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 § 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 recite(s) “A method for determining a state of health of a pressurized pipe network to thereby detect, classify or locate a possible defect occurred in the pipe network, the state of health being selected from a plurality of selectable states,”, “applying singular value decomposition (SVD) to a trained data matrix to identify a plurality of orthonormal left singular vectors (SVs) of the trained data matrix, wherein the trained data matrix is formed by allocating respective TRSs in the plurality of TRSs to either different rows or different columns of the trained data matrix; selecting a subset of the plurality of orthonormal left SVs as a plurality of selected SVs such that a least error is obtained in predicting a scenario randomly selected from the plurality of health-related scenarios via projecting a corresponding TRS of the selected scenario onto a SV space spanned by the selected subset; determining a representative location of an individual selectable state in the SV space according to a cluster of locations of one or more first TRSs projected onto the SV space, wherein an individual first TRS is in the training data set, and a corresponding health-related scenario under which the individual first TRS is obtained is an instance of the individual selectable state;”, and “determining a location of the measured TRS in the SV space; and determining the state of health as a first selectable state in the plurality of selectable states such that the location of the measured TRS in the SV space is closest to the representative location of the first selectable state among respective selectable states in the plurality of selectable states” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes based on the applicant’s specification, for example see 9-11, 13-17.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “the method comprising: collecting a plurality of transient response signals (TRSs) obtained under a plurality of health-related scenarios of the pipe network, respectively, to form a training data set, wherein an individual health-related scenario is an instance of a corresponding selectable state;” and “obtaining a measured TRS of the pipe network;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “the method comprising: collecting a plurality of transient response signals (TRSs) obtained under a plurality of health-related scenarios of the pipe network, respectively, to form a training data set, wherein an individual health-related scenario is an instance of a corresponding selectable state;” and “obtaining a measured TRS of the pipe network;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and also see prior art of record).
Claims 2-14 further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
Claims 15-16 are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and also see prior art of record).
Claim 17 is integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perrodin (US 20190271610 A1).
In claim 1, Perrodin discloses a method for determining a state of health (Par. 75 “failure detection”) of a pressurized pipe network to thereby detect, classify or locate a possible defect (Par. 3 “detect gas leaks of industrial equipment” Par. 92 “pipes”) occurred in the pipe network, the state of health being selected from a plurality of selectable states (Par. 3, “detect gas leaks of industrial equipment or other possible failure”), the method comprising: collecting a plurality of transient response signals (TRSs) (Par. 4 “measure a sound signal”) obtained under a plurality of health-related scenarios of the pipe network (Par. 25 “marked as failing” Par. 44, “working properly” Par. 96 “detected leak”), respectively, to form a training data set (Fig. 3, 302), wherein an individual health-related scenario is an instance of a corresponding selectable state (Par. 25, Par. 44, Par. 96, examiner notes that the states have their respective values that they are compared to in order to determine); applying singular value decomposition (SVD) (Par. 129 “singular value decomposition”) to a trained data matrix (Par. 122 “matrix”) to identify a plurality of orthonormal left singular vectors (SVs) of the trained data matrix (Par. 130), wherein the trained data matrix is formed by allocating respective TRSs in the plurality of TRSs to either different rows or different columns of the trained data matrix (Par. 122-125); selecting a subset of the plurality of orthonormal left SVs as a plurality of selected SVs such that a least error is obtained (Par. 133-136) in predicting a scenario randomly selected from the plurality of health-related scenarios via projecting a corresponding TRS of the selected scenario onto a SV space spanned by the selected subset (Par. 149); determining a representative location of an individual selectable state in the SV space according to a cluster of locations of one or more first TRSs projected onto the SV space (Par. 158-159, Par. 222 “clustering”), wherein an individual first TRS is in the training data set (Par. 122), and a corresponding health-related scenario under which the individual first TRS is obtained is an instance of the individual selectable state (Par. 25, Par. 44, Par. 96); obtaining a measured TRS of the pipe network (Fig. 3, 301); determining a location of the measured TRS in the SV space (Par. 163-164); and determining the state of health as a first selectable state in the plurality of selectable states such that the location of the measured TRS in the SV space is closest to the representative location of the first selectable state among respective selectable states in the plurality of selectable states (Par. 25, Par. 44, Par. 96).
In claim 2, Perrodin further discloses wherein: the plurality of selectable states includes a plurality of defective states, thereby allowing the possible defect to be classified (Par. 25 “marked as failing” Par. 44, “working properly” Par. 96 “detected leak”); and the plurality of health-related scenarios includes a plurality of defect scenarios (Par. 25 “marked as failing” Par. 96 “detected leak”).
In claim 3, Perrodin discloses all of claim 2. Perrodin further discloses wherein the plurality of defective states includes one or more first defective states each related to a leakage defect in the pipe network (Par. 96 “detected leak”).
In claim 5, Perrodin discloses all of claim 2. Perrodin further discloses wherein: the plurality of selectable states further includes a no-defect state, thereby additionally allowing the possible defect to be detected (Par. 44, “working properly”); and the plurality of health-related scenarios further includes an intact case (Par. 96, examiner considers when there is no leak, the pipe is intact).
In claim 6, Perrodin discloses all of claim 2. Perrodin further discloses wherein the plurality of defective states includes plural third defective states related to presence of the possible defect at different locations, respectively, thereby additionally allowing the possible defect to be located (Par. 25 “marked as failing”, examiner notes that per Fig 1 the sensors are in multiple locations).
In claim 7, Perrodin further discloses wherein the plurality of selected SVs consists of a first predetermined number of SVs, the first predetermined number being 2 or 3 (Par. 136).
In claim 8, Perrodin further discloses wherein the selecting of the subset of the plurality of orthonormal left SVs as the plurality of selected SVs comprises: generating plural candidate subsets of the plurality of orthonormal left SVs (Par. 130); and for each of the candidate subsets, computing an average prediction error over predicting a second predetermined number of scenarios randomly selected from the plurality of health-related scenarios (Par. 118 “mean”), whereby the least error is identified from respective average prediction errors obtained for the candidate subsets (Par. 184).
In claim 9, Perrodin discloses all of claim 8. Perrodin further discloses wherein the second predetermined number is selected to be half of a total number of scenarios in the plurality of health-related scenarios (Par. 118, when there are 2).
In claim 10, Perrodin discloses all of claim 8. Perrodin further discloses wherein the candidate subsets are generated as all possible combinations of a first predetermined number of vectors selected from the plurality of orthonormal left SVs (Par. 222), the first predetermined number being either 2 or 3 (Par. 136).
In claim 11, Perrodin discloses all of claim 8. Perrodin further discloses wherein the candidate subsets are generated as all possible combinations of 2 to 3 vectors selected from the plurality of orthonormal leftSVs (Par. 222).
In claim 12, Perrodin further discloses wherein the representative location of the individual selectable state is determined as a centroid of the cluster of locations of the one or more first TRSs in the SV space (Par. 196).
In claim 13, Perrodin further discloses wherein an individual TRS in the plurality of TRSs is a time response signal (Par. 62).
In claim 14, Perrodin further discloses wherein an individual TRS in the plurality of TRSs is a frequency response signal (Par. 62).
In claim 15, Perrodin further discloses wherein the collecting of the plurality of TRSs comprises obtaining a corresponding TRS under the individual health-related scenario by computer simulation according to a calibrated model of the pipe network, whereby the plurality of TRSs is obtained (Par. 191, examiner considers the model calibrated as any faulty inputs have already been removed).
In claim 16, Perrodin further discloses wherein the collecting of the plurality of TRSs comprises experimentally measuring the plurality of TRSs under the plurality of health-related scenarios, respectively (Fig. 3, 301/302).
In claim 17, Perrodin further discloses wherein the collected plurality of TRSs is retrieved from a database that stores a copy of the plurality of TRSs obtained experimentally or by numerical simulation (Par. 65, 225).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrodin in view of Simpson (US 20180202612 A1).
In claim 4, Perrodin discloses all of claim 2. Perrodin further does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of defective states includes one or more second defective states each related to a blockage defect in the pipe network.
Simpson teaches wherein the plurality of defective states includes one or more second defective states each related to a blockage defect in the pipe network (Par. 126, 261 “blockage”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have wherein the plurality of defective states includes one or more second defective states each related to a blockage defect in the pipe network as taught by Simpson in Perrodin in order to identify various degrees and types of deterioration (Simpson Par. 261), thus improving the accuracy of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20080098809 A1, US 20050044942 A1, US 20210271730 A1, US 20220405596 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights