DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Chinese Patent Document CN111306378; hereinafter referred to as Li), and further in view of Hall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0234837; hereinafter referred to as Hall).
With respect to claim 1, Li discloses and illustrates a structure suitable for use with a pipeline having a plurality of pipe sections (see Figures 1, 3, and 9), the structure shaped and dimensioned to couple at least two pipe sections (see Figures 1, 3, and 9), the structure comprising: a housing (upper half body 11 and lower half body 12) shaped and dimensioned to carry at least one device (integrated sensor 16) capable of receiving at least one detection signal associated with the pipeline (the sensor receives pressure or temperature signals), the detection signal being communicable within at least a portion of the pipeline (communication to at least wireless transmitter 17), wherein the structure corresponds to a clamping structure capable of clamping at least two pipe sections such that the structure and the at least two pipe sections form an integral unit so that the device is securely installed on the pipeline without disrupting a pipeline passageway (see at least figure 3 of Li). Li fails to disclose the detection signal comprising an acoustic emission signal and being communicable within at least a portion of the pipeline, wherein the acoustic emission signal comprises a transient stress wave generated by a release of energy within the pipeline and propagating through the pipeline to the device, wherein the detection signal is capable of being received by an analyzer for analysis to determine at least one defect associable with the structural characteristic of the pipeline. However, Hall discloses an acoustic emission sensor (see at least paragraph [0018] of Hall) for detecting a stress wave, the stress wave that is caused due to a buckling of the structure under test (see at least paragraph [0069] of Hall), the energy released from said buckling of the structure (see at least paragraph [0066] of Hall), wherein the detection signal is capable of being received by an analyzer for analysis to determine at least one defect associable with the structural characteristic of the pipeline (see at least paragraph [0171] of Hall). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the acoustic sensor arrangement of Hall for the sensor arrangement in Li. One motivation to use the sensor arrangement from Hall with the system in Li is that the acoustic sensor arrangement is that in all cases, an advantage of the snap-through buckling actuator is that it can use a completely dry-contact point source on the inspection surface. This avoids the need to use a couplant gel or the like, although such a couplant could be used if desired (see at least paragraph [0077] of Hall), thus allowing for a better attachment to the pipe, regardless of the pipe conditions.
With respect to claim 3, the structure according to claim 1, wherein the housing is shaped and dimensioned in a manner so that at least one opening is defined (through hole 112 of Li), and wherein the device (sensor 16 of Li) is carried within the housing and the detection signal is receivable by the device via the opening wire in through hole (112 of Li).
With respect to claim 4, the structure according to claim 3, wherein the opening is shaped and dimensioned in a manner so as to accommodate an “O” ring (rubber ring 15) for impeding water seepage and leakage in respect of the device (see Figures 4 and 6 of Li).
With respect to claim 7, an inspection method for inspecting a pipeline, the pipeline including a plurality of pipe sections, the inspection method comprising: providing a structure capable of carrying at least one device configurable to receive at least one detection signal associable with the pipeline (see Figures 1-4 of Li), the detection signal being communicable within at least a portion of the pipeline (communicable to wireless transmitter 17 of Li); coupling at least two pipe sections using the structure so that a passageway is formed through the pipeline (see upper half body 11 and lower half body 12 of Li that hold a pipe therebetween), wherein the structure corresponds to a clamping structure capable of clamping at least two pipe sections such that the structure and the at least two pipe sections form an integral unit so that the device is securely installed on the pipeline without disrupting a pipeline passageway (see at least figure 3 of Li). Li fails to disclose the detection signal comprising an acoustic emission signal and being communicable within at least a portion of the pipeline, wherein the acoustic emission signal comprises a transient stress wave generated by a release of energy within the pipeline and propagating through the pipeline to the device, wherein the detection signal is capable of being received by an analyzer for analysis to determine at least one defect associable with the structural characteristic of the pipeline. However, Hall discloses an acoustic emission sensor (see at least paragraph [0018] of Hall) for detecting a stress wave, the stress wave that is caused due to a buckling of the structure under test (see at least paragraph [0069] of Hall), the energy released from said buckling of the structure (see at least paragraph [0066] of Hall), wherein the detection signal is capable of being received by an analyzer for analysis to determine at least one defect associable with the structural characteristic of the pipeline (see at least paragraph [0171] of Hall). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the acoustic sensor arrangement of Hall for the sensor arrangement in Li. One motivation to use the sensor arrangement from Hall with the system in Li is that the acoustic sensor arrangement is that in all cases, an advantage of the snap-through buckling actuator is that it can use a completely dry-contact point source on the inspection surface. This avoids the need to use a couplant gel or the like, although such a couplant could be used if desired (see at least paragraph [0077] of Hall), thus allowing for a better attachment to the pipe, regardless of the pipe conditions.
With respect to claim 8, Li discloses and illustrates a structure suitable for use with a pipeline comprising a pair of pipe sections (see Figures 1, 3, and 9), the structure comprising: an inner surface of a shape and dimension to conform to outer surfaces of the pair of pipe sections (upper half body 11 and lower half body 12; see Figure 3); and a housing disposed on an outer portion of the structure, the housing shaped and dimensioned to carry a first inspection device (integrated sensor 16; the sensor receives pressure or temperature signals), and configured to allow the first inspection device to receive a detection signal associated with the pipeline (communication to at least wireless transmitter 17 from sensor 16), wherein the structure corresponds to a clamping structure capable of clamping at least two pipe sections such that the structure and the at least two pipe sections form an integral unit so that the device is securely installed on the pipeline without disrupting a pipeline passageway (see at least figure 3 of Li). Li fails to disclose the detection signal comprising an acoustic emission signal and being communicable within at least a portion of the pipeline, wherein the acoustic emission signal comprises a transient stress wave generated by a release of energy within the pipeline and propagating through the pipeline to the device, wherein the detection signal is capable of being received by an analyzer for analysis to determine at least one defect associable with the structural characteristic of the pipeline. However, Hall discloses an acoustic emission sensor (see at least paragraph [0018] of Hall) for detecting a stress wave, the stress wave that is caused due to a buckling of the structure under test (see at least paragraph [0069] of Hall), the energy released from said buckling of the structure (see at least paragraph [0066] of Hall), wherein the detection signal is capable of being received by an analyzer for analysis to determine at least one defect associable with the structural characteristic of the pipeline (see at least paragraph [0171] of Hall). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the acoustic sensor arrangement of Hall for the sensor arrangement in Li. One motivation to use the sensor arrangement from Hall with the system in Li is that the acoustic sensor arrangement is that in all cases, an advantage of the snap-through buckling actuator is that it can use a completely dry-contact point source on the inspection surface. This avoids the need to use a couplant gel or the like, although such a couplant could be used if desired (see at least paragraph [0077] of Hall), thus allowing for a better attachment to the pipe, regardless of the pipe conditions.
With respect to claim 10, the structure of claim 8, further comprising an opening in the inner surface of the structure (through hole 112 of Li), wherein when the first inspection device is disposed within the housing, the detection signal is receivable by the first inspection device from within the pipeline via the opening (see at least Figure 4 and 6 of Li as the wire in the through hole enables the signal to get to the transmitter 17).
With respect to claim 11, the structure of claim 10, further wherein an “O” ring is disposed within the opening (rubber ring 15, see Figures 4 and 6 of Li).
With respect to claims 5, 6, 12, and 13, neither reference explicitly discloses the use of more than one sensing device on the ring arrangement. However, Hall does disclose the use of more than one sensing device (see Figure 23 of Hall, 622 and 624) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide more than one sensor in order to obtain a more complete picture of the pipe as a single sensor might not be able to detect situations around a circumference of the pipe. With a similar thought process, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to place multiple sensors around the entire perimeter of the pipe in order to obtain a complete picture of the pipe at one time, thus orthogonal placement of the sensors would be advantageous to get a more complete measurement in a single pass or operation of the sensor.
With respect to claim 14, neither reference explicitly discloses the use of a layer of polytetrafluoroethylene seal tape. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use polytetrafluoroethylene seal tape since the device is used for pipes that are fitted together, and to provide a means to ensure the pipe is fitted together well and not prone to leaks at the seams. Thus, the use of polytetrafluoroethylene seal tape would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to help seal the seams and prevent pipe damage from lakes at the seams or where pipe sections are screwed together or attached.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, neither reference explicitly discloses a heat insulation or an explosion proof material. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize various materials would ensure that the housing and structure are able to withstand the environment for which they are being used and therefore the use of heat insulation (claim 15) and an explosion proof material (claim 16) would be obvious choices in the device is used in a high heat, high pressure environment to ensure the device can operate as intended.
With respect to claim 17, none of the references explicitly discloses a cable gland and a conduit for positioning cables. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a cable gland since the device is used on pipes, which are often underground. One of ordinary skill in the art would want to use a means to position and guide cables if attached to the device to ensure the device is able to operate as intended and get signals from the device to any other equipment as needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the Applicant argues that a person skilled in the art starting from the teachings of Li would not be motivated to consult Hall, as Li is concerned solely with monitoring operational parameters (temperature and pressure) for safe operation, not with structural defect detection. Accordingly, the Examiner's proposed combination is only derivable with the benefit of hindsight knowledge of the present invention. Applicants may also argue that the combination of two or more references is "hindsight" because "express" motivation to combine the references is lacking. However, there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." (See § MPEP 2145). In this case, Li is disclosed to monitor temperature and pressure, but Li is disclosed to have a concern for safe operation of the pipe network. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to monitor conditions other than just temperature and pressure in a pipe system. A break in the pipe network would be important to know beforehand so as to shut off the system, if need be, to prevent system damage or improper operation. Therefore, the argument of improper hindsight is not persuasive.
Second, the Applicant argues that even if the skilled person were to consider combining the teachings of Li and Hall, the skilled person still would not arrive at the claimed invention. At most, the combination of Li and Hall would result in a pipe clamp carrying the temperature and pressure sensor arrangement of Li, together with AE sensors mounted at separate locations on the pipeline as taught by Hall. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. The Applicant argues that combining Li with Hall would simply be Lee with Hall without any consideration for what the combination might teach. The combination would teach a clamp carrying at least one device, such as in Li, capable of detecting a signal associated with the structural characteristic of the pipeline, such as in Hall. This would be the claimed device, if considered in combination, and thus the argument to the contrary is not persuasive.
Third, even if the skilled person were to attempt to modify the combined teachings of Li and Hall to arrive at the claimed invention, substantial technical modifications would be required. Incorporating AE sensors of Hall into the pipe clamp of Li could interfere with the operation of the temperature and pressure integrated sensor of Li, potentially affecting the technical effect that the clamp of Li seeks to achieve, which is to monitor water temperature and pressure. First, it is improper to combine references where the references teach away from their combination. The Applicant is arguing a possible lack of operation without anything to substantiate that operation could be hindered in an attempt to argue that the reference teaches away. There is nothing in either reference to suggest that the operation of one would affect the other. This is not persuasive. Second, it is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. Arguing about whether the combination of Li and Hall is physically combinable is not the bar of obviousness. The fact that both sensors could operate simultaneously as they operate in a different manner one from the other gives no indication that the two technologies, when combined, could not operate together to monitor completely different signals and aspects of the pipeline system. The arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
RODNEY T. FRANK
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
September 14, 2026
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights