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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the claim objection, the specification objection, the 112a rejections, almost all of the 112b rejections, the 101 statutory category rejection, and the prior art rejections.
The 112b rejections for claim 63 are maintained because the claimed structures do not appear to be terms of art, but are only described in terms of what they do, rather than what they are. If Applicant shows that these are known terms of art, the rejection will be removed (a written statement from the representative suffices (as opposed to needing a sworn declaration)).
The remaining issues are addressed below.
Claim Objections
The below claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 39 and 45 misspell “camera.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 63 and 65 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.
Claim 63 recites a “survey system,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claim 63 recites a “motion reference unit,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claim 63 recites a “lay monitoring system,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 37-43, 45-52, and 54-68 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 37 (and its dependents) recite a method, and processes satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claim 61 (and its dependents) recite a system, and machines satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of the claims are a mental process because a person can look at flaws in pipeline welds. Further, the digital twins are a mental process for the same reasons as neural networks are mental processes are also mental processes, see example 47, claim 2, element (d) (from the July 2024 AI subject matter eligibility examples). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
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 37-43, 45-52, and 54-68 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over V. J. Taams "The onset of pipeline twist during reel-lay operations", July 28, 2016, http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:9edd02a2-956f-414d-83c8-dae8b928f585 (“Taams”) in view of US20220092234A1 (“Karri”). Taams was included in the Applicant’s IDS.
37. A method of monitoring a weld made at a pipe end during fabrication of the pipeline, the method comprising:
marking a pattern on the pipe end, at a fixed location relative to a central longitudinal axis of the pipeline and at a fixed location relative to the weld; (Taams, p. 86 “Red stripes were painted at the 6 o’clock and blue stripes were painted at the 3 o’clock orientation, which repeated in constant intervals along the stalks.”)
recording, (Taams, p. 87 “Via ROVs the rotation of the end terminals attached to the end of the pipelines was monitored during lowering.” ROV stands for “Remotely Operated Vehicle” and teaches the claimed image recording. Taams, p. xxiii. That Taams’ pipe is welded teaches the claimed weld flaw data (in other words, there is not a significant enough flaw that the pipe can’t be used).)
(Taams, p. 86 “Results from the tests were obtained by visual inspection of the shift in position of the stripes over the reel in comparison with its initial position.” Taams’ “shift in position” teaches the claimed “advanced longitudinally.” See also, p. 87, “the pipeline passing through the Reel/J-lay tower”)
from the recorded camera images, measuring an angular orientation of the pattern about the central longitudinal axis to determine a corresponding angular orientation of the pipeline about the central longitudinal axis; and (Taams, p. 87 “During the lowering of the pipeline to the target box at the seabed, the amount of pipeline twist was measured.” Taams’ twist teaches the claimed angular orientation of the pipeline about a longitudinal axis.)
Taams is not relied on for the below claim language.
However, Karri teaches that construction information should be recorded in memory (Karri, Fig. 4, memory 402)
and that camera images are recorded (Karri, [0020] “Proposed system will have the smart sensors and cameras (i.e., sensors 103) at the appropriate places”)
using the data of flaws in the weld and the corresponding angular orientation of the pipeline about the central longitudinal axis, to build a digital twin model of the pipeline, the digital twin model serving as a virtual representation of the pipeline to allow monitoring of the weld as the pipeline experiences deformation and rotation after fabrication of the pipeline (Karri, abstract “An approach for maintaining pipeline infrastructure based on graphical images is disclosed. The approach receives a plurality of parameters in a pipeline infrastructure by using a plurality of sensors. The approach generates a digital twin of the determined one or more susceptible and/or vulnerable points/areas/joints in the pipeline infrastructure.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Karri to the teachings of Taams such that Karri’s digital twins are used for Taams’ construction projection for “detecting potential hazardous materials released into surrounding associated with the defect.” Karri, [0001]. Note that Karri [0012] discloses the same type of pipeline, “A pipeline infrastructure can comprise of, but it is not limited to, a) subsea pipeline/fluid distribution network carrying oil, gas, water, etc.”
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
38 The method of claim 37, comprising time-stamping two or more recorded camera images of the pattern. (Karri, [0033] “the capability of communicating with sensors (i.e., sensors 103) to obtain real-time and/or historical information associated with various sensors (e.g., smell, flow rate, camera, etc.)” Karri’s real-time camera images teach the claimed timestamping.)
39. (New The method of claim 38, comprising comparing the camara images of the pattern recorded at different times. (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8. Taams’ x-axis teaches the claimed different times and the y-axis teaches the claimed comparing.)
40. The method of claim 37, wherein the weld information comprises a weld identifier. (Taams, p. 80 “In reality, every pipe segment welded together to form a pipeline will have slightly different material and geometric properties.”)
41. The method of claim 37, comprising measuring angular offset of the pattern relative to a vertical plane extending longitudinally along the pipeline. (Taams, p. 87 “During the lowering of the pipeline to the target box at the seabed, the amount of pipeline twist was measured.”)
42. The method of claim 37, comprising measuring longitudinal position of the weld along the pipeline. (Taams, p. 86 “Red stripes were painted at the 6 o’clock and blue stripes were painted at the 3 o’clock orientation, which repeated in constant intervals along the stalks.”)
43. The method of claim 42, comprising determining the longitudinal position of the weld by counting patterns passing a viewing point while advancing the pipeline longitudinally. (Taams, p. 86, “Results from the tests were obtained by visual inspection of the shift in position of the stripes over the reel in comparison with its initial position.” Taams’ “shift in position” teaches the claimed “counting patterns.”)
45. The method of claim 37, comprising recording cameral images of the pattern in one or more of the following instances during or after loading the pipeline onto a reel:
as the pipeline is advanced along a lay ramp of an installation vessel; (Taams, p. 86 “and for the pipe stalks for the Production Risers PR-04 and PR-05 later used for installation at the Lucius Project.”)
as the pipeline is advanced onto a reel of the vessel; and (Taams, p. 86 “the twist of the pipeline was measured during counter-clockwise spooling on of the pipe stalks onto the reel-drum”)
when the pipeline has been spooled onto the reel. (Taams, p. 86, Fig. A.3 (captioned “Visible rotation of markings on pipeline during spooling on”)
46. The method of claim 37, comprising recording camera images of the pattern in one or more of the following instances during installation of the pipeline to a seabed location:
as the pipeline is unspooled from a reel of the installation vessel; (Taams, p. 86 “and for the pipe stalks for the Production Risers PR-04 and PR-05 later used for installation at the Lucius Project.”)
as the pipeline is advanced through lay equipment on a lay ramp of the vessel; and (Taams, p. 86 “and for the pipe stalks for the Production Risers PR-04 and PR-05 later used for installation at the Lucius Project.”)
as the pipeline is advanced along a firing line of an installation vessel. (Taams, p. 86 “and for the pipe stalks for the Production Risers PR-04 and PR-05 later used for installation at the Lucius Project.”)
47. The method of claim 37, comprising recording camera images of the pattern at a seabed location while laying the pipeline. (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 caption “All data point before a length of approximately 2100m were derived via ROV visual inspection”)
48. The method of claim 37, further comprising, when recording camera images of the pattern, recording at least one of:
motion of an installation vessel; (Taams, p. 87 “either the ROVs or by temporarily changing
the heading of the vessel.”)
position of the installation vessel; (Taams, p. 87 “either the ROVs or by temporarily changing
the heading of the vessel.”)
parameters of lay equipment of the vessel; and (Taams, p. 87 “Upon release of the clamping constraint given by the tensioner tracks”)
position of the pattern. (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8)
49 The method of claim 48, comprising time-stamping at least one of the recorded motion or position of the installation vessel; (Taams, p. 87, “by temporarily changing the heading of the vessel” See also, Karri abstract and Fig. 3, receiving data 302. Karri that this data would be received and incorporated into the digital twin. The digital twin’s real-time nature teaches the claimed time-stamping.)
the recorded parameters of lay equipment of the vessel; and (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8. See also, Karri abstract and Fig. 3, receiving data 302. Karri that this data would be received and incorporated into the digital twin. The digital twin’s real-time nature teaches the claimed time-stamping.)
the recorded position of the pattern. (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 See also, Karri abstract and Fig. 3, receiving data 302. Karri that this data would be received and incorporated into the digital twin. The digital twin’s real-time nature teaches the claimed time-stamping.)
50. The method of claim 37, further comprising:
recording images of the pattern at the seabed location after laying the pipeline; and (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 caption “All data point before a length of approximately 2100m were derived via ROV visual inspection”)
from the recorded images, determining at least one spatial characteristic of the pipeline at the weld. (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 caption “All data point before a length of approximately 2100m were derived via ROV visual inspection”)
51 The method of claim 37, further comprising recording information of the pipe end that corresponds to the weld. (Taams, p. 89, “After each pipe stalk formation step, the stalks are shifted from one line to the next for further welding, testing or coating (see Figure B.2).”)
52 The method of claim 51, wherein the pipe end information comprises information concerning at least one of pipe material and pipe geometry. (Taams, p. 86 “the pipe stalks for the Production Risers PR-04 and PR-05 later used for installation at the Lucius Project.”)
54. The method of claim 37, further comprising when recording camera images of the pattern, recording at least one of:
motion of an installation vessel; (Taams, p. 87, “by temporarily changing the heading of the vessel” See also, Karri abstract and Fig. 3, receiving data 302. Karri that this data would be received and incorporated into the digital twin.)
position of the installation vessel; (Taams, p. 87, “by temporarily changing the heading of the vessel” See also, Karri abstract and Fig. 3, receiving data 302. Karri that this data would be received and incorporated into the digital twin.)
parameters of lay equipment of the vessel; and (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 S See also, Karri abstract and Fig. 3, receiving data 302. Karri that this data would be received and incorporated into the digital twin.)
position of the pattern; and (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 See also, Karri abstract and Fig. 3, receiving data 302. Karri that this data would be received and incorporated into the digital twin.)
building or maintaining the digital twin from the data in memory of at least one of:
the recorded motion or position of the installation vessel; (Taams, p. 95, Fig. B.12)
the recorded parameters of lay equipment of the vessel; and (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 See also, Karri abstract and Fig. 3, receiving data 302. Karri that this data would be received and incorporated into the digital twin.)
the recorded position of the pattern. (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 See also, Karri abstract and Fig. 3, receiving data 302. Karri that this data would be received and incorporated into the digital twin.)
55. The method of claim 37, comprising using the digital twin to evaluate fatigue of the pipeline. (Karri, [0013] “The approach utilizes, but it is not limited to, the following factors: i) historical learning of maintenance records related to the pipeline infrastructure and ii) predicted susceptible joints in the pipeline infrastructure laid based on the expiry date of the material used, …”)
56. The method of claim 37, wherein the pattern comprises a first marking disposed between at least two secondary markings angularly spaced from the first marking. (Taams, p. 86, Fig. A.2.)
57. The method of claim 56, wherein the first marking is made at an upper central position of the pipeline. (Taams, p. 86, Fig. A.2.)
58. The method of claim 56, wherein each marking of the pattern is visually distinct from each other marking of the pattern. (Taams, p. 86, Fig. A.2. Visually distinct is interpreted to mean that one can distinguish the markings as separate. See also, “Red stripes were painted at the 6 o’clock and blue stripes were painted at the 3 o’clock orientation.”)
59. The method of claim 37, comprising applying a field joint coating between the successive ones of the pattern at adjoining pipe ends. (Taams, p. 133, “In the final station(s), field joint coating is applied to the section between the the welded pipes”)
60. The method of any claim 37, comprising detecting longitudinal gaps between successive ones of the pattern at adjoining pipe ends to determine locations of the weld along the pipeline. (Taams, p. 134 “Here the pipes are lined-up, welded together”)
Claims 61, 62, and 64-68 are rejected as per the corresponding method claims. Additionally, claims 67 and 68 are directed to non-functional descriptive material. MPEP 2111.05.
63. The system of claim 61, further comprising: a survey system onboard a pipeline installation vessel that calculates and records position data of the installation vessel in relation to the pipeline; (Taams, p. 95, Fig. B.12)
a motion reference unit for monitoring and recording motions data including at least one of roll, pitch, heave, sway, surge, accelerations, angular rates and velocity of the installation vessel; and (Taams, p. 73, section 8, “The possible influence of current on pipeline end terminals”)
a lay monitoring system for monitoring and recording operation data of lay equipment including at least one of reel lay, winch and tensioner data of the lay equipment of the installation vessel. (Taams, p. 91, section B.3.6, “The tensioners”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12353203 B2 – titled “Methods And Systems For Data Collection, Learning, And Streaming Of Machine Signals For Analytics And Maintenance Using The Industrial Internet Of Things”
US 11263737 B2 – titled “Defect Classification And Source Analysis For Semiconductor Equipment”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights