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 .
A preliminary amendment was including at filing, and thus claims 37-70 have been examined. See below regarding the specifications.
Claim Objections
The below claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 55 recites “the installed pipeline,” instead of “the pipeline.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Capturing Images for Digital Twins of Undersea Welded Pipelines.
The specification is additionally objected to because the marked up and clean versions of the specification are not labeled (and thus the examiner does not know which of the three specifications are which). The examiner believes that the 22 page specification is intended to be out of date, but has not identified the differences between the 29 and 30 page specification. Applicant is reminded to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.121 when amending the specification. Applicant should additionally identify which specification is the original or base version.
Examiner Note
It is unclear what the thrust of the claims is. For example, the word “flaw” only appears in the independent claims, but dependent claims recite “fatigue” and “digital twins.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 37-70 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 37 and 61 recite “recording … weld flaw data,” but this is unlimited functional claiming because there is no guidance on where this information came from. MPEP 2173.05(g). For example, is the intent that the weld flaws are determined from the images?
Claim 39 recites “comparing the images,” but this is unlimited functional claiming due to the wide variety of ways that this could be done. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim 53 recites “to build or maintain a digital twin of the pipeline,” but this is unlimited functional claiming due to the wide variety of ways that this could be done. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 37-70 (all claims) 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 37 recites “recording, in a dataset,” but because the claim does not recite a physical embodiment of the dataset (such as stored in memory), whether the data is in the dataset or not is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claims 37 and 61 recite “weld information,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a). Specifying what the information is overcomes this rejection.
Claims 37 and 61 recite “associated with,” but this is subjective because different people can have different opinions as to whether something is associated. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim 51 recites “associating,” which is likewise rejected.
Claim 37 recites “a weld made at the pipe end during fabrication of a pipeline,” but it is unclear whether fabrication of the pipeline is a required step of this method, otherwise, it is unclear what the structural implications are of when the weld was made. MPEP 2113.
Claims 37 and 61 recite “post-fabrication operations,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claim 37 recites “determining one or more spatial characteristics of the pipeline at the weld, wherein the spatial characteristics comprise angular orientation of the pipeline about a longitudinal axis, and wherein the step of determining one or more spatial characteristics of the pipeline comprises determining the angular orientation of the pipeline by measuring angular orientation of the pattern,” but it is unclear how this claim language differs from simply “measuring angular orientation of the pattern” (note that claim 37 already recites that the pattern is at the pipe end with the weld).
Claim 40 recites “unique,” but this is relative terminology. MPEP 2173.05(b). For example, does the mark need to be unique to this pipeline, globally unique, etc.?
Claims 44, 48, 49, 52, 54, 62, and 65 recite “and/or,” but “and” is a preference within an open-ended “or.” MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 51 recites “pipe end information,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claim 54 recites “with reference to,” but this is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim 55 recites “comprising using the digital twin to evaluate fatigue life,” but this is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). For example, say someone loads a digital twin and looks for fracture marks. Is that evaluating fatigue life?
Claims 56 and 66 recite “a central marking disposed between at least two ancillary markings,” but both “central” and “ancillary” are relative terms. MPEP 2173.05(b). The issue with central is that it does not have definite points that is in between.
Claims 59, 60, 69, and 70 recite “the patterns,” but this lacks sufficient antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claim 61 recites “a weld information database,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a). One option to overcome this rejection is to specify what is contained in the database.
Claim 61 recites “a weld information database for recording,” but it is not clear whether “for recording” should be interpreted as a structural limitation or an intended use. If the intent is structural, what is the corresponding structure?
Claim 61 recites “a weld made,” but it is unclear if this is A) an impermissible method step in an apparatus claim (MPEP 2173.05(p)) or a product-by-process claim. If this is product-by-process claim, what is the implied structure? MPEP 2113.
Claim 61 also recites “during fabrication of a pipeline,” but this raises the same issues as “a weld made.”
Claim 61 recites “weld flaw data,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claim 61 recites “imaging equipment,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claim 61 recites “imaging equipment for recording,” but it is not clear whether “for recording” should be interpreted as a structural limitation or an intended use. If the intent is structural, what is the corresponding structure?
Claim 61 recites “one or more spatial characteristics of the pipeline at the weld including angular orientation of the pipeline about a longitudinal axis,” but it is unclear how this differs from simply “at the weld, angular orientation of the pipeline about a longitudinal axis.”
Claim 61 recites “being positioned to capture the images as the pipeline is advanced longitudinally,” but this is subjective because the pipeline is outside of the claim, and thus different people can have different opinions about a pipeline might be advanced.
Claim 62 includes further recitations regarding positioning, and these raise the same issues.
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).
Claim 65 recites “the clock input is also arranged,” but it is unclear how to determine how many types of information a clock input is configured to time-stamp.
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 61-70 (the “system” claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed “system” is not limited to an apparatus. For example, the claimed “database” includes software per se and the specification does not define what “image equipment is,” and thus could include software per se.
Claims 37-70 (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) fail Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of claims 37-70 (all claims) are a mental process because a person can look at flaws in pipeline welds. Further, the various models 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.
The examiner expects that limiting the claims to a specific technological improvement will overcome the claims, such as claiming the relationship between the patterns and the weld flaws, and connecting this information to how it is used, such as in the digital twin.
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 37-70 (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 Sacks R, Brilakis I, Pikas E, Xie HS, Girolami M. Construction with digital twin information systems. Data-Centric Engineering. 2020;1:e14. doi:10.1017/dce.2020.16 (“Sacks”). Taams was included in the Applicant’s IDS.
37. (New) A method of monitoring flaws in pipeline welds, the method comprising:
marking a pattern on a pipe end; (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 images, determining one or more spatial characteristics of the pipeline at the weld, wherein the spatial characteristics comprise angular orientation of the pipeline about a 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.)
wherein the step of determining one or more spatial characteristics of the pipeline comprises determining the angular orientation of the pipeline by measuring angular orientation of the pattern. (Taams, p. 87 “During the lowering of the pipeline to the target box at the seabed, the amount of pipeline twist was measured.”)
Taams is not relied on for the below claim language.
However, Sacks teaches that construction information should be recorded in a dataset (Sacks, §4.3, “Here too, we store multiple versions of the state of a building project over time, and each version is time-stamped with the date and time at which it was measured.”)
and that images are recorded (Sacks, §4.4, “a set of images of the wall,” §4.3, “Here too, we store multiple versions of the state of a building project over time, and each version is time-stamped with the date and time at which it was measured.”)
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 Sacks to the teachings of Taams such that Sacks’ digital twins are used for Tamms’ construction projection as “digital twins for construction are highly desirable because effective decision-making concerning production planning and detailed product design during construction, based on well-informed and reliable “what-if” scenario assessments, can greatly reduce the waste that is inherent in construction (Formoso et al., Reference Formoso, Soibelman, De Cesare and Isatto2002; Horman and Kenley, Reference Horman and Kenley2005; Gonzalez et al., Reference Gonzalez, Alarcon, Mundaca, Pasquire and Tzortzopoulos2007; Ogunbiyi et al., Reference Ogunbiyi, Goulding and Oladapo2014).” Sacks, §1.
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
38 (New) The method of claim 37, comprising time-stamping two or more recorded images of the pattern. (Sacks, §4.3, “As such, each item of information must be associated with a timestamp or version descriptor.”)
39. (New The method of claim 38, comprising comparing the 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-axi teaches the claimed comparing.)
40. (New) The method of claim 37, wherein the weld information comprises a unique 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. (New) 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. (New) The method of claim 37, wherein the spatial characteristics comprise 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. (New) 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.”)
44. (New) The method of claim 37, wherein the post-fabrication operations comprise loading the pipeline onto a reel and/or installing the pipeline to a seabed location. (Taams, pp. 86-87, “A.2. Spoolbase tests” and “A.3. Reeling tests”)
45. (New) The method of claim 44, comprising recording images of the pattern in one or more of the following instances during or after loading:
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. (New) The method of claim 44, comprising recording images of the pattern in one or more of the following instances during installation:
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. (New) The method of claim 44, comprising recording images of the pattern at the 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. (New) The method of claim 44, further comprising, when recording images of the pattern, recording:
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/or (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 (New) The method of claim 48, comprising time-stamping the recorded motion or position of the installation vessel; (Taams, p. 87, “by temporarily changing the heading of the vessel” See also, Sacks, §4.3, “As such, each item of information must be associated with a timestamp or version descriptor.”)
the recorded parameters of lay equipment of the vessel; and/or (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8. See also, Sacks, §4.3, “As such, each item of information must be associated with a timestamp or version descriptor.”)
the recorded position of the pattern. (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 See also, Sacks, §4.3, “As such, each item of information must be associated with a timestamp or version descriptor.”)
50. (New) 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 (New) The method of claim 37, further comprising recording pipe end information and associating that information with 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 (New) The method of claim 51, wherein the pipe end information comprises information concerning pipe material and/or 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.”)
53. (New) The method of claim 37, comprising using the weld information and spatial characteristics to build or maintain a digital twin of the pipeline. (Sacks, title, “Construction with digital twin information systems”)
54. (New) The method of claim 53, further comprising when recording images of the pattern, recording:
motion of an installation vessel; (Taams, p. 87, “by temporarily changing the heading of the vessel” See also, Sacks, §4.3, “As such, each item of information must be associated with a timestamp or version descriptor.”)
position of the installation vessel; (Taams, p. 87, “by temporarily changing the heading of the vessel” See also, Sacks, §4.3, “As such, each item of information must be associated with a timestamp or version descriptor.”)
parameters of lay equipment of the vessel; and/or (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 See also, Sacks, §4.3, “As such, each item of information must be associated with a timestamp or version descriptor.”)
position of the pattern; and (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 See also, Sacks, §4.3, “As such, each item of information must be associated with a timestamp or version descriptor.”)
building or maintaining the digital twin with reference to the recorded motion or position of the installation vessel; (Sacks, title, “Construction with digital twin information systems”)
the recorded parameters of lay equipment of the vessel; and/or (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 See also, Sacks, §4.3, “As such, each item of information must be associated with a timestamp or version descriptor.”)
the recorded position of the pattern. (Taams, p. 88, Fig. A.8 See also, Sacks, §4.3, “As such, each item of information must be associated with a timestamp or version descriptor.”)
55. (New) The method of claim 53, comprising using the digital twin to evaluate fatigue life of the installed pipeline. (Sacks, §2.1, “Accordingly, construction using digital twins should implement monitoring feedback loops at varying scales of cycle time … It must also provide prognostic capabilities to extrapolate from current conditions and evaluate the expected emergent outcomes of planned alternative management actions.”)
56. (New) The method of claim 37, wherein the pattern comprises a central marking disposed between at least two ancillary markings angularly spaced from the central marking. (Taams, p. 86, Fig. A.2.)
57. (New) The method of claim 56, wherein the central marking is made at an upper central position of the pipeline. (Taams, p. 86, Fig. A.2.)
58. (New) 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. (New) The method of claim 37, comprising applying a field joint coating between the patterns of mutually 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. (New) The method of any claim 37, comprising detecting longitudinal gaps between the patterns of mutually adjoining pipe ends to determine weld locations along the pipeline. (Taams, p. 134 “Here the pipes are lined-up, welded together”)
Claims 61-70 are rejected as per the corresponding method claims. Additionally, claims 67 and 68 are directed to non-functional descriptive material. MPEP 2111.05.
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”
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