DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on March 2nd, 2025. Claims 25-51 are pending, with claims 47-51 being new.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “controller device being adapted to – determine a structure of the accommodated corrugated pipe in a measuring plane from the positions or distances of the exterior surface of an accommodated corrugated pipe communicated in the detection signals” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. As per MPEP 2181 ‘To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming.’ Therefore, the claimed controller is not a general-purpose controller or computer but a special purpose computer or controller and must include the algorithm needed to transform the controller.
Examiner initially rejected the claims with this limitation as indefinite because the algorithm was only implicitly disclosed, with a form paragraph suggesting that applicant clarify the record by either amending the written description or stating on the record what the corresponding algorithms, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. Applicant clarified the record by stating in the remarks filed March 2nd, 2026 that the algorithm comprises comparing the measured distance to reference values for known structures (see “The algorithm is straightforward: the controller device compares the measured distance to the exterior surface with the known exterior diameters of the different structures (waves, troughs, fittings, sleeves) to determine which structure is present.”). The limitation to a “controller device being adapted to – determine a structure of the accommodated corrugated pipe in a measuring plane from the positions or distances of the exterior surface of an accommodated corrugated pipe communicated in the detection signals” is therefore interpreted to cover such an algorithm or equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “[step for] … determining a structure of the accommodated corrugated pipe in a measuring plane from the positions or distances of the exterior surface” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Examiner initially rejected the claims with this limitation as indefinite because the action require was only implicitly disclosed, with a form paragraph suggesting that applicant clarify the record by either amending the written description or stating on the record what the corresponding acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
Applicant clarified the record by stating in the remarks filed March 2nd, 2026 that the algorithm comprises comparing the measured distance to reference values for known structures (see “The algorithm is straightforward: the controller device compares the measured distance to the exterior surface with the known exterior diameters of the different structures (waves, troughs, fittings, sleeves) to determine which structure is present.”). The limitation to a “[step for] … determining a structure of the accommodated corrugated pipe in a measuring plane from the positions or distances of the exterior surface” is therefore interpreted to cover such an action or equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “controller device being adapted to – determine distances of an outer or inner boundary surface and/or layer thickness a corrugated pipe from the measured signals” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. As per MPEP 2181 ‘To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming.’ Therefore, the claimed controller is not a general-purpose controller or computer but a special purpose computer or controller and must include the algorithm needed to transform the controller.
Examiner initially rejected the claims with this limitation as indefinite because the algorithm was only implicitly disclosed, with a form paragraph suggesting that applicant clarify the record by either amending the written description or stating on the record what the corresponding algorithms, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. Applicant clarified the record by stating in the remarks filed March 2nd, 2026 that the algorithm comprises analyzing reflected signal timing from boundary surfaces (see “The underlying principle of THz time-domain measurement- analyzing reflected signal timing from boundary surfaces”). The limitation to a “controller device being adapted to – determine distances of an outer or inner boundary surface and/or layer thickness a corrugated pipe from the measured signals” is therefore interpreted to cover such an algorithm or equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “[step for] … determining at least one distance of a boundary surface and/or at least one layer thickness of the corrugated pipe from the THz measurement” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Examiner initially rejected the claims with this limitation as indefinite because the action require was only implicitly disclosed, with a form paragraph suggesting that applicant clarify the record by either amending the written description or stating on the record what the corresponding acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
Applicant clarified the record by stating in the remarks filed March 2nd, 2026 that the act comprises analyzing reflected signal timing from boundary surfaces (see “The underlying principle of THz time-domain measurement- analyzing reflected signal timing from boundary surfaces”). The limitation to a “[step for] … determining at least one distance of a boundary surface and/or at least one layer thickness of the corrugated pipe from the THz measurement” is therefore interpreted to cover such acts or equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for not enabling the full scope of the claim. Claim 32 recites a controller device “adapted to subsequently determine from the measuring values further dimension values or characteristics of the corrugated pipe.” The specification provides enablement for subsequently determine from the measuring values an inner roughness as a difference between the inner diameters at various positions of the corrugated pipe, but does not reasonably provide enablement for all possible methods of determining further dimension values or characteristics of the corrugated pipe. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. See MPEP 2164.08 for more information on scope of enablement rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 30 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.
Regarding claim 30, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 41 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.
Claim 41 recite “indirect characteristics”. It is unclear what characteristics are encompassed by this term.
Claim 49 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.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the focal point". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested correction – make claim 49 dependent on claim 50 or one of the claims depending from claim 50 (claims 26-29 and 47-48)
Claim 49 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.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the measuring distance". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested correction – make claim 49 dependent on claim 50 or one of the claims depending from claim 50 (claims 26-29 and 47-48).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a means for adjusting the focus.
Claim 49 recites “wherein the measuring distance of the focal point relative to the central longitudinal axis of the corrugated pipe is adjusted depending on the determined structure.” In order for the measuring distance of the focal point to be adjusted, there must some means of adjusting the focus. No means for adjusting the focus or even means for focusing are present in the claim. Suggested correction: make claim 49 dependent on claim 27 or one of the claims dependent on claim 27 (claims 28-29 and 47-48). Note that if made dependent on those claims, the claim would be functionally identical to claim 29 and rejected in the same manner. As is, the claim cannot be evaluated on the merits.
Claim 51 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.
Regarding claim 51, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 25-26, 30-41, 44-46, and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0347963 (Thiel et al.).
Regarding claim 25, Thiel et al. discloses a Terahertz (THz) measuring device for measuring a corrugated pipe, the THz measuring device comprising:
a housing including a measuring space for accommodating a corrugated pipe (element 14),
at least one THz transceiver for emitting a THz transmission beam along an optical axis into the measuring space and detecting a reflected THz beam (element 4),
a controller device adapted to receive measuring signals of said at least one THz transceiver (element 8),
a detecting means adapted to determine a distance and/or a position of an exterior surface of an accommodated corrugated pipe and to put out a detection signal to the controller device (‘additional sensor which detects the surface of the measurement object—contact-free or with contact’ P 10),
a controller device being adapted to receive measuring signals of said at least one THz transceiver and the detection signal from the detecting means (element 8), the controller device being adapted to
- determine distances of an outer or inner boundary surface and/or layer thicknesses of a corrugated pipe from the measuring signals (‘a measurement signal (A) of the detected reflected terahertz radiation (7b) is evaluated and a layer thickness (d) is ascertained from a propagation time difference (t2−t1) of the radiation (7) reflected at boundary layers (2a, 2b) of the layer (3).’ Abstract, also ‘Moreover, a distance between the measurement object and the transmitter-receiver unit can be determined so that outside dimensions of the measurement object such as e.g. out outer diameter can be determined also.’ P 2).
Thiel et al. does not disclose the controller device being adapted to - determine a structure of the accommodated corrugated pipe in a measuring plane from the positions or distances of the exterior surface of an accommodated corrugated pipe communicated in the detection signals. As per applicant’s remarks, this takes the form of comparing the detected position or distance to a set of known diameters for known structures. Comparing measured values to known values is a well-known algorithm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Thiel et al. to program the controller to perform such a comparison so it could be determined whether the structure is as desired for quality assurance purposes, which is a disclosed purpose of Thiel et al. (‘Terahertz layer thickness measurements of this type can be carried out, in particular, for checking the quality of a plastics object following the making thereof, e.g. immediately after manufacturing,’ P 3).
Regarding claim 50, Thiel et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 25, comprising an optical arrangement by means of which the THz transmission beam emitted from the THz transceiver is focused onto a focal point formed at a measuring distance from a central longitudinal axis of the corrugated pipe (elements 10 & 11).
Regarding claim 26, Thiel et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 50, wherein the measuring distance of the focal point is static along the optical axis and the optical arrangement is at a fixed distance to the THz transceiver (remains static and fixed unless controlled to move the THz measuring device, which is not claimed).
Regarding claim 30, Thiel et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 25, wherein the controller device is adapted to detect, as structure of an accommodated corrugated pipe in the measuring plane, at least one of the following elements: a wave and a trough, a fitting, in particular, as receptacle of a ring seal, or an external sleeve (if these are the known structures of the pipe, than these necessarily would be the structures found by the distance to structure matching).
Regarding claim 31, Thiel et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 25, wherein the controller device is adapted to determine, from said one or more measurements of the THz transceiver, at least one of the following measuring values: an exterior diameter on a wave and/or on a fitting and/or on a sleeve, an interior diameter of a trough and/or a wave and/or a fitting and/or a sleeve, wall thicknesses of an exterior wall of the wave and/or an inner pipe, and thicknesses of an air gap of a wave between the inner tube and the exterior wall (‘a measurement signal (A) of the detected reflected terahertz radiation (7b) is evaluated and a layer thickness (d) is ascertained from a propagation time difference (t2−t1) of the radiation (7) reflected at boundary layers (2a, 2b) of the layer (3).’ Abstract, also ‘Moreover, a distance between the measurement object and the transmitter-receiver unit can be determined so that outside dimensions of the measurement object such as e.g. out outer diameter can be determined also.’ P 2 and “According to the invention, in particular, a layer thickness and/or a distance of the measurement object, e.g. also an outside dimensioning may be determined. The layer may be e.g. a wall of a measurement object, but also free space, e.g. the interior clearance of a tube as an air-filled layer.” P 20).
Regarding claim 32, Thiel et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 25, wherein the controller device is adapted to subsequently determine from the measuring values further dimension values or characteristics of the corrugated pipe (“According to the invention, in particular, a layer thickness and/or a distance of the measurement object, e.g. also an outside dimensioning may be determined. The layer may be e.g. a wall of a measurement object, but also free space, e.g. the interior clearance of a tube as an air-filled layer.” P 20).
Regarding claim 33, Thiel et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 25, wherein the detecting means comprises a laser, in particular, a line laser, and/or a radar sensor for measuring the distance of the exterior surface (element 12, wherein “the measuring apparatus 1 may contain an optical camera for detecting the points generated by the position marker and determining the position of the measurement object 2, 102.”).
Regarding claim 34, Thiel et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 23, wherein the detecting means comprises a detector head which is adapted for a variable output of a laser beam or line laser at a pivot angle along the axis of symmetry (element 11).
Regarding claim 35, Thiel et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 25, wherein a plurality of THz transceivers are arranged on the housing in the circumferential direction around the axis of symmetry of the measuring space, the optical axes of said plurality of THz transceivers being aligned towards the measuring space or the axis of symmetry of the measuring space, preferably in a common measuring plane (fig. 1, also “The terahertz measuring apparatus 1 comprises several terahertz transmission and reception units 4 distributed across the circumference of the terahertz measuring apparatus 1 and aligned towards the interior, according to FIG. 1 towards the symmetry axis A.” P 35).
Regarding claim 36, Thiel et al. discloses the claimed invention except for reversing or rotating in the circumferential direction around the measuring space, so as to measure the entire circumference of an accommodated corrugated pipe, preferably in the measuring plane or helical around the measuring space.
Thiel et al. does disclose measuring the entire circumference, but does so with multiple THz transceivers (fig. 1, also “The terahertz measuring apparatus 1 comprises several terahertz transmission and reception units 4 distributed across the circumference of the terahertz measuring apparatus 1 and aligned towards the interior, according to FIG. 1 towards the symmetry axis A.” P 35). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute a reversing or rotating motion for the multiple units to record the same information with fewer measuring heads, which reduces power consumption, THz radiation emitters generally requiring high levels of power.
Regarding claim 37, Thiel et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 25, further comprising a slide adjustable along a transport direction and/or axis of symmetry, said at least one THz transceiver, and the detecting means is are accommodated at the slide (‘Thus, for one thing, a measuring head with its optical axis may be adjusted in its entirety, for example, using an angular adjustment motor or e.g. a translational adjustment motor.’ P 17).
Regarding claim 51, Thiel et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 25, wherein the controller device is adapted to detect, as structure of an accommodated corrugated pipe in the measuring plane, at least one of the following elements: a fitting, in particular, as receptacle of a ring seal, or an external sleeve (if these are the known structures of the pipe, then these necessarily would be the structures found by the distance to structure matching).
Regarding claim 38, Thiel et al. discloses a THz measuring method for measuring a corrugated pipe, including at least the following steps:
transporting a pipe comprising in a transport direction through a measuring plane in a measuring space of a THz measuring device (‘The measurement object at the end of a production line is conveyed by the transport device directly to or through respectively the measuring apparatus.’ P 3),
pre-measuring by means of a detecting means which continuously determines a position or a distance of an exterior surface of the corrugated pipe (‘Hereby, according to one embodiment, the measurement object may be sensed by means of an additional sensor which detects the surface of the measurement object’ P 10),
carrying out a THz measurement of an outer or inner boundary surface of the corrugated pipe by emitting a THz transmission beams along an optical axis, focusing onto a focal point formed at a measuring distance from a central longitudinal axis of the pipe and detecting a reflected THz beam (‘The terahertz transmission and reception units 4 each comprise a terahertz transmitter, indicated in FIG. 1, for transmitting terahertz radiation 7a, … as well as an, indicated, receiver device 6 for receiving backwards reflected terahertz radiation 7b’ P 36), and
determining at least one distance of an outer or inner boundary surface and/or at least one layer thickness of the corrugated pipe from the THz measurement (‘Thus measurement peaks of the amplitude of the radiation reflected on the boundary layers can be detected and the temporal difference of the two measurement peaks evaluated as run-time of the double transit of the material layer. Hereby, the layer thickness of the material layer at the point under investigation can be determined. Moreover, a distance between the measurement object and the transmitter-receiver unit can be determined so that outside dimensions of the measurement object such as e.g. out outer diameter can be determined also.’ P 2).
Thiel et al. does not specify whether the pipe is a corrugated pipe comprising a plurality of structures including at least waves and troughs formed in-between the waves. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to transport a corrugated pipe through the measuring plane if the pipe requiring measuring was corrugated.
Thiel et al. does not disclose determining a structure of the corrugated pipe in the measuring plane from the determined position or the determined distance. As per applicant’s remarks, this takes the form of comparing the detected position or distance to a set of known diameters for known structures. Comparing measured values to known values is a well-known method, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Thiel et al. to include making such a determination in order to determine if the structure is as expected for quality assurance, which is a disclosed purpose of Thiel et al. (‘Terahertz layer thickness measurements of this type can be carried out, in particular, for checking the quality of a plastics object following the making thereof, e.g. immediately after manufacturing,’ P 3).
Regarding claim 39, Thiel et al. discloses the method of claim 38, wherein the measuring plane lies perpendicular to the conveying direction and/or perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the corrugated pipe and/or perpendicular to an axis of symmetry of the THz measuring device (‘According to FIG. 8, e.g. an adjustment range s of the adjustable mirror 11 is set until a measuring position with perpendicular incidence of the terahertz radiation 7a onto the measurement object 2 is reached.’ P 52).
Regarding claim 40, Thiel et al. discloses the method of claim 38, wherein the following is determined as structure in the measuring plane: a wave, a trough, a sleeve or a fitting of the corrugated pipe, where, subsequently, the measuring distance of the focal point of the THz transmission beam is adjusted to one or more boundary surfaces of the determined structure (if these are the known structures of the pipe, than these necessarily would be the structures found by the distance to structure matching).
Regarding claim 41, Thiel et al. discloses the method of claim 40, wherein one or more of the following determinations are made: upon detection of the structure of a wave, both a distance and/or a layer thickness of an exterior wall of the wave and a distance and/or a layer thickness of an inner surface, e.g. the inner pipe of the wave are determined, upon detection of the structure of a trough, a distance and/or a layer thickness of an inner surface, upon detection of the structure of a fitting, a distance and/or a layer thickness of both an exterior layer of the fitting and an inner layer, of the fitting is determined, and/or upon detection of the structure of an exterior sleeve distance and/or a layer thickness of the exterior sleeve and further distances and/or layer thicknesses below the exterior sleeve of provided structures are determined, indirect characteristics (‘a measurement signal (A) of the detected reflected terahertz radiation (7b) is evaluated and a layer thickness (d) is ascertained from a propagation time difference (t2−t1) of the radiation (7) reflected at boundary layers (2a, 2b) of the layer (3).’ Abstract, also ‘Moreover, a distance between the measurement object and the transmitter-receiver unit can be determined so that outside dimensions of the measurement object such as e.g. out outer diameter can be determined also.’ P 2 and “According to the invention, in particular, a layer thickness and/or a distance of the measurement object, e.g. also an outside dimensioning may be determined. The layer may be e.g. a wall of a measurement object, but also free space, e.g. the interior clearance of a tube as an air-filled layer.” P 20).
Regarding claim 44, Thiel et al. discloses the claimed invention except for reversing or rotating in the circumferential direction around the measuring space, so as to measure the entire circumference of an accommodated corrugated pipe.
Thiel et al. does disclose measuring the entire circumference, but does so with multiple THz transceivers (fig. 1, also “The terahertz measuring apparatus 1 comprises several terahertz transmission and reception units 4 distributed across the circumference of the terahertz measuring apparatus 1 and aligned towards the interior, according to FIG. 1 towards the symmetry axis A.” P 35). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute a reversing or rotating motion for the multiple units to record the same information with fewer measuring heads, which reduces power consumption, THz radiation emitters generally requiring high levels of power.
Regarding claim 45, Thiel et al. discloses the method of claim 38, wherein upon pre-measuring and/or THz measuring, the at least one THz transceiver is transported for measuring the detected structure of the corrugated pipe (‘Thus, for one thing, a measuring head with its optical axis may be adjusted in its entirety, for example, using an angular adjustment motor or e.g. a translational adjustment motor.’ P 17).
Thiel et al. uses the slide for transporting the transceiver in the lateral directions, and therefore does not disclose transporting along cyclically in the longitudinal direction or conveying direction. However, the principal of the adjustment is identical, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Thiel et al. to include a step of transporting along cyclically in the longitudinal direction or conveying direction so the measurement head could be moved to measure structures at other longitudinal locations on the pipe.
Regarding claim 46, Thiel et al. discloses the method of claim 38, wherein the determined distances and layer thicknesses from the THz measurement and/or indirect characteristics determined there from are compared with reference values and it is determined whether there is an error (‘Terahertz layer thickness measurements of this type can be carried out, in particular, for checking the quality of a plastics object following the making thereof, e.g. immediately after manufacturing,’ P 3).
Claim(s) 27-29, 42-43, and 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al. as applied to claims 50 and 38 above, and further in view of US 2015/0212060 (Van Mechelen et al.).
Regarding claim 27, Thiel et al. discloses the claimed invention except for focusing means for focusing the THz transmission beam and/or for adjusting the measuring distance of the focal point of the THz transmission beam along the optical axis, the controller device further being adapted to control the focusing means for adjusting the focal point of the at least one THz transceiver.
Van Mechelen et al. discloses a terahertz (THz) measuring device comprising a terahertz transceiver, detecting means, and optical arrangement including focusing means for focusing the THz transmission beam (element 14) and/or for adjusting the measuring distance of the focal point of the THz transmission beam along the optical axis (element 40, wherein ‘Thus, the positioning system 40 may be configured for moving the movable unit 42 towards the coated body 2’), the controller device further being adapted to control the focusing means for adjusting the focal point of the at least one THz transceiver (‘The movable unit 42 further carries a distance sensor or positioning sensor 47 based on for instance one or more low energetic infrared light beams or based on ultrasound. The distance sensor 47 is configured for measuring the distance to the coated body. The positioning system 40 is operatively coupled to the distance sensor 47 and configured for adapting motion of the movable unit 42 such that the distance with respect to the coated body 2 is adjusted. The distance is, in particular, adjusted for focusing the THz radiation emitted/detected by the THz emitter 10/detector 20.’ P 90).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the terahertz (THz) measuring device of Thiel et al. to include the focusing adjustment of Van Mechelen et al. so that the terahertz beam is always focused at the boundary being measured, as disclosed by Van Mechelen et al. (‘At the distance which corresponds to the focal lengths of the THz optics 14, 24’ P 92).
Regarding claim 28, Thiel et al. in view of Van Mechelen et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 27, wherein the focusing means is configured to adjust the measuring distance of the focal point along the optical axis by adjusting the THz transceiver together with the optical arrangement, while having a fixed distance of the optical arrangement to the THz transceiver (Van Mechelen et al., ‘Thus, the positioning system 40 may be configured for moving the movable unit 42 towards the coated body 2 while the distance (or positioning) sensor 47 measures the distance with respect to the body 2.’).
Regarding claim 29, Thiel et al. in view of Van Mechelen et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 28, wherein the controller device is adapted to control the focusing means depending on the determined structure to set one or more measuring distances (‘At the distance which corresponds to the focal lengths of the THz optics 14, 24’ P 92).
Regarding claim 47, Thiel et al. in view of Van Mechelen et al. discloses the THz measuring device of claim 29, wherein the controller device is configured to set an outer measuring distance for an exterior measurement on the determined exterior surface (Van Mechelen et al., ‘At the distance which corresponds to the focal lengths of the THz optics 14, 24’ P 92).
Thiel et al. in view of Van Mechelen et al. does not specifically disclose setting at least one inner measuring distance for an interior measurement on an inner tube when a wave is determined. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the controller device to set at least one inner measuring distance for an interior measurement on an inner tube when a wave is determined so that the inner diameter could be accurately determined.
Regarding claim 48, Thiel in view of Van Mechelen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for configuring the controller device to set a measuring distance for a measurement on the inner tube when a trough is determined. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the controller to set a measuring distance for a measurement on the inner tube when a trough is determined so that the inner diameter could be accurately determined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112(f) interpretations of the claim limitations to a “controller device” applicant contends that a “controller device” is a well-understood structural term that connotes a specific structure to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely a processor, microcontroller, or similar computing hardware.
Examiner does not dispute this, however the simple structure of a processor or other computer does not, by itself, provide sufficient structure to perform the functions listed. It is well-established that processors are not sufficient structure for performing any function outside of those inherent in a processor without any programming. See for example "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm." Id., 114 USPQ2d at 1714 (see MPEP 2181 for more on 112(f) interpretation of computer related functional claims). In this case, applicant is clearly claiming functions that require programming, in particular programming to determine a structure and to determine distances and/or layer thicknesses.
With regard to the 112(f) interpretation of the method claims, applicant argues that the steps alleged to be function do not use “step for” language.
The limitations do indeed use “step” language, specifically, the claims recite a method “including at least the following steps … ” Even if the explicit recitation to a “step” were missing the limitations to “determining a structure …” and “determining at least one distance …” would still be purely functional, since they recite what is accomplished – a determination is made- rather than an action, such as comparing values or measuring time differences, and therefore would require 112(f) interpretation regardless.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant argues that Thiel does not teach or suggest measuring corrugated pipes with waves and troughs, and is instead directed to smooth plastic pipes. Therefore, applicant argues, Thiel does not disclose a measuring device “for measuring a corrugated pipe” (claim 25) or “transporting a corrugated pipe comprising waves and troughs formed in-between waves” (claim 38).
Examiner disagrees that Thiel is specifically directed to smooth plastic pipes, but agrees that Thiel is not specifically directed to corrugated pipes with waves and troughs either. Thiel leaves the geometry open ended in that no specific structural geometry is specified. With respect to whether Thiel discloses a device “for measuring a corrugated pipe,” this is a difference of intended use, and not a difference of structure. The device of Thiel will measure the dimensions, thicknesses, and relevant structures for any plastic pipe it measures, regardless of whether that pipe smooth, corrugated, or of any other geometry. Hence, it is capable of the intended use and the claim is met.
With respect to whether Thiel discloses “transporting a corrugated pipe comprising a plurality of structures including at least waves and troughs”. Transporting a pipe through the measuring plane is done in exactly the same manner regardless of the surface geometry of the pipe, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to transport a corrugated pipe if it is a corrugated pipe that needs to be measured.
Also with regard to the 103 rejections, applicant argues that examiner’s statement that “"[i]f the structures of the corrugated pipe are known, this determination can be made simply be comparing the detected distance with the distances expected for each structure. A person having ordinary skill in the art would know how to write such a program.” Is conclusory and insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Applicant also argues this is hindsight reasoning.
The cited passage from the rejection is merely examiner’s discussion of a known algorithm for accomplishing the claimed function. The obviousness rationale was given in a different portion of the paragraph. In particular, examiner has stated that it would have been obvious to perform the algorithm as a form of quality checking, and cited a passage from Thiel that states the purpose of the device/method of Thiel is to perform quality checks. Examiner still holds that this line of reasoning is sufficient.
Regarding the rejections with respect to claims 36 and 44, applicant argues that examiner’s motivation is not supported by the cited references, and that examiner’s rationale appears to be based on speculation rather than any teaching in the cited art.
There is no requirement that the rationale for modifying the references come from cited prior art. General concerns like cost efficiency are perfectly valid rationales for modification.
Regarding the rejections of claims 37 and 45, applicant argues that cyclic longitudinal adjustment to track the moving corrugated pipe is not taught or suggested by Thiel’s lateral adjustment for optical axis adjustment.
Applicant has removed the relevant limitation from claim 37 by amendment, so the argument in moot with respect to claim 37. With regard to claim 45, examiner has admitted that Thiel does not teach or suggest this. She has provided a line of reasoning for why modifying Thiel to include this would be obvious, which applicant has not specifically argued against.
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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights