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 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 2, 4, 5 and 8 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.
With respect to claim 2, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 1 recites both a "utility-side service pipe" and a "water main". However, the claim appears to define portions of the water main as being part of the utility-side service pipe. Claim 2 becomes unclear by reciting different calculations/estimates between the two elements. It is unclear to the examiner how the two are distinct, given the overlapping definitions in claim 1. Therefore, clarification is required. To advance prosecution, the examiner has interpreted these elements to be coextensive (i.e., one and the same) for the purpose of this office action.
With respect to claim 4, the scope of the claims is indefinite. In lines 1-2, “wherein the relationship between the speed of sound in a pipe and the material of the pipe comprises a range of speeds of sound expected for service pipes” is further defined. Is this a new pipe and is “the material of the pipe” referring back to the pipes of claim 1 or this new pipe? The claim further confuses matters as “the speed of sound” refers back to limitation related to the other pipes of claim 1. How many pipes are being claimed? Because the scope of the claim is unclear with respect to a lack of proper antecedent bias, the examiner was unable to apply art.
With respect to claim 5, the scope of the claims is indefinite. In lines 1-2, “the relationship between the attenuation factor for a pipe and the material of the pipe comprises a range of attenuation factors expected for service pipes” is further defined. Is this a new pipe and is “the material of the pipe” referring back to the pipes of claim 1 or this new pipe? The claim further confuses matters as “the attenuation factor” refers back to limitation related to the other pipes of claim 1. How many pipes are being claimed? Because the scope of the claim is unclear with respect to a lack of proper antecedent bias, the examiner was unable to apply art.
With respect to claim 8, the scope of the claims is indefinite. The claim further defines “an excitation source”. Is this a second and different excitation source than the one found in claim 1? How many sources are being claimed?
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burtea et al. (2022/0026395) in view of Hunaidi (6,561,032).
With respect to claim 1, Burtea et al. teaches a method comprising steps of: placing a first acoustic sensor (106A) at a customer end of a utility-side service pipe under test (102; the examiner considers the taught pipe as a municipal utility water main under test) and a second acoustic sensor (106B) at a location on a water main (defined by the location first sensor 106A on the pipe 102 which is a main in a water fluid distribution system; [0024]) in fluid communication with the utility-side service pipe (102), the first acoustic sensor (106A) in acoustical communication with the utility-side service pipe (102) and the second acoustic sensor (106B) in acoustical communication with the water main (102); generating at least one acoustical wave (via 104) in the utility-side service pipe (102, as seen Fig. 1) and a segment (112) of the water main (102; [0024]) collectively bracketed by the first and second acoustic sensors (106A and 106B) using an excitation source (104) at a first excitation location (defined by 104) along the water main (102) while recording, by a pipe assessment system (120), signal data from the first and second acoustic sensors (106A and 106B), where signal data signal represents vibrations (114A/B/C) measured at the first and second acoustic sensors (106A and 106B) caused by the at least one acoustical wave (via 104) propagating through the utility-side service pipe (102) and the segment (112) of the water main (as pipe 102 is considered be the pipe of the water main; [0024]); computing, by the pipe assessment system (120), one or more of an estimate of a speed of sound (as Burtea et al. teaches in [0039] the signals are used to calculate a speed of sound in the fluid path) in the utility-side service pipe (102) (note: the limitation “and an estimate of an attenuation factor for the utility-side service pipe from the recorded signal data” is recited in the alternative);
Burtea et al. remains silent regarding determining, by the pipe assessment system, a material of the utility-side service pipe based upon one or more of the computed speed of sound in utility-side service pipe and a relationship between the speed of sound in a pipe and a material of the pipe, and the computed attenuation factor for the utility-side service pipe and a relationship between the attenuation factor of a pipe and the material of the pipe.
Hunaidi teaches a similar method that includes determining, by a pipe assessment system (20; Fig.2), a material of the utility-side service pipe based upon the computed speed of sound in utility-side service pipe (Col. 2, lines 38-41) and a relationship between the speed of sound in a pipe and a material of the pipe (Col. 2, lines 56-67 and Col. 3 lines 1-19) (note: the limitation “and the computed attenuation factor for the utility-side service pipe and a relationship between the attenuation factor of a pipe and the material of the pipe” refers back to a limitation recited in the alternative; therefore, insofar as what is structurally recited, the claimed invention is taught).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Burtea to include the steps of determining the material of the pipe based on the computed speed of sound because such a modification allows for a non-destructive way to ascertain underground pipe information without require excavation or removing the pipe from service, Col. 3 lines 19-30. Such a modification provides a non-destructive, cost-effective way to determine underground pipe information without requiring excavation or taking the pipe out of service, as detailed in Burtea at Col. 3, lines 19-30. Moreover, simultaneously determining pipe composition and notifying the user without unearthing the pipe would be highly advantageous to the system's operation.
With respect to claim 2, Burtea as modified teaches the method wherein computing the estimate of the speed of sound in the utility-side service pipe (102) comprises: measuring, by the pipe assessment system (120), a time difference [0058] between a time of arrival of the at least one acoustical wave at the first acoustic sensor (106A) and a time of arrival of the at least one acoustical wave at the second acoustic sensor (106B; [0058]); computing, by the pipe assessment system (120), an estimate of a propagation time (i.e. the determined time difference is considered to read on an estimate of a propagation of time, as the measured time delay directly corresponds to the difference in propagation paths of the two sensors 106A/B) of the at least one acoustical wave in the segment (112) of the water main (defined by the pipe 102) from a speed of sound in the water main (as determined above in the rejection of claim 1) and a length (d; Fig. 3) of the segment (112) of the water main (defined by pipe 102); computing, by the pipe assessment system (120), a propagation time of the at least one acoustical wave in the utility-side service pipe (102; as [0056] teaches using the calculation from the segment to determine a delay in the overall pipe) from the measured time difference [0058] and the estimate of the propagation time (i.e. the delay) in the segment (112) of the water main (as the determined time delay equates to a propagation time of the acoustical wave in the utility-side pipe); and computing, by the pipe assessment system (120), the estimate of the speed of sound in the utility-side service pipe (pipe 102) from the computed propagation time (via the calculation from the segment) in the utility-side service pipe (102) and a length of the utility-side service pipe (d; see above 112(b) rejection).
Claim 3 is directed to an alternative limitation that was not elected by the examiner. Insofar as how Claim 1 further defines the examiner elected alternatives, Burtea et al. as modified teaches the elected claimed invention.
With respect to claim 6, Burtea as modified teaches the method wherein the first acoustic sensor (106A) is attached to an external stop tap (Burtea teaches “a component in fluid communication with the pipe; [0028]” at the customer end of the utility-side service pipe (102).
With respect to claim 7, Burtea as modified teaches the method wherein the second acoustic sensor (160B) is attached to one of an appurtenance (i.e. hydrant) connected to the water main (i.e. the main defined by pipe 102) and an exposed wall of the water main (i.e. insofar as how exposed is structurally recited, as a hydrant is attached to an exposed wall of a main pipe using an outlet connection) at a location remote from a junction (i.e. connection) between the water main (i.e. the portion that defines 102) and the utility-side service pipe (102; insofar as how these two elements are structurally different according to claim 1).
With respect to claim 8, Burtea as modified teaches the method wherein generating the at least one acoustical wave in the utility-side service pipe and the segment of the water main (102; insofar as how these two elements are structurally different according to claim 1) using an excitation source (104) at the first excitation location (defined by the location of 104) comprises striking an appurtenance (i.e. component; [0054]) of the water main (defined as 102) located at the first excitation location (i.e. the location of 104) with a hammer (i.e. a hammer; [0027]).
With respect to claim 9, Burtea as modified teaches the method wherein the first excitation location (defined by the location of 104) comprises a location along the water main (defined by 102) that is out-of-bracket of the pipe sections (as read in the Abstract) comprising the utility-side service pipe (as part of the fluid distribution system) and the segment (112) of the water main (defined by 102) collectively bracketed by the first and second acoustic sensors (106A/B).
With respect to claim 10, Burtea as modified teaches the method wherein the first excitation location (defined by the location of 104) comprises a location along the water main that is in-bracket of the pipe sections (as Burtea teaches the location of the excitation device defining the first excitation location being in-bracket of the pipe sections acting upon an outer wall of the pipe 102; [0027]) comprising the utility-side service pipe (i.e. the portion of the pipe 102 having 104 mounted thereon) and the segment (112) of the water main collectively bracketed by the first and second acoustic sensors (106A/B).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burtea et al. (2022/0026395) in view of Hunaidi (6,561,032), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Robertson et al. (2022/0205357).
With respect to claim 11, Burtea as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the method further comprising, in addition to generating the at least one acoustical wave in the utility-side service pipe and the segment of the water main at the first excitation location, generating at least one acoustical wave in the utility-side service pipe and the segment of the water main at a second excitation location along the water main while recording, by the pipe assessment system, signal data from the first and second acoustic sensors, the first excitation location comprising an out-of-bracket location and the second excitation location comprising an in-bracket location.
Robertson et al. teaches a similar method that includes generating at least one acoustical wave in an utility-side service pipe (104) and a segment of a water main (defined by 106A/B/C/D) at a second excitation location (define by the location of 108B) along the water main (seen in Fig. 4) while recording, by a pipe assessment system (120), signal data from first and second acoustic sensors (102A/B), a first excitation location (108A) comprising an out-of-bracket location (seen in Fig. 4) and the second excitation location (defined by the location of 108B) comprising an in-bracket location [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Burtea et al. to include the in-bracket multiple excitation locations of Robertson et al. to the out-of-bracket excitation taught by Burtea et al. because Robertson et al. teaches such a modification improves Burtea al et al. by allowing the pipe to be tested in smaller segments, which gives higher-resolution results; [0021].
With respect to claim 12, Burtea as modified by Robertson et al. the method wherein computing the estimate of the speed of sound in the utility-side service pipe (102) comprises: measuring, by the modified pipe assessment system (120), an out-of-bracket time difference [0001] between a time of arrival of the at least one acoustical wave at the first acoustic sensor (106A) and a time of arrival of the at least one acoustical wave at the second acoustic sensor (106B) from the signal data recorded during generation of the at least one acoustical wave at the first excitation location (defined by the location of 104 of Burtea); measuring, by the modified pipe assessment system (120), an in-bracket time difference [0021] between a time of arrival of the at least one acoustical wave at the first acoustic sensor (106A) and a time of arrival of the at least one acoustical wave at the second acoustic sensor (106B) from the signal data recorded during generation of the at least one acoustical wave at the second excitation location (defined by the location of 108B); computing, by the modified pipe assessment system (102 of Burtea), a propagation time of acoustical waves in the utility-side service pipe (102) from the measured out-of-bracket time difference [0001] of Burtea and the measured in-bracket time difference (as taught in Robertson); and computing, by the modified pipe assessment system (102), the estimate of the speed of sound in the utility-side service pipe (102) from the computed propagation time in the utility-side service pipe (102) and a length (for example L of Fig. 4 of Robertson et al.) of the utility-side service pipe (102).
Claim 13 is directed to an alternative limitation that was not elected by the examiner. Insofar as how Claim 1/11 further defines the examiner elected alternatives, Burtea et al. as modified teaches the elected claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 14, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination, in particular compute a total attenuation of the acoustical wave between the first acoustic sensor and the second acoustic sensor from power spectral densities computed for the first and second acoustic sensors and a corresponding transfer function from the recorded signal data, compute an estimate of the attenuation of the acoustical wave in the segment of the water main from an attenuation factor related to the water main and a length of the segment of the water main, compute an attenuation of the acoustical wave in the utility-side service pipe from the computed total attenuation and the estimate of the attenuation in the segment of the water main, compute an estimate of an attenuation factor for the utility-side service pipe from the computed attenuation in the utility-side service pipe and a length of the utility-side service pipe, and detect lead as the dominant material of the utility-side service pipe based upon the computed estimate of the attenuation factor for the utility-side service pipe and a relationship between the attenuation factor of various service pipes and the materials of the various service pipes.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination, in particular compute a propagation time of acoustical waves in the utility-side service pipe from the measured out-of-bracket time difference and the measured in-bracket time difference; compute an estimate of a speed of sound in the utility-side service pipe from the computed propagation time in the utility-side service pipe and a length of the utility-side service pipe; compute an out-of-bracket total attenuation of the acoustical wave between the first acoustic sensor and the second acoustic from power spectral densities computed for the first and second acoustic sensors and a corresponding transfer function from the first signal data; compute an in-bracket total attenuation of the at least one acoustical wave between the first acoustic sensor and the second acoustic from power spectral densities computed for the first and second acoustic sensors and a corresponding transfer function from the second signal data; compute an attenuation of acoustical waves in the utility-side service pipe from the computed out-of-bracket total attenuation and the computed in-bracket total attenuation; compute an estimate of an attenuation factor for the utility-side service pipe from the computed attenuation in the utility-side service pipe and a length of the utility-side service pipe; and detect lead as the dominant material of the utility-side service pipe based upon one or more of the computed speed of sound in utility-side service pipe and a relationship between the speed of sound in a pipe and a material of the pipe, and the computed attenuation factor for the utility-side service pipe and a relationship between the attenuation factor of a pipe and the material of the pipe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burtea et al. (10,768,146) which teaches determining characteristics of a pipe using calculated attenuation data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights