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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,050,158.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,050,158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,050,158 recites all the limitations in claim 1 of the present invention.
Claims 1, 5-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 in view of Al-Muslim (US 2021/0371094).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 discloses all the limitations in claim 1 of the present invention, but does not disclose a computing device. Al-Muslim teaches the use of a computing device 600. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a computing device to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 as taught by Al-Muslim for the purpose of effectively testing a piping system.
Regarding claim 16, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 discloses all the limitations in claim 1 of the present invention, but does not disclose installing a plurality of pressure sensors on the piping system; coupling a pressure source to the piping system via a controllable valve; installing a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors on or proximate to the piping system; establishing a communication network between the pressure sensors, the controllable valve, the IoT sensors, and a remote control device; and receive environmental data from the loT sensors. Al-Muslim teaches the use of installing a plurality of pressure sensors 320 on a piping system 302; coupling a pressure source to the piping system via a controllable valve 304, 306 (paragraph 51, p. 52); installing a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors on or proximate to the piping system (p. 55, p. 149, figure 3); establishing a communication network (p. 75) between the pressure sensors, the controllable valve, the IoT sensors, and a remote control device 600 (p. 51, p. 52, p. 75); and receive environmental data from the loT sensors (p. 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include installing a plurality of pressure sensors on the piping system; coupling a pressure source to the piping system via a controllable valve; installing a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors on or proximate to the piping system; establishing a communication network between the pressure sensors, the controllable valve, the IoT sensors, and a remote control device; and receive environmental data from the loT sensors to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 as taught by Al-Muslim for the purpose of effectively testing a piping system.
Regarding claim 20, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 discloses all the limitations in claim 2 of the present invention, but does not disclose receiving a request to initiate a pneumatic test of the piping system; verifying that safety protocols are satisfied for the pneumatic test. Al-Muslim teaches the use of receiving a request to initiate a pneumatic test of a piping system (S452); verifying that safety protocols are satisfied for the pneumatic test (p. 79, p. 80, p. 121, p. 122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving a request to initiate a pneumatic test of the piping system; verifying that safety protocols are satisfied for the pneumatic test to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 as taught by Al-Muslim for the purpose of effectively testing a piping system.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 19, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 (modified by Al-Muslim) discloses all the limitations in claims of the present invention, but does not disclose a solenoid valve using a trained artificial intelligence (claim 5); maintaining the target pressure for a predetermined duration (claim 7); a thermal profile or an acoustic profile of the piping system (claim 8); applying machine learning techniques to determine at least one of a test fill rate optimization or a catastrophic failure prediction model for the piping system (claim 14); receiving data from a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors disposed on or proximate to the piping system (claim 15); configuring the remote control device to apply machine learning techniques to the pressure data and the environmental data to optimize pneumatic testing parameters (claim 19). Al-Muslim teaches the use of a solenoid valve using a trained artificial intelligence (paragraph 51, p. 52, p. 141, p. 6); maintaining a target pressure for a predetermined duration (p. 60); a thermal profile or an acoustic profile of a piping system (p. 56); applying machine learning techniques to determine at least one of a test fill rate optimization or a catastrophic failure prediction model for the piping system (p. 81, p. 103); receiving data from a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors disposed on or proximate to the piping system (p. 55, p. 149, figure 3); configuring a remote control device to apply machine learning techniques to pressure data and environmental data to optimize pneumatic testing parameters (p. 81, p. 103). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a solenoid valve using a trained artificial intelligence; maintaining the target pressure for a predetermined duration; a thermal profile or an acoustic profile of the piping system; applying machine learning techniques to determine at least one of a test fill rate optimization or a catastrophic failure prediction model for the piping system; receiving data from a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors disposed on or proximate to the piping system; configuring the remote control device to apply machine learning techniques to the pressure data and the environmental data to optimize pneumatic testing parameters to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 as taught by Al-Muslim for the purpose of effectively testing a piping system.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 recites all the limitations in claim 6 of the present invention.
Claims 9-10, 12, 13, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 recites all the limitations in claims 9-10, 12, 13, and 18 of the present invention.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 recites all the limitations in claim 11 of the present invention.
Claims 2-4 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 and Al-Muslim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorden (US 2013/0091452).
Regarding claims 2-4 and 17, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 (modified by Al-Muslim) discloses all the limitations in claims 2-4 of the present invention, but does not disclose establishing an exclusion zone around the piping system; and verifying that only authorized personnel are present within the exclusion zone (claim 2); creating a geofence around a geographical location of the piping system; and configuring the geofence to detect unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone (claims 3, 17); responsive to detecting unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone, transmitting an alert to at least one of an administrator device or an alert system (claim 4). Sorden teaches the use of establishing an exclusion zone around a piping system; and verifying that only authorized personnel are present within the exclusion zone (paragraph 81, p. 82, p. 341); creating a geofence around a geographical location of the piping system; and configuring the geofence to detect unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone (p. 81, p. 82, p. 341); responsive to detecting unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone, transmitting an alert to at least one of an administrator device or an alert system (p. 81, p. 82, p. 341). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include establishing an exclusion zone around the piping system; and verifying that only authorized personnel are present within the exclusion zone; creating a geofence around a geographical location of the piping system; and configuring the geofence to detect unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone; responsive to detecting unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone, transmitting an alert to at least one of an administrator device or an alert system to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,996 (modified by Al-Muslim) as taught by Sorden for the purpose of effectively testing a piping system.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 14-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Al-Muslim (US 2021/0372094).
Regarding claim 1, Al-Muslim discloses a method for remote pneumatic testing of a piping system, the method comprising:
performing, by a computing device 600, a safety check of the piping system 302, 702, 750 (paragraph 75);
verifying, by the computing device, a digital connection between a remote control system 902 and the piping system (p. 79-80, p. 121-122);
verifying, by the computing device, a mechanical connection between a pressure
source (304, 306, 704, 706) and the piping system (p. 79-80, p. 121-122);
remotely controlling, by the computing device, disbursement of fluid from the
pressure source into the piping system to apply pressure to the piping system (p. 52, p. 127);
remotely monitoring, by the computing device, the pressure applied to the piping
system (p. 52);
determining, by the computing device, that a target pressure to the piping system is reached (S467, p. 52, p. 75-76, p. 78, p. 127); and
responsive to determining that the target pressure is reached, causing, by the
computing device, a leak check to be performed (S467, figures 4c, 7, and 9).
Regarding claim 16, Al-Muslim discloses a method for constructing a remote pneumatic testing system for a piping system, the method comprising:
installing a plurality of pressure sensors 320 on the piping system 302;
coupling a pressure source to the piping system via a controllable valve 304, 306, (paragraphs 51-52);
installing a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors on or proximate to the
piping system (p. 55, p. 149, figure 3);
establishing a communication network (p. 75) between the pressure sensors, the
controllable valve, the IoT sensors, and a remote control device 600 (p. 75, p. 51-52); and
configuring the remote control device to:
control the controllable valve to regulate fluid flow from the pressure source
to the piping system (p. 51-52),
receive pressure data from the pressure sensors (p. 51-52, p. 10, p. 55),
receive environmental data from the loT sensors (p. 56), and
determine a target pressure for pneumatic testing of the piping system (S467, p. 52, p. 75-76, p. 78, p. 127).
Regarding claim 20, Al-Muslim discloses a method performed by a computing device for remote pneumatic testing of a piping system, the method comprising:
receiving a request to initiate a pneumatic test of the piping system (S452);
verifying that safety protocols are satisfied for the pneumatic test (p. 79-80, p. 121-122);
establishing a secure connection with a remote control system associated with the piping system (p. 79-80, p. 121-122);
transmitting control signals to the remote control system to initiate fluid flow from a pressure source to the piping system (figures 6 and 9);
receiving pressure data from sensors disposed on the piping system (S502);
analyzing the pressure data to determine when a target pressure is reached (S514);
responsive to determining the target pressure is reached, transmitting control
signals to maintain the target pressure for a predetermined duration (S514, S467, p. 60);
initiating a leak check of the piping system (S475);
receiving leak check results (S479); and
based on the leak check results, determining whether to increase the target
pressure or terminate the pneumatic test (S478, p. 24).
Regarding claim 5, Al-Muslim discloses wherein remotely controlling the disbursement of fluid comprises controlling a solenoid valve using a trained artificial intelligence to regulate flow of the fluid from the pressure source to the piping system (p. 51-52, p. 141, p. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Al-Muslim discloses wherein remotely monitoring the pressure comprises receiving pressure data from at least one pressure sensor disposed on the piping system (p. 52).
Regarding claim 7, Al-Muslim discloses responsive to determining that the target pressure is reached, maintaining the target pressure for a predetermined duration (p. 60).
Regarding claim 8, Al-Muslim discloses wherein causing the leak check to be performed comprises generating at least one of a thermal profile or an acoustic profile of the piping system (p. 56).
Regarding claim 9, Al-Muslim discloses responsive to determining that the piping system passes the leak check, determining whether to increase the target pressure (p. 90, p. 91).
Regarding claim 10, Al-Muslim discloses responsive to determining to increase the target pressure, repeating the remotely controlling, remotely monitoring, determining, and causing operations for a new target pressure (p. 90, p. 91).
Regarding claim 11, Al-Muslim discloses responsive to determining that the piping system fails the leak check, terminating the pneumatic testing (p. 24).
Regarding claim 14, Al-Muslim discloses applying machine learning techniques to determine at least one of a test fill rate optimization or a catastrophic failure prediction model for the piping system (p. 81, p. 103).
Regarding claim 15, Al-Muslim discloses wherein remotely monitoring the pressure comprises receiving data from a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors 320 disposed on or proximate to the piping system (p. 55, p. 149, figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Al-Muslim discloses configuring the remote control device to apply machine learning techniques to the pressure data and the environmental data to optimize pneumatic testing parameters (p. 81, p. 103).
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) 2-4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Muslim in view of Sorden (US 2013/0091452).
Regarding claims 2-4 and 17, Al-Muslim discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose establishing an exclusion zone around the piping system; and verifying that only authorized personnel are present within the exclusion zone (claim 2); creating a geofence around a geographical location of the piping system; and configuring the geofence to detect unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone (claims 3, 17); responsive to detecting unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone, transmitting an alert to at least one of an administrator device or an alert system (claim 4). Sorden teaches the use of establishing an exclusion zone around a piping system; and verifying that only authorized personnel are present within the exclusion zone (paragraph 81, p. 82, p. 341); creating a geofence around a geographical location of the piping system; and configuring the geofence to detect unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone (p. 81, p. 82, p. 341); responsive to detecting unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone, transmitting an alert to at least one of an administrator device or an alert system (p. 81, p. 82, p. 341). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include establishing an exclusion zone around the piping system; and verifying that only authorized personnel are present within the exclusion zone; creating a geofence around a geographical location of the piping system; and configuring the geofence to detect unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone; responsive to detecting unauthorized entry into the exclusion zone, transmitting an alert to at least one of an administrator device or an alert system to the method of Al-Muslim as taught by Sorden for the purpose of effectively testing a piping system.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Muslim in view of Mazrooee (US 11,237,076).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 18, Al-Muslim discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further discloses writing the test data to a sequence of blocks (steps in figures 4A-4C), but does not disclose recording test data associated with the pneumatic testing to a blockchain framework (claims 12, 18); a blockchain protocol (claim 13). Mazrooee teaches the use of recording test data associated with the pneumatic testing to a blockchain framework (column 22, lines 46-61) and a blockchain protocol (col. 22, lines 46-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include recording test data associated with the pneumatic testing to a blockchain framework; a blockchain protocol to the method of Al-Muslim as taught by Mazrooee for the purpose of effectively testing a piping system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sixsmith, Panza and Franklin disclose leak test systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH V LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2970. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ANH V LA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
ANH V. LA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
Al
January 4, 2026