources; and that the defects are detected based on said external information, the determined exterior temperature profile and a locally averaged exterior temperature profile along the length of the insulated pipeline section or over the surface of the insulated container, wherein said locally averaged exterior temperature profile is determined for a point by averaging the determined exterior temperature profile over a predetermined surrounding length or surface for said point (figs. 2 and 3; 3.1 High pressure gas pipeline; 3.2 Brine pipeline; 2. Measuring principles and system components, pg. 227, last two paragraphs).
Regarding claim 5, Grosswig teaches “The method according to claim 1, wherein the temperature sensing system is a distributed temperature sensing (DTS) system (see Introduction; fig. 1, Fibre optical temperature sensing cable, temperature measuring device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2 – 4, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosswig in view of Du et al. (US 2019/0331301 A1 – hereafter “Du”).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the defects are detected based on the determined exterior temperature profile over a predefined time period, said predefined time period being at least 5 minutes.”
Grosswig does not teach the defects are detected based on the determined exterior temperature profile over a predefined time period, said predefined time period being at least 5 minutes.
Du teaches correcting and evaluating temperature difference data over successive time periods based on irreversibility, continuity, and trend, including discarding distorted data and waiting for subsequent period data for correction (see para [0142] – [0144]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Du to evaluate the determined exterior temperature profile over a predetermined time period and correct or migrate distorted data as taught by Du in order to improve reliability of defect detection over time and reduce false detections.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The method according to claim 2, wherein the temporally averaged difference excludes or associates a reduced weight to the determined exterior temperature profile during periods in said predefined time period, in which periods the determined exterior temperature profile differs from a reference temperature profile less over than a predefined delta value, said delta value at least 0.10*C, said reference temperature profile being an environmental, temperature at or near to the pipeline section or container.”
Grosswig does not teach the temporally averaged difference excludes or associates a reduced weight to the determined exterior temperature profile during periods in said predefined time period, in which periods the determined exterior temperature profile differs from a reference temperature profile less over than a predefined delta value, said delta value at least 0.10*C, said reference temperature profile being an environmental, temperature at or near to the pipeline section or container.
However, Du teaches calculating a weighted average temperature difference between segmented crack regions and the effective pipeline region, and classifying development levels based on comparison with reference temperature difference values (see para [0134], [0138], [0153]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Du to apply weighting and threshold-based comparison to temperature profile differences relative to a reference environmental temperature as taught by Du in order to account for small deviations and improve discrimination between normal variation and actual defects.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “The method according to claim 2, wherein the temporally averaged difference excludes or associates a reduced weight to the determined exterior temperature profile during periods in said predefined time period, said periods being determined based on one or more of the following: time of day, season, wind conditions, other meteorological conditions, use parameters of the pipeline or container.”
Grosswig does not teach the temporally averaged difference excludes or associates a reduced weight to the determined exterior temperature profile during periods in said predefined time period, said periods being determined based on one or more of the following: time of day, season, wind conditions, other meteorological conditions, use parameters of the pipeline or container.
However, Du teaches determining environmental temperature conditions in the underground pipeline corridor space and calculating development thresholds based on ambient temperature measurements (see para [0125]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Du to determine relevant periods for evaluation based on environmental temperature conditions as taught by Du in order to improve detection accuracy under varying meteorological conditions.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, comprising the step of evaluating said determined temperature profiles and locally averaged exterior temperature profiles via machine learning-based anomaly detection.”
Grosswig fails to teach the step of evaluating said determined temperature profiles and locally averaged exterior temperature profiles via machine learning-based anomaly detection.
However, Du teaches using machine learning, specifically SVM classification, to classify the degree of crack development based on temperature difference data (see para [0145]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Du to evaluate temperature profiles using machine learning based classification as taught by Du in order to improve automated anomaly detection and classification accuracy.
Regrading claim 21, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the defects are detected based on a local temperature difference between the determined exterior temperature profile and the locally averaged exterior temperature profile.
Grosswig fails to teach the defects are detected based on a local temperature difference between the determined exterior temperature profile and the locally averaged exterior temperature profile.
However, Du teaches calculating a weighted average temperature difference between segmented crack regions and the effective pipeline region to obtain a final measured temperature difference (see para [0134]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Du to detect defects based on a local temperature difference between a crack region and the surrounding pipeline region as taught by Du in order to more accurately identify localized anomalies.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosswig in view of Kiesel et al. (US 2021/0123797 A1– hereafter “Kiesel”).
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the temperature sensing system is a Fiber Bragg grating (FBG) temperature sensing system.”
Grosswig fails to teach the temperature sensing system is a Fiber Bragg grating (FBG) temperature sensing system.
Kiesel teaches optical sensors that may be Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) sensors and/or etalon or Fabry-Perot (FP) sensors (see para [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Kiesel to use a Fiber Bragg Grating temperature sensing system as taught by Kiesel in order to provide a known alternative optical temperature sensing technique capable of precise temperature measurement.
Claims 7, 10, 13 – 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosswig in view of Paulson (US 2006/0225507 A1 – hereafter “Paulson”).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the locally averaged exterior temperature profile is obtained without fiber-optic based temperature sensing and/or distributed temperature sensing in the monitored insulated pipeline section or the monitored insulated container, or between the monitored insulated pipeline section or the monitored insulated container and the insulation layer.”
Grossing does teach method of claim 1, but does not teach the locally averaged exterior temperature profile is obtained without fiber-optic based temperature sensing and/or distributed temperature sensing in the monitored insulated pipeline section or the monitored insulated container, or between the monitored insulated pipeline section or the monitored insulated container and the insulation layer.
Paulson teaches obtaining temperature measurements of a pipeline section using temperature sensors positioned relative to the pipeline and insulation, without requiring distributed fiber optic temperature sensing in the monitored insulated pipeline section or container (see para [0008], [0026], [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Paulson to obtain the locally averaged exterior temperature profile without fiber optic based distributed temperature sensing as taught by Paulson in order to provide a simplified temperature monitoring configuration while still detecting defects.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is for monitoring defects in an aboveground pipeline section.”
Grossing does teach method of claim 1, but does not teach the method is for monitoring defects in an aboveground pipeline section.
Paulson teaches monitoring of aboveground pipeline sections using temperature sensing and analysis systems (see para [0006], [0028], [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Paulson to apply the defect monitoring method to an aboveground pipeline section as taught by Paulson in order to monitor defects in different pipeline installation environments.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the defects are detected further based on a known or assumed environmental, temperature at or near to the pipeline section or container.”
Grossing does teach method of claim 1, but does not teach the defects are detected further based on a known or assumed environmental, temperature at or near to the pipeline section or container.
Paulson teaches using ambient or environmental temperature measurements in connection with pipeline monitoring and comparing temperature values relative to environmental conditions (see para [0012], [0029], [0031] – [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Paulson to detect defects further based on a known or assumed environmental temperature at or near the pipeline section as taught by Paulson in order to improve defect detection accuracy by accounting for environmental temperature effects.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, comprising the step of evaluating time series of spatial and temporal changes in the determined temperature profile, taking into account the locally averaged exterior temperature profile, to detect defects.”
Grossing does teach method of claim 1, but does not teach the step of evaluating time series of spatial and temporal changes in the determined temperature profile, taking into account the locally averaged exterior temperature profile, to detect defects.
Paulson teaches evaluating temperature measurements over time and analyzing temperature changes to detect anomalies in pipeline systems (see para [0009], [0029], [0033], [0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Paulson to evaluate time series spatial and temporal changes in the determined temperature profile as taught by Paulson in order to improve detection of defects based on temporal temperature variations.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the external information comprises environmental data, said data comprising local environment temperature information, local precipitation information, local solar radiation information, meteorological information, comprising wind information; and wherein the defects are detected taking into account said collected environmental data.”
Grossing does teach method of claim 1, but does not teach the external information comprises environmental data, said data comprising local environment temperature information, local precipitation information, local solar radiation information, meteorological information, comprising wind information; and wherein the defects are detected taking into account said collected environmental data.
Paulson teaches collecting and utilizing environmental data, including temperature and meteorological information, in connection with monitoring systems (see para [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Paulson to collect and take into account environmental data including local temperature and meteorological information as taught by Paulson in order to improve reliability of defect detection by accounting for environmental influences.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosswig in view of Strong (US 2006/0225507 A1 – hereafter “Strong”).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the defects are detected taking into account known and/or assumed insulation characteristics of the insulation layer.”
Grosswig does not teach the defects are detected taking into account known and/or assumed insulation characteristics of the insulation layer.
Strong teaches detecting defects based on changes in differential temperature caused by impairment of the insulating properties of the insulation layer due to moisture intrusion (see paras [0016], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Strong to detect defects by evaluating changes in insulation thermal performance reflected in differential temperature measurements as taught by Strong in order to improve detection degradation effects such as moisture intrusion.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the defects are detected based on a temperature difference between the determined exterior temperature profile, and the locally averaged exterior temperature or the environmental, temperature at or near to the pipeline section or container.”
Grosswig does not teach the defects are detected based on a temperature difference between the determined exterior temperature profile, and the locally averaged exterior temperature or the environmental, temperature at or near to the pipeline section or container.
Strong teaches detecting defects based on a differential temperature between distributed sensor measurements along the insulated pipeline (see para [0019], [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Grosswig in view of Strong to detects defects based on a temperature difference between a determined exterior temperature profile and a reference or differential temperature measurement as taught by Strong in order to provide localized identification of insulation defects through temperature differential analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11, 16, and 18 – 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855