Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This application is a CONTINUITY of U.S. Patent No. 12122492 B2- Appl Ser. No. 18/235,946; the request for a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) filed on 10/08/2024 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. Applicant files two IDSs on May 10, 2021 and 10/08/2024. They are considered).
Double Patenting
4. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-26 of prior U.S. Patent No.11787515 (hereafter “McCall’515”), and U.S. Patent No 12122492 (hereafter “McCall’492”).
5. The patented claims (in McCall’492 and McCall’515) are similar which read on the broad claims of the pending application that was reviewed.
6. Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of McCall’492 (US Pat. 12122492 B2), in view of claims 1-26 of McCall’515 (US Pat. 11787515 B2)
The non-statutory 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
8. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
9. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase.
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (e.g., “a module configured to”, “ a processor configured to”, “ a device configured to”, ”an input/output module”, or “a relay control module” in pending claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12-13, 17-18).
10. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
11. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function (i.e., in pending claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12-13, 17-18).
12. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
13. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
14. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
15. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
16. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 ULS.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper et al (US 20160009353A1 – hereafter “Cooper’353”) in view of Stamatakis et al (US Pub 20190124423 A1– hereafter “Stamatakis’423”) , and in view of Reece et al (US 20250238657 – hereafter “Reece’657”).
Cooper’353 teaches a system, a method, and a kit to remotely monitoring operational conditions of a marine barge during offloading operation (see Cooper’353 para. [0095]), the system comprising:
a housing connected to the marine barge in a position to monitor a pump engine and a pump positioned on the marine barge (see Cooper’353 Figure 4: a housing/container on a marine barge);
an electronic assembly positioned in the housing and having a relay control module (e.g., a processor/controller) and an input/output module (e.g., for processing signals/instructions) for a delivery configuration (see Cooper’353 Figure 1).
Cooper’353 does not disclose that a sensor to sense physical properties associated with the pump engine and the pump and generate data signals indicative of the operational conditions of the pump engine and the pump; however, Reece’657 suggests that sensing/monitoring feature (see Reece‘657 para. [0047], [0061] “[0047] In a number of embodiments, leak detection software (e.g., used in method 100) uses computer deep learning, for example, to watch for, or determine whether, there is a leak signature on a pipeline (e.g., the leak being reported by the software for act 106). In various embodiments, when there is a leak signature (e.g., received in act 106), the system or method (e.g., 100) provides an indication (e.g., a percent) of confidence (e.g., in act 106), for example, that the signature is a leak. Further, in particular embodiments, the system or method (e.g., 100) reports or displays (e.g., for act 106) why a leak signature was determined, for example, so operators can evaluate the veracity of the conclusion reached by the system, method, or software. Various embodiments include a deep learning model, for example, made of up of multiple or many layers. In various embodiments, the layers are or include (e.g., multiple): flowrates of transported liquid or gas, for example; flowrates of drag reducing agents (DRA); vibration; pressure; density; temperature; motor current (e.g., Amperes), for instance, of pump motors; motor or pump speed or frequency, motor or pump run status (e.g., on or off); comms status; physical locations of transmitters (e.g., GPS coordinates); pipeline mile posts; elevation; equipment alarm status; infrastructure or system alarm status; flow control valve position; pipe diameter; roughness coefficient; or a combination thereof, as examples. In a number of embodiments, Deep Learning layers learn the normal system values (e.g., input in act 101, 105, or both) of the pipeline and when there is a change in any of the items being monitored (e.g., input in act 105), the system or method (e.g., quickly) looks at (e.g., all) other inputs from the (e.g., entire) pipeline, for example, to determine (e.g., and possibly report for act 106) whether there is a leak or a normal pipeline function occurred that caused the change. All feasible combinations are contemplated as different embodiments”; and see Reece’657 para. [0061] “In some embodiments, the method includes a deep learning model, for example, made of up of multiple layers, for example, that include flowrates (e.g., of the liquid or gas or of DRA). Further, in particular embodiments the (e.g., multiple) layers include vibration, pressure (e.g., within the pipeline), density, temperature, motor current (e.g., of pump motors) amperage, motor speed, pump speed, motor frequency, motor run status (e.g., on or off), pump run status, comm status, physical locations (e.g., of transmitters, for instance, GPS coordinates, pipeline mile posts, elevation, etc.), equipment alarm status, infrastructure or system alarm status, flow control valve position, pipe diameter, roughness coefficient, or a combination thereof, as examples. In various embodiments, for instance, deep learning layers learn normal system values (e.g., of the pipeline) and when there is a change in any of the items being monitored, the method looks at other inputs (e.g., from the pipeline) to determine whether there is a leak, or whether a normal pipeline function occurred that caused the change”).
Coope’353 suggests a status monitoring and communication device to receive the generated data signals from the one or more sensors and to transmit the generated data signals (to a remote location, see Coope’353 Fig. 3 ref. 138 , and para. [0067]);
Coope’353 fails to suggest about a warning indicator to indicate an improper operational condition of one or more of: the pump or the pump engine; however, Reece’657 suggests this feature (see Reece’657 para. [0058], [0061], and “data that is input (e.g., in act 101, 103, 105, or a combination thereof) may include sensor data, for example, acquired and input in real time or nearly real time, data that has been acquired and stored, or both. In a number of embodiments, for example, historic data (e.g., input in act 101), for example, may have been acquired and stored. Still further, data that is input (e.g., in act 101, 103, or 105) may include data that is automatically fed into the computer, data that is manually entered, or both”.
Cooper’353 also suggests a remotely positioned monitoring servers to store the generated data signals from the one or more sensors as monitored sensor data (see Cooper’353 para. [0021][0023] [0067], claim 4).
Cooper’353 does not disclose about displaying a representation of the monitored sensor data on a display associated with the one or more remotely positioned monitoring servers; however, Stamatakis’423 suggests that claimed function (see Stamatakis’423 Figs. 2-6, and para. [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Cooper’353 with Stamatakis’423, and Reece‘657 for a familiar capability of remotely checking a pump operating condition in real-time by monitoring a particular pump status as claimed.
Conclusion
17. Claims 1-18 are rejected.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 10:00AM- 6:00PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664