DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Application and claims filed 07/23/2025.
Claims 1-15 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(b) is acknowledged.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. Application No. 18/822,445 filed on 09/02/2024, (“Parent Application”) now US 12,406,233 B2. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A.2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A.2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of US 12,406,233 B2 (previously Application No. 18/822,445 filed on 09/02/2024; “Parent Application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, the only independent claim of the present application is claim 1, and every claim feature recited as part of claim 1 of the present application has a direct correspondence to a feature as recited per the claimed invention of US 12,406,233 B2 with only minor alterations in wording which are not found to distinguish the scope of subject matter encompassed by the invention as claimed in the present application from that of the invention claimed per US 12,406,233 B2. Each feature of Claim 1 of the present application finds a direct correspondence to features recited in claims 1, 3, and 4 of US 12,406,233 B2 (which corresponds to claims 1, 8, 9 of claims of 18/822,445 filed 4/2/2025); note that claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1 in US 12,406,233 B2. Similarly, the other claimed features also find direct correspondence to features as recited in US 12,406,233 B2.
Examiner Notes
With respect to 35 USC 101, the examiner finds claims 1-15 to be eligible under 101 in view of MPEP 2106; e.g. similar to the Court’s finding In re Classen (i.e. Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC) by applying or using the recited judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e). For example, the present set of claims recite a combination of additional elements which the Examiner finds integrates a claimed judicial exception into a practical application thereof. The particularly claimed combination of adjustments of monitoring and storage allocations based upon the collection of pipeline operational data and subsequent analysis to form pipeline usage and risk determinations integrates the exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claim involves the generating and sending of maintenance instructions that include a specific combination of data elements to monitoring devices, wherein the instructions control the adjustment of monitoring frequencies and manage storage through deletion and allocation of resources.
With regard to the prior art, Examiner has reviewed the Notice of Allowance of the parent application (5/19/2025 NOA for App: 18/822,445), and agrees while there are related references that discuss methods, systems and computer-readable storage mediums monitoring pipeline operations status and recommending maintenance instructions based on the monitoring, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for all of the particular combination of the limitations as presently claimed. The Examiner finds the closest prior art to be the following:
Shao et al. (US 2023/0117676 A1), Method and internet of things systems for maintaining and managing storage and distribution station of smart gas. Shao is found to teach many of the features claimed but not every feature.
Non-Patent Literature (Cook et al., loT Natural Gas Pipeline Monitoring System, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Innovative Intelligent Industrial Production and Logistics), describes the use of network of nodes placed along pipelines to monitor usage and anomalies. This reference is applicable to the teachings of Shao but even when combined does not teach every feature in the combination as claimed.
Additionally, the following prior art is pertinent but does not appear to fill the gap of the combination of Shao and Cook:
Carroll et al. (US 20210241391 A1) "System and Method for Fuel Storage Tank Inventory Management"
Eastman et al. (WO 2012151535 A1) discloses an infrastructure analysis system and method that compares data to generate risk models and determine implementation plans.
Pittalwala et al. (US 20030171879 A1), System And Method To Accomplish Pipeline Reliability; discloses a system, and method for managing pipeline reliability, maintenance and repair.
Sutherland (US 20180275100 A1) discloses a system and method for utilizing tools and sensors to obtain pipeline related data to determine actions to be performed based on the one or more states of the pipeline.
Du et al., (US 20200191316 A 1) discloses a system and method for pipeline operation and integrity management by performing risk modeling of a pipeline or a portion of a pipeline.
Upadhyay (US 12189383 B2), Methods And Systems For Estimating A Remaining Useful Life Of An Asset
Nakagawa (US 11836814 B2), Hydrogen Sharing Network
Shetty B US (11262743 B2), Predicting Leading Indicators Of An Event
Mehta (US 11626730 B2), Method And Apparatus For Managing Predicted Power Resources For An Industrial Gas Plant Complex
Swaroop (US 11852563 B2), Fuel Leak Determination Via Predictive Modeling
Funk (US 10637683 B2), Smart City Apparatus, System, And Method
Fu (US 12149875 B2), Method For Parameter Adjustment Of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Distributed Terminal Based On Internet Of Things (IOT) And System
Munoz (US 20210202113 A1), IOT enabled wireless sensor system enabling process control…
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights