DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1–8, 10–12, and 14–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzonev et al. (US Pub. # 20140111642), hereinafter referred to as Tzonev, in view of Frovik et al. (US Pub. # 20210080310), hereinafter referred to as Frovik.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 14, Tzonev teaches, “A system (claim 14: method) for monitoring a floating roof (Fig. 4, ref. # 10) of a storage tank (11), the system comprising: a plurality of tags (8) coupled to the floating roof of the storage tank at a plurality of locations (see para. [0031]), wherein the storage tank is configured to contain a liquid; at least one image capturing device (2/4) installed in proximity to the storage tank, wherein the at least one image capturing device (2/4) is configured to capture one or more images of each of the plurality of tags (8); and at least one processor (5) communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device (Fig. 1–4, ref. # 2/4; see para. [0021, 0022]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine a distance of each of the plurality of tags from the at least one image capturing device (see para. [0031]); determine an orientation of the floating roof from the determined distance of the plurality of tags (see para. [0031]).” Tzonev does not necessarily teach, “compare the orientation of the floating roof determined with a predefined threshold; and generate one or more alarms when the orientation of the floating roof determined exceeds the predefined threshold, based at least on the comparison; wherein the predefined threshold corresponds to a required angle and a required height of the floating roof set by the user, with respect to a surface of the liquid.” However, Frovik teaches the deficiencies of Tzonev (Fig. 5A; para. [0015, 0044, 0050–0052]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tzonev’s invention to include compare the orientation of the floating roof determined with a predefined threshold; and generate one or more alarms when the orientation of the floating roof determined exceeds the predefined threshold, based at least on the comparison; wherein the predefined threshold corresponds to a required angle and a required height of the floating roof set by the user, with respect to a surface of the liquid.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Tzonev’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring more accurate positioning detection of the moving roof and operator notification when abnormal conditions arise, preventing potentially hazardous conditions near/surrounding the facility.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Tzonev teaches, “wherein the plurality of tags are configured to be installed over the floating roof of the storage tank, wherein the plurality of tags correspond to at least one of a simple sticker with high contrast patterns, a predefined mechanical structure, a predefined mechanical pattern, or a fixed object identified on the floating roof of the storage tank (see para. [0031]).”
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Tzonev teaches, “wherein the at least one image capturing device comprises one or more image sensors, and wherein the one or more image sensors correspond to at least one of infrared (IR) sensor, ultraviolet (UV) sensor, or visible image sensor (see para. [0024]).”
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Tzonev teaches, “wherein the orientation corresponds to a tilt angle and a level of the floating roof of the storage tank (see para. [0012, 0031]).”
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Tzonev teaches, “a gauge unit communicatively or through analog signal, coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the gauge unit is configured to determine a level of the liquid inside the storage tank (see para. [0031]).”
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Tzonev does not necessarily teach, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine a difference of the level of the floating roof and the level of the liquid is outside the predefined threshold, for generating the one or more alarms through digital, analog, or communication outputs.” However, Frovik teaches the deficiencies of Tzonev (see claim 7 and para. [0052]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tzonev’s invention to include wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine a difference of the level of the floating roof and the level of the liquid is outside the predefined threshold, for generating the one or more alarms through digital, analog, or communication outputs.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Tzonev’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring more accurate positioning detection of the moving roof and operator notification when abnormal conditions arise, preventing potentially hazardous conditions near/surrounding the facility; and for further providing notification to an operator when a material would need to be replaced for refilling of the storage tank.
Regarding claim 7, Tzonev teaches, “wherein upon generating the one or more alarms, the at least one processor is configured to feed the one or more images or feed visualization of the floating roof with the determined orientation and alarms to other subsystems such as digital video manager or video surveillance systems (see para. [0030]; notification here interpreted as image visualization).”
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Tzonev teaches, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the orientation of the floating roof based at least on a calibrated distance; a computing device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, for calibrating the system during installation or maintenance of the image capturing device (see para. [0031]; “determined during installation” interpreted as a calibration step, where location of roof/markers are initialized at start).”
Regarding claim 11, Tzonev teaches, “wherein a memory is communicatively coupled with the at least one processor to store one or more instructions provided by a user during the calibration, and wherein the memory is configured to store a correct orientation of the floating roof or a level of the floating roof of the storage tank (see para. [0031]; “determined during installation” in combination with determination of marker position within image “automatically determined using known methods from computer vision”, as the comparison is stored via some instructions and a comparison compared to normal occurs).”
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzonev and Frovik as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Calhoun (US Pat. # 3225191).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Tzonev in combination with Frovik does not appear to teach, “a light source positioned in proximity to the storage tank or within the at least one image capturing device, wherein the light source is configured to illuminate each of the plurality of tags with a modulated signal to avoid noise in the one or more images of the plurality of tags from surrounding sources or low or no light conditions, and wherein the modulated signal corresponds to at least one of infrared (IR) signal, ultraviolet (UV) signal, or visible signal.” However, Calhoun teaches the use of a modulated radiant energy beam 110, to provide an output circuit 122 which discriminates, between the modulated and other noise components in the electrical output signal from the photoconductive element 112 (see Fig. 4; col. 9, ln. 40–49). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tzonev and Frovik’s invention to include a light source positioned in proximity to the storage tank or within the at least one image capturing device, wherein the light source is configured to illuminate each of the plurality of tags with a modulated signal to avoid noise in the one or more images of the plurality of tags from surrounding sources or low or no light conditions, and wherein the modulated signal corresponds to at least one of infrared (IR) signal, ultraviolet (UV) signal, or visible signal.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tzonev and Frovik’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring accuracy of detection by removing unnecessary noise from the system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzonev and Frovik as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, in further view of Wu et al. (CN 113959262 A), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 13, Tzonev and Frovik do not necessarily teach, “a multi axis stabilizing module operationally coupled with the at least one image capturing device for determining orientation of the at least one image capturing device when the orientation of the at least one image capturing device changes due to temperature, wind, or other factors.” However, Wu teaches the deficiencies of Tzonev and Frovik (see para. [0023]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tzonev and Frovik’s invention to include a multi axis stabilizing module operationally coupled with the at least one image capturing device for determining orientation of the at least one image capturing device when the orientation of the at least one image capturing device changes due to temperature, wind, or other factors.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tzonev and Frovik’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring accuracy and precision of detection of the imaging device, offsetting inaccuracies caused by complex variable variations in the environment, such as temperature and vibration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach image correction techniques and floating tank systems with configurations similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights