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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9-5-2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allouche, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0237871, published September 23, 2010.
As per claims 1, 4 and 7, Allouche discloses a method for exploring underground, comprising:
disposing, in a pipeline that allows a plurality of manholes to be interconnected, an electromagnetic wave receiving/transmitting device, wherein the electromagnetic wave receiving/transmitting device transmits an electromagnetic wave and receives a reflected electromagnetic wave, and the reflected electromagnetic wave includes a reflected wave of the electromagnetic wave; transmitting the electromagnetic wave; receiving the reflected electromagnetic of the electromagnetic wave (Allouche, ¶8);
and calculating an intensity distribution of the reflected electromagnetic wave on the basis of: an intensity of the reflected electromagnetic wave (Allouche, ¶65 using amplitude), and a round-trip propagation time from when the electromagnetic wave is transmitted to when the reflected electromagnetic wave is received (Allouche, ¶6).
While Allouche mentions round trip time, he fails to expressly disclose using it.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to round trip time, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Allouche. Round trip time is a well-known and understood method to calculate distance and it is well within the skill of a person in the art to choose to use it.
As per claim 2, Allouche further discloses a method according to claim 1, further comprising: moving the electromagnetic wave receiving/transmitting device; and calculating the intensity distribution of the reflected electromagnetic wave further on the basis of a movement distance by which the electromagnetic wave receiving/transmitting device has been moved from a reference position in the pipeline (Allouche, ¶36).
As per claims 6 and 16, Allouche further discloses the exploration system according to claim 4 wherein the electromagnetic wave receiving/transmitting device further detects an angle of a contact surface of the electromagnetic wave receiving/transmitting device with the pipeline based on a horizontal plane, and the control device generates a distribution map indicating the intensity distribution (Allouche, ¶63).
As per claims 9-11, 13-15, 17 and 18, Allouche further discloses the method of claim 1 using the device in an underground pipeline and transmitting/receiving from there (Allouche, Fig. 2A).
As per claim 20, Allouche further discloses the control device according to claim 7, the processor further configured to execute operations comprising: receiving first data indicating a movement distance of the electromagnetic wave receiving/transmitting device inside the pipeline; and receiving second data associated with the reflected electromagnetic wave (Allouche, ¶8 and 36 where movement is tracked through continuous measurement of the pipe wall).
As per claim 21, Allouche further discloses the control device according to claim 20, the processor further configured to execute operations comprising: displaying the intensity distribution of the reflected electromagnetic wave according to the data indicating the movement distance of the electromagnetic wave receiving/transmitting device (Allouche, ¶38 and Fig. 13, item 68).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allouche in view of Cowdrick, U.S. Patent Number 6,094,157, published July 25, 2000.
As per claims 3 and 12, Allouche discloses the method of claim 2 but fails to disclose the use of traction machine to move the sensor.
Cowdrick teaches a traction machine to move a pipe inspection sensor (Col. 4, lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to a traction machine, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. In this case, the wheels of Allouche provide form movement and tracking through the pipe.
As per claims 5 and 19, Allouche as modified by Cowdrick discloses the exploration system according to claim 4, further comprising: a traction machine, wherein the traction machine moves the electromagnetic wave receiving/transmitting device at a constant velocity (Cowdrick, Col. 4, lines 5-10 where the device is moved deliberately in line with the y axis movement to provide a clear picture),
and the control device calculates the intensity distribution of the reflected electromagnetic wave further on the basis of a movement distance by which the electromagnetic wave receiving/transmitting device has been moved from a reference position in the pipeline by the traction machine (Allouche, ¶36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646