FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1-15, 17, 19, and 21-30 the applicant argues that:
“Gibson describes an inspection tool in the form of a pig that features at least one inspection platform which can be radially moved relative to the pipe axis. This platform may be configured as a curved body incorporating one or more permanent magnets, which define north and south poles, with sensors mounted between them. Notably, Gibson's inspection tool is specifically designed for use inside pipes, whereas the sensor module of the present application is intended for use outside the pipe. Moreover, Gibson's inspection tool is limited to inspection of metallic materials and is not suitable for use with non-metallic materials.” (page 8, remarks).
“Gibson does not disclose providing the direction controlling means for controlling a moving direction of the link arm. In Gibson, the displacement of the link arm relative to the pipe surface changes in a manner that is not directly dependent on the concavity or convexity of the surface being inspected, as it is influenced by both the spring force and the rotation of the link arms. Specifically, the connection of link arms 20 to 26 to their respective brackets 16, 18 and inspection platforms 28, 30 are hinged, allowing the angle of the link arms 20 to 26 relative to the spring 14 to be varied (Paragraph [0066]).” (page 9, remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that “Gibson's inspection tool is specifically designed for use inside pipes, whereas the sensor module of the present application is intended for use outside the pipe. Moreover, Gibson's inspection tool is limited to inspection of metallic materials and is not suitable for use with non-metallic materials”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, with respect to claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed structural elements which clearly describe the sensor module the structural tie to an external surface of a pipe) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also, with respect to the claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that Gibson fails to teach the claimed “direction controlling means for controlling a moving direction of the link arm”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Gibson teaches that protective deflectors 82 and spring section 120 allow for movement or change in length of the arms 110,112 (paragraphs 84 and 89, figure 7). Therefore, this ability of movement and change of length allowed by the deflectors and spring section is interpreted as the claimed “direction controlling means” as there are no specific claimed structural elements which further detail the direction controlling means from the prior art.
Further, the applicant argues that:
“Further, referring to FIG. 10 and Paragraph [0093], Gibson discloses that the main magnets 204 are magnetized in a direction corresponding to the thickness, with the main magnet at one end of the return path defined by the bar 202 being magnetized in the opposite direction to that on the other end. In contrast, the magnet assembly (2) of the present application, which is assembled to the arm assembly (1), can be positioned away from the surface to be detected.
According to the present application, only the surface contacting element (1.2) is positioned close to the surface to be detected, whereas Gibson's inspection tool discloses one or more inspection platforms 28, 30 provided located in close proximity to the surface to be detected. As shown in FIG. 9 of Gibson, the size of the platforms 28, 30 are relatively large in size and therefore are not suitable for detecting small convexities or concavities.
Moreover, Gibson does not disclose the permanent magnets being assembled to the link arm in a way that enables them to move relative to the sensors. Said sensors are in a sensor array between said pair of permanent magnets, and the magnet cannot move relative to the sensor. For example, in FIG. 10 of Gibson, a rack 220 of sensors is mounted between the permanent magnets 204 and the pole pieces 206 of the magnetizing shoe 200 (the surface contacting element (1.2)).
In Gibson, the magnetic field generated by a magnetizing shoe 200, comprising a magnet backing bar 202, a pair of enclosed permanent magnets 204 (Paragraph [0093]), is monitored with an array of sensors mounted on the pig which detect the magnetic flux density at the internal surface of the pipe.
In contrast to Gibson, the sensors of the present application sense changes in the magnetic lines of force in response to movement of the arm body. For example, when the sensor module moves across a convex surface, the arm body (1.1) and at least one magnet (2.1) moves in a convex distance in a consistent manner and the magnetic sensor (3.1) can sense changes in the magnetic lines of force resulting from the movement of the magnet (2.1) attached on the arm body (1.1).
Gibson further contains no disclosure or teaching of a magnetic sensor that can directly sense changes in the magnetic lines resulting from the movement of the magnet, based on the specific arrangement of the magnet and sensor and the structure of the tool.” (pages 9 and 10, remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the magnet assembly can be positioned away from the surface to be detected, only the surface contacting element is positioned close to the surface to be detected, the permanent magnets being assembled to the link arm in a way that enables them to move relative to the sensors, and a magnetic sensor that can directly sense changes in the magnetic lines resulting from the movement of the magnet, based on the specific arrangement of the magnet and sensor and the structure of the tool) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, with respect to claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that Gibson fails to teach the claimed “a magnet assembly assembled to the arm assembly…to generate magnetic lines of force”; and “and a magnetic sensor assembly…for sensing changes in the magnetic lines of force in response to movement of the arm body”, a recitation of the intended use (underlined sections above) of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, Gibson is interpreted as teaching the required claimed structure of a sensor module comprising a magnet assembly (the magnetic backing bar 202 and permanent magnets 204 as part of the magnetizing shoe 200, figures 9 and10) assembled to an arm assembly (the magnetizing shoe 200 being part of the platforms 28,30 that are linked to link arms 20, 22, 24, and 26, figures 9 and 10) and a magnetic sensor assembly (sensor rack 220) comprising a magnetic sensor (the sensor rack 220 consists of a segmented flexible member 222 into each segment of which is mounted a corresponding electromagnetic sensor, paragraph 99).
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the noted “Technical advantages of the present invention over Gibson”, pages 10-12, remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, the applicant argues that:
“Further, Gibson did not focus on controlling direction of the link arm, for example, in Paragraph [0022], Gibson discloses at least one, preferably all the link arms may contain means (e.g. spring loading) permitting resilient deformation of the link in the direction of the extension of the link. This resilience provides a degree of movement to the platform(s) to allow for compliance at bends or dents in the pipe. In Gibson, it can be seen that the arm has no directional control and allows for deflection. Therefore, these structures cannot be applied to the technique of the present application.
In the Office Action (page 5), it is stated that Gibson teaches wherein the arm assembly further comprises a direction controlling means for controlling a moving direction of the arm body toward-backward the surface (interpreted as protective deflectors 82 and spring-section 120, Paragraph [0084], figure 7). The Applicant respectfully disagrees with this statement. As shown in FIG. 7, Gibson discloses the protective deflectors 82 and the spring-section 120. The deflectors 82 are wedge-shaped, tapering in a direction away from platforms 28,30. The deflectors 82 act as guides when an obstacle is encountered, to prevent edges of that obstacle striking platforms 28,30 which could damage them (see Paragraph [0084]). The spring-section permits some variation in the length of the link arms 20 to 26 and the arms 110,112 to provide compliance at bends and dents (Paragraph [0089]). In contrast to Gibson, the direction controlling means (1.3) of the present invention is provided for controlling a moving direction of the arm body (1.1) toward-backward the surface (S).
Moreover, inspection tool of Gibson is a pig with inspection platforms provided, and the platform may be a curved body (Paragraph [0031]). Thus, Gibson is mainly focused on in-pipe operations, while the present application can perform operations outside of the pipe.” (page 13, remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed structural elements which control the direction of the arm body, and the claimed elements which clearly structurally describe the outside of the pipe operation of the sensor module) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As previously mentioned above, Gibson teaches protective deflectors 82 and spring section 120 which allow for movement or change in length of the arms 110,112 (paragraphs 84 and 89, figure 7), and this ability of movement and change of length allowed by the deflectors and spring section may be interpreted as the claimed “direction controlling means” because there is no claimed structural elements tied to the claimed function of a direction controlling means.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10 of the claim currently reads “lines of force, #nd”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim currently depends of claim 2, and claim 2 has been canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "a surface" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "a surface" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 23, the current claim phrase “around a circumference of the surface (S) being an external surface of the pipe” is not clearly understood because the claim phrase does not clearly describe that the claimed surface is an external surface of the pipe. The examiner suggest amending the phrase to --around a circumference of the surface (S), wherein the surface is an external surface of the pipe--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-15, 17, 19, 21, 22, and 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibson et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0308810.
With respect to claim 1 and 22, Gibson teaches a sensor module, as well as a plurality of sensor modules, having a driving tool (trolley unit having inspection platforms 28 and 30, paragraph 92) for detecting unevenness of a surface (the uniformness of a pipe is detected, paragraph 92), the sensor module comprising: an arm assembly (link arms 20, 22, 24, and 26, figures 8 and 9) comprising an arm body having at least two ends (interpreted as each end of the link arms 20, 22, 24, and 26), one or more surface contacting element (wheels 218 that are mounted to magnetizing shoe 200, figure 10) mounted to at least one end of the arm body (the magnetizing shoes 200 form the inspection platforms 28 and 30 which are mounted at the end of the link arms 20, 22, 24, and 26, paragraph 100, figure 1), a direction controlling means for controlling a moving direction of the arm body toward-backward the surface (interpreted as protective deflectors 82 and spring section 120 which allow for movement of the link arms, paragraph 84, figure 7), and a biasing assembly (the assembly holding the spring sections 120, arms 110, 112, and axial link 114, figure 7); a magnet assembly assembled to the arm assembly (magnet backing bar 202 and permanent magnets 204, figure 10), the magnet assembly comprising at least one magnet (magnet 204) to generate magnetic lines of force (paragraph 97); and a magnetic sensor assembly (sensor rack 220) comprising a magnetic sensor (the sensor rack 220 consists of a segmented flexible member 222 into each segment of which is mounted a corresponding electromagnetic sensor, paragraph 99) being assembled adjacent to the magnet (figure 10) for sensing changes in the magnetic lines of force in response to movement of the arm body (paragraph 99).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Gibson teaches wherein the arm body is shaped as a bar having an end and a free end (the body of link arms 20, 22, 24 and 26 are interpreted as being bar shaped and having a free end, figures 1 and 4), and wherein the free end is configured for mounting to the surface contacting element which is biased into contact with the surface (an end of the link arm is attached to the platforms 28 and 30 that have the wheels 218, figures 1 and 10).
With respect to claim 6, Gibson teaches wherein the direction controlling means comprises a moving guide assembled to the arm body (interpreted as the spring sections 120 that are part of arms 110, 112, figure 7), and a fixing guide assembled to the arm body (interpreted as deflectors 82, paragraph 84), wherein the moving guide and the fixing guide cooperate to guide the arm body moves toward-backward the surface in a direction perpendicular to the surface (the trolley unit is able to move toward-backward along pipe surface, paragraph 84, figure 1).
With respect to claim 7, Gibson teaches wherein the surface contacting element is selected from one or more of wheel, roller, ball, track, and caterpillar (wheels 218, figure 10).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Gibson teaches wherein the biasing assembly comprises a surface contacting element support (interpreted axial links 114 that are provided on the arms 110, 112, figure 7), an extended portion (interpreted as the arms 110, 112 which extend from the axial link 114, figure 7) extending downwardly from the surface contacting element support (figure 7), wherein the biasing assembly further comprises an axis extending from the extended portion in a direction parallel to the arm body (figure 7), a spring (spring sections 120) provided on the axis and an abut portion (the ends of the arms 110, 112 which abut the spring sections 120, figure 7) provided at an end of the spring for abutting the spring in a compressed manner (figure 7).
With respect to claims 11-13, Gibson teaches wherein the magnet is selected from any one of magnet strip, magnet bar, round shaped magnet piece, semicircle shaped magnet piece, oval shaped magnet piece, square shaped magnet piece and triangle shaped magnet piece (paragraph 93), and wherein the magnet is a magnet strip provided on a surface of the arm body (interpreted as the magnets 204 which are in a surface of the shoes 200 that are connected to link arms 20, 22, 24, and 26).
With respect to claims 14, 27, and 28, Gibson teaches a) inspecting the surface by using the sensor module according to claim 1 to obtain data of changes in the magnetic lines of force (paragraph 99); b) sending data obtained from a) to the processor; and c) converting data received from b) to distance changed from an initial position to a detected position to determining unevenness profiles of the surface (paragraph 92), and wherein the sensor module further comprises a processor being in communication with the magnetic sensor assembly for receiving sensing data from the magnetic sensor and converting to unevenness profiles of the surface (the output from the sensors are processed and recorded on an electronic data acquisition pack as part of the whole inspection system, paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 15, Gibson teaches wherein the magnetic sensor assembly (the sensor rack 220 consists of a segmented flexible member 222 into each segment of which is mounted a corresponding electromagnetic sensor, paragraph 99) comprising: the magnetic sensor (the electromagnetic sensors, paragraph 99); a magnetic sensor holder (sensor rack 220) provided for holding the magnetic sensor to be in proximity and face the magnet (figure 10); and a circuit electrically connected to the magnet sensor for receiving the sensed data from the magnetic sensor and sending the sensed data to the processor (paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 17, Gibson teaches wherein the surface contacting element is biased into contact with the surface by means of a torsion spring provided between the arm body and the magnetic sensor assembly (spring elements 120).
With respect to claim 19, Gibson teaches wherein the magnetic sensor assembly (the sensor rack 220 consists of a segmented flexible member 222 into each segment of which is mounted a corresponding electromagnetic sensor, paragraph 99) comprises a magnetic sensor frame (sensor rack 220) to which the magnetic sensor is attached (figure 10), and the circuit mounted to the magnetic sensor frame and electrically connected to the magnet sensor for receiving the sensed data from the magnetic sensor and sending the sensed data to the processor (paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 21, Gibson teaches wherein the magnetic sensor is attached on the magnetic sensor frame at a position proximity to the magnet (figure 10).
With respect to claims 24-25, Gibson teaches wherein the sensor modules are arranged in pairs in a manner that each sensor module is arranged opposite each other (figure 10), wherein at least four pairs of the sensor modules are arranged around the circumference of the external surface of the pipe (figures 10 and 12).
With respect to claim 26, Gibson teaches an auxiliary sensor which is a carburization sensor, crack and thickness measurement sensor (interpreted as the device measuring a wall thickness, paragraph 27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/19/2025