Ex Parte Hill et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 20, 201713059795 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation