FIRST NON-FINAL REJECTION
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
Claims 18-20 and 22-25 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 10-17. When claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the steps of receiving data characterizing a strain of a conduit from a strain measuring tool, receiving data characterizing a stress of the conduit from a stress measurement tool, determining a stress-strain state position on a provided stress-strain curve based on the received data characterizing the strain and the received data characterizing the stress, and providing the determined stress-stain position. These steps of receiving, determining, and providing as recited in the claim can be performed mentally or in a computer and are similar to the kind of ‘organizing human activity’ at issue in Alice Corp.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative claim, same arguments for claims 10 and 18), the claim limitations "receiving data characterizing a strain of a conduit from a strain measuring tool; receiving data characterizing a stress of the conduit from a stress measurement tool; determining a stress-strain state position on a provided stress-strain curve based on the received data characterizing the strain and the received data characterizing the stress; providing the determined stress-stain position" are directed to a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. With the identification of the above abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite providing the determined stress-stain position, and providing the stress-strain state position comprises displaying the stress-strain state position relative to a characteristic stress-strain model for a material of the conduit, but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, merely are directed to insignificant data collection activity and general purpose computer. The claims do not improve the functioning of any devices. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite wherein the strain measuring tool comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU), wherein the stress measurement tool comprises a magnetic anisotropy and permeability system (MAPS), but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, merely is directed to data collection activity and general purpose computer that is well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to the dependent claims, similar rejections are made as the claims to not remedy the above 101 rejection by integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baek KR20110086674.
With respect to claim 1, Baek teaches receiving data characterizing a strain of a conduit from a strain measuring tool (displacement and deformation of a pipe is measured, paragraphs 44-48); receiving data characterizing a stress of the conduit from a stress measurement tool (the load on the pipe is measured, paragraphs 50-52); determining a stress-strain state position on a provided stress-strain curve based on the received data characterizing the strain and the received data characterizing the stress (a load displacement curve is determined, paragraphs 51-53); providing the determined stress-stain position (interpreted as the current pipe characteristics are calculated from the analysis performed including the load displacement curve, paragraphs 57-60).
With respect to claim 4, Baek teaches wherein the strain on the conduit is a bending strain at a specified physical location within the conduit (displacement and deformation of a pipe that is measured includes bending of the pipe, paragraphs 44-48).
With respect to claim 5, Baek teaches wherein the stress on the conduit is a total stress at a specified physical location within the conduit (the load on the pipe that is measured includes stress at locations on the pipe, paragraphs 50-52).
With respect to claim 7, Baek teaches determining an active portion of strain based on the received data characterizing the strain and the received data characterizing the stress (interpreted as the load being continuously measured, paragraphs 50-52); determining an inactive portion of strain based on the received data characterizing the strain and the received data characterizing the stress (interpreted as the load being continuously measured thereby including any loads applied to the pipe, paragraphs 50-52); providing the active and inactive portions of strain (paragraphs 50-52).
With respect to claim 9, Baek teaches wherein providing the stress-strain state position comprises providing data characterizing the stress-strain state position (interpreted as determined current pipe characteristics, paragraphs 57-60).
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) 2, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 18, 20-21, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek KR20110086674 in view of Kang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0106867.
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 18, Baek teaches at least one data processor (computer, paragraph 56); and non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one data processor causes the at least one data processor to perform operations comprising: receiving data characterizing a strain of a conduit from a strain measuring tool (displacement and deformation of a pipe is measured, paragraphs 44-48); receiving data characterizing a stress of the conduit from a stress measurement tool (the load on the pipe is measured, paragraphs 50-52); determining a stress-strain state position on a provided stress-strain curve based on the received data characterizing the strain and the received data characterizing the stress (a load displacement curve is determined, paragraphs 51-53); providing the determined stress-stain position (interpreted as the current pipe characteristics are calculated from the analysis performed including the load displacement curve, paragraphs 57-60).
Baek fails to teach an internal measurement unit.
Kang teaches a systems and methods for tubular design analysis workflow and simulator for complex well trajectories where the system has one or more sensors including an inertial measurement unit (paragraph 44).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Baek with the inertial measurement unit as taught by Kang in order to provide accurate calculation and modeling of temperature and pressure profiles associated with a well (paragraph 26, Kang).
With respect to claims 12 and 20, Baek teaches wherein the strain on the conduit is a bending strain at a specified physical location within the conduit (displacement and deformation of a pipe that is measured includes bending of the pipe, paragraphs 44-48).
With respect to claims 13 and 21, Baek teaches wherein the stress on the conduit is a total stress or hoop stress at a specified physical location within the conduit (the load on the pipe that is measured includes all stress at locations on the pipe, paragraphs 50-52).
With respect to claims 15 and 23, Baek teaches determining an active portion of strain based on the received data characterizing the strain and the received data characterizing the stress (interpreted as the load being continuously measured, paragraphs 50-52); determining an inactive portion of strain based on the received data characterizing the strain and the received data characterizing the stress (interpreted as the load being continuously measured thereby including any loads applied to the pipe, paragraphs 50-52); providing the active and inactive portions of strain (paragraphs 50-52).
With respect to claims 17 and 25, Baek teaches wherein providing the stress-strain state position comprises providing data characterizing the stress-strain state position (interpreted as determined current pipe characteristics, paragraphs 57-60).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek KR20110086674 in view of Zhang et al. CN101246143.
With respect to claim 3, Baek teaches the claimed invention except wherein the stress measurement tool comprises a magnetic anisotropy and permeability system (MAPS).
Zhang teaches stress measurement system wherein magnetic stress measuring method of MAPS method finds a relationship between permeability tensor and stress and building the conversion model between stress and permeability (paragraph 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Baek with the MAPS method of measuring stress of Zhang in order to provide an more accurate stress measuring system.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek KR20110086674 in view of PAPADIMITRIOU et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0228777.
With respect to claims 6 and 8, Baek teaches the claimed invention except determining a historic cyclic load on the conduit based on the determined stress-strain state position; providing the historic cyclic load on the conduit based on the determined stress-strain state position, and wherein providing the stress-strain state position comprises displaying the stress-strain state position relative to a characteristic stress-strain model for a material of the conduit.
PAPADIMITRIOU teaches a stress and engineering assessment system wherein the invention may further comprise a database which may comprise material historical data and/or constraints where the database constraints may be selected at least in part from knowledge and/or rules, and the knowledge and/or rules may involve stress, loading, bending, or strain (paragraph 61), and stress factors are output to display 221 (paragraph 306).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Baek with the invention determining stress and strain with historical data and provide the data to a display as taught by PAPADIMITRIOU in order to more accurate stress and strain analysis.
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek KR20110086674 in view of Kang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0106867 and further in view of Zhang et al. CN101246143.
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Baek as modified by Kang teaches the claimed invention except wherein the stress measurement tool comprises a magnetic anisotropy and permeability system (MAPS).
Zhang teaches stress measurement system wherein magnetic stress measuring method of MAPS method finds a relationship between permeability tensor and stress and building the conversion model between stress and permeability (paragraph 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Baek as modified by Kang with the MAPS method of measuring stress of Zhang in order to provide an more accurate stress measuring system.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek KR20110086674 in view of Kang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0106867 and further in view of PAPADIMITRIOU et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0228777.
With respect to claims 14, 16, 22, and 24, Baek as modified by Kang teaches the claimed invention except determining a historic cyclic load on the conduit based on the determined stress-strain state position; providing the historic cyclic load on the conduit based on the determined stress-strain state position, and wherein providing the stress-strain state position comprises displaying the stress-strain state position relative to a characteristic stress-strain model for a material of the conduit.
PAPADIMITRIOU teaches a stress and engineering assessment system wherein the invention may further comprise a database which may comprise material historical data and/or constraints where the database constraints may be selected at least in part from knowledge and/or rules, and the knowledge and/or rules may involve stress, loading, bending, or strain (paragraph 61), and stress factors are output to display 221 (paragraph 306).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Baek as modified by Kang with the invention determining stress and strain with historical data as taught by PAPADIMITRIOU in order to more accurate stress and strain analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, 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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 6/10/2026
Prosecution Insights