Ex Parte Hill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

13059795 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/059,795 02/18/2011 David John Hill 11-373 2955
20306 7590 06/21/2017
MrnnNNFT T ROFFTNFN HT TT RFRT Rr RFRGROFF T T P
EXAMINER
300 S. WACKER DRIVE HULKA, JAMES R
3 2ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2017 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID JOHN HILL and MAGNUS MCEWEN-KING
Appeal 2015-003010
Application 13/059,7951
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—9 and 12, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claims 10 and 11 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest of this pending
application is OPTASENSE HOLDINGS LIMITED.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-003010
Application 13/059,795
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention relates to conduit
monitoring and inspection, and more particularly to subterranean pipeline
monitoring.” Spec. 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1—9 and 12 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed claims and recites:
1. A method for monitoring a fluid carrying conduit
comprising a pipeline the method comprising the steps of:
interrogating an optic fibre positioned along the path of
said conduit to provide distributed acoustic sensing;
passing a pig through the pipeline, the pig generating
(inducing) at least one acoustic pulse as it passes through the
pipeline;
measuring by distributed acoustic sensing the response to
said at least one acoustic pulse at each of a plurality of discrete
longitudinal sensing portions; and
deriving from said plurality of measurements a conduit
condition profile.
Appeal Br. 10.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—7 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Weir.2
2. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weir in view of Hayward.3
2 Weir, US 4,747,309, iss. May 31, 1988
3 Hayward et al., US 2008/0088846 Al, pub. Apr. 17, 2008.
2
Appeal 2015-003010
Application 13/059,795
3. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weir in view of Li.4
DISCUSSION
Anticipation
With respect to independent claims 1 and 12, the Examiner finds as
follows:
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Weir discloses a method and
apparatus for monitoring a fluid carrying conduit comprising:
interrogating an optic fiber [6 of Fig. 1; Col 2 Lines 40-45]
positioned along the path of said conduit to provide distributed
acoustic sensing; passing a pig through the pipeline, the pig
generating at least one acoustic pulse as is passes through said
pipeline [Col. 2 Lines 50-60], measuring by distributed acoustic
sensing the response to said acoustic pulse at each of a plurality
of discrete longitudinal sensing portions [Abstract, Col. 3 Lines
10-20].; and deriving from said plurality of measurements a
conduit condition profile [Col. 1 Lines 40-60].
Final Act. 2. Further, in response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner
asserts:
In summary, a broadest reasonable interpretation of the
appellant’s Claims 1 and 12 requires: a pipeline with two or
more acoustic sensors positioned along a length, an optical fiber
(for communication), a pig passing through a pipeline that
(inherently) generates a pulse of sound, and determining a basic
status of the pipeline from the acoustic sensor measurements.
Weir discloses each and every limitation as claimed in
appellant’s Claim 1 and 12.
Ans. 4.
4 Li et al., “Recent applications of fiber optic sensors to health monitoring in
civil engineering,” Engineering Structures 26 at 1647—57 (2004).
3
Appeal 2015-003010
Application 13/059,795
As discussed below, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not
established that Weir anticipates independent claims 1 and 12.
Weir discloses the use of a linear microphone placed along the surface
or through a pipe-line in order to detect faults in the pipeline by measuring
“a phase change and/or amplitude change in an electric current or
electromagnetic wave transmitted through the elongated member” of the
linear microphone. Weir col. 1,11. 47—52. Weir discloses that if the linear
microphone is to be placed within the pipe-line, the optical fiber of the
microphone “may in such a case [be] drawn through the pipe-line by a pig.”
Id. at col. 2,11. 52—56. Weir also discloses, “[i]n operation, if sound is
produced in the pipe-line due to a leak, the light signals passing through the
optical fibre 11 are modulated and the match between the modulations of the
light signals proceeding in opposite direction indicates the position of the
leak.” Id. at col. 3,11. 15—19. Thus, Weir discloses using optical fiber linear
microphones for detecting the locations of leaks in a pipe-line, said linear
microphones being placed along the surface of the pipe-line, or if suitable,
drawn through and placed within the pipe-line with a pig.
With respect to claim 1, we agree with Appellants that Weir does not
disclose a method arranged as claimed. In particular, the claim requires
passing a pig through the pipeline in order to generate an acoustic pulse and
then measuring a response to the acoustic pulse at a plurality of sensing
portions in order to derive a conduit condition profile. The Examiner
maintains that any pig passing through the pipe would produce an acoustic
signal and that Weir discloses interrogating an optic fiber to provide
distributed acoustic sensing. Ans. 3^4. However, we agree with Appellants
that the claimed method requires using a pig as a deliberate source of sound,
4
Appeal 2015-003010
Application 13/059,795
i.e., the claim requires using a pig to generate an acoustic pulse and then
sensing that acoustic pulse to generate a conduit profile. Appeal Br. 5—6. At
best, Weir discloses using a pig to place an optical fiber within a pipe and
separately using the optical fiber to generate a conduit condition profile.
However, the Examiner does not point to any disclosure in Weir indicating
that a pig is used to generate an acoustic signal as required by the claim, i.e.,
as a source of an acoustic pulse that is then used to derive a conduit
condition profile. Although a pig may necessarily produce an acoustic
pulse, as posited by the Examiner, that fact does not establish that Weir
teaches the use of a pig as claimed here. In short, the Examiner has not
shown that Weir discloses all of the elements arranged as in the claim. See
NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369—70 (Fed. Cir.
2008).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Weir. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2—7 for the same reasons.
With respect to claim 12, we also agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not shown that Weir discloses an apparatus as claimed. The
Examiner relies on the same findings noted and discussed above in finding
that Weir anticipates claim 12. Claim 12 is an apparatus claim requiring an
optic fiber interrogator and a processor. In particular, the claim requires
both an “optic fibre interrogator adapted to interrogate an optic fibre and
provide distributed acoustic sensing” and “a processor adapted to receive
sensed data from said interrogator in response to acoustic pulses generated
by a pig passing through the pipeline” and to derive a conduit condition
5
Appeal 2015-003010
Application 13/059,795
profile from said sensed data. We find that the Examiner has not adequately
established that Weir discloses the structure claimed.
As noted, the Examiner does not make separate findings regarding the
specific elements required by claim 12. Thus, it is not readily apparent,
from the Final Rejection or the Answer, which elements of Weir the
Examiner is relying upon to meet the structures claimed. Furthermore,
Appellants do not apprise us in their briefs of what their understanding of the
rejection of claim 12 is. For these reasons, we conclude that the Examiner
has not done enough to show that a prima facie case of anticipation has been
made. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 as
anticipated by Weir.
Obviousness
The rejections of claims 7 and 8 do not indicate, and we are unaware
of, how the art of record may cure the deficiencies noted above with respect
to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the
rejections of claims 7 and 8 as obvious.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—9 and 12 for the reasons set
forth above.
REVERSED
6