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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “heating step” in claim 7 (the claim provides enough structure with the “annealing heater”).
The “position detection step” in claim 7 (the claim incorporates enough limitations through claim 6).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Comment: The “irradiation unit” of claims 1 and 6 is not understood under § 112(f) because one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand it to be a laser generator or the like.
The “imaging device” of claims 1 and 6 is not understood under § 112(f) because one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand it to be a camera or the like.
The “control device” of claim 1 is not understood under § 112(f) because one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand it to be a computer processor or the like.
The “image processing device” of claim 2 is not understood under § 112(f) because one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand it to be a computer processor or the like.
The “welding machine” of claim 5 is not understood under § 112(f) because one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand it to be an arc, resistance, laser, or other known welding apparatus. The same interpretation applies to the “welding step” of claim 7.
The “cutting machine” of claim 5 is not understood under § 112(f) because one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand it to be a known mechanical, laser, or other known type of cutting machine. The same interpretation applies to the “cutting step” of claim 7.
See MPEP § 2181.I.C.: “Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘means’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘filters’), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.”
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi et al. (JP H02-96602 A, cited by Applicant, translation provided by the Office).
Claim 1: Yamaguchi a position detection device for a seam portion (2) and a heated portion (“a bossed annealer apparatus for heat-treating the welded portion after welding an electric resistance welded tube”) of a welded steel pipe, the position detection device detecting a position of the seam portion of the welded steel pipe and a position of the heated portion generated by heating the seam portion and/or near the seam portion (“when the temperature of the welded portion is high, the infrared light is detected to detect the position of the welded portion, and when the temperature of the welded portion is low, the infrared light is detected to detect the position of the welded portion”), the position detection device comprising:
an irradiation unit configured to emit light (10);
an imaging device (3) configured to capture a first image of the seam portion and the heated portion irradiated with light (“detecting the welded portion by the visible ray when the temperature of the welded portion is low”) and a second image of the seam portion and the heated portion not irradiated with light (“detecting the welded portion by the infrared ray when the temperature of the welded portion is high”); and
a control device (at least control panel 14) configured to control light irradiation by the irradiation unit (“When the temperature of the welded part 2 is low, i.e. the welded part is black (e) and a base material part is white (d), visible light control (a) is performed”) and an imaging timing of the imaging device (this is broad enough to read on the way in which the camera 3 reactively switches between signals 18 and 19; “A visible ray or an infrared ray incident on the CCD camera 3 becomes a different video signal 18.19 according to the temperature state of the welding part of the vibrator,” “when the welded portion is detected by switching the detection signal between the visible light and the infrared light depending on the temperature of the welded portion, the temperature of the welded portion can be detected by the same detection device from a low temperature to a high temperature”).
Claim 6: Yamaguchi discloses a position detection method for a seam portion (2) and a heated portion (“a bossed annealer apparatus for heat-treating the welded portion after welding an electric resistance welded tube”) of a welded steel pipe, the position detection method detecting a position of the seam portion of the welded steel pipe and a position of the heated portion generated by heating the seam portion and/or near the seam portion (“when the temperature of the welded portion is high, the infrared light is detected to detect the position of the welded portion, and when the temperature of the welded portion is low, the infrared light is detected to detect the position of the welded portion”), the position detection method comprising:
an irradiation step of emitting light by an irradiation unit (10); and
an imaging step of capturing, by an imaging device (3), a first image of the seam portion and the heated portion irradiated with light (“detecting the welded portion by the visible ray when the temperature of the welded portion is low”) and a second image of the seam portion and the heated portion not irradiated with light (“detecting the welded portion by the infrared ray when the temperature of the welded portion is high”),
wherein in the irradiation step and the imaging step, a control device (at least control panel 14) controls light irradiation by the irradiation unit (“When the temperature of the welded part 2 is low, i.e. the welded part is black (e) and a base material part is white (d), visible light control (a) is performed”) and an imaging timing of the imaging device (this is broad enough to read on the way in which the camera 3 reactively switches between signals 18 and 19; “A visible ray or an infrared ray incident on the CCD camera 3 becomes a different video signal 18.19 according to the temperature state of the welding part of the vibrator,” “when the welded portion is detected by switching the detection signal between the visible light and the infrared light depending on the temperature of the welded portion, the temperature of the welded portion can be detected by the same detection device from a low temperature to a high temperature”).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nogami et al. (JP H10-96604 A, cited by Applicant, translation provided by the Office).
Yamaguchi does not disclose that the irradiation unit and the imaging device are arranged at positions that satisfy a regular reflection condition with respect to a measurement area including the seam portion.
However, Nogami discloses a similar apparatus wherein an irradiation unit (10) and an imaging device (11) are arranged at positions that satisfy a regular reflection condition (“as shown in FIG. 6, a method of arranging the pipe surface such that the angle of incidence from the illumination unit 10 and the angle of incidence to the reflected light amount sensor unit 11 are equal”) with respect to a measurement area including a seam portion (1a).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the irradiation unit and the imaging device of Yamaguchi according to the positions taught by Nogami to ensure proper reflection of irradiation light onto the imaging device.
Claims 5 and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Kodama et al. (JP 2006-234781 A, cited by Applicant, translation provided by the Office).
Claim 5: Yamaguchi discloses a manufacturing facility for a welded steel pipe, comprising:
one or a plurality of annealing heaters (“a bossed annealer apparatus for heat-treating the welded portion”) configured to heat a seam portion; and
a position detection device for a seam portion and a heated portion of a welded steel pipe according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Yamaguchi does not disclose a welding machine configured to weld a butted portion of a steel plate formed into a tubular shape; a cutting machine configured to cut a bead portion after welding; and the position detection device being provided after any one of the one or the plurality of annealing heaters, wherein the position detection device detects a position of the seam portion and a position of the heated portion generated by the one or the plurality of annealing heaters.
However, Kodama discloses a similar apparatus with a welding machine (21) configured to weld a butted portion of a steel plate formed into a tubular shape (12);
a cutting machine (22) configured to cut a bead portion after welding;
one or a plurality of annealing heaters (24) configured to heat a seam portion after cutting (evident from right-to-left in fig. 4); and
a position detection device (32, 33) provided after any one of the one or the plurality of annealing heaters (see fig. 4), wherein the position detection device detects a position of the seam portion and a position of the heated portion generated by the one or the plurality of annealing heaters (“means for detecting the seam position of the electric sewing tube and the area heated by the seam annealer on the outlet side of the seam annealer”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the welding machine, cutting machine, and annealing heater of Kodama to Yamaguchi to properly render it a more fully-fledged welded pipe production system.
Claim 7: Yamaguchi discloses a manufacturing method for a welded steel pipe, comprising:
a position detection step employing the position detection method for a seam portion and a heated portion of a welded steel pipe according to claim 6 (see the rejection of claim 6 above).
Yamaguchi does not exactly disclose a welding step of welding a butted portion of a steel plate formed into a tubular shape, a cutting step of cutting a bead portion after welding; and a heating step of heating, by an annealing heater, a seam portion after cutting, wherein the heating step includes a position detection step of detecting a position of the seam portion and a position of the heated portion generated by the annealing heater.
However, Kodama discloses a similar method including a welding step (via 21) of welding a butted portion of a steel plate formed into a tubular shape (12),
a cutting step of cutting a bead portion (via 22) after welding; and
a heating step (via 24) of heating, by an annealing heater, a seam portion after cutting (evident from right-to-left in fig. 4), wherein
the heating step includes a position detection step (via 32, 33) of detecting a position of the seam portion and a position of the heated portion generated by the annealing heater (“means for detecting the seam position of the electric sewing tube and the area heated by the seam annealer on the outlet side of the seam annealer”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the welding machine, cutting machine, and annealing heater of Kodama to Yamaguchi to properly render it a more fully-fledged welded pipe production system.
Claim 8: Modified as per claim 7 above, Kodama discloses that the heating step includes a heater position control step of controlling a position of the annealing heater based on a deviation amount of the position of the heated portion with respect to the position of the seam portion detected in the position detection step (“the invention of claim 10 detects the seam position of the electric sewing tube and the area heated by the seam annealer on the seam annealer outlet side, respectively, and coordinates of the center of the seam position in the width direction and the coordinates of the center of the heated area in the width direction. The third problem is solved by a method for controlling the position of a heating element of a seam annealer, wherein the position correction amount of the heating element of the seam annealer is determined based on the deviation”).
Claim 9: Yamaguchi discloses a quality control method for a welded steel pipe (2), the quality control method controlling a quality of the welded steel pipe (“a deviation 26 from the center PJ25 of the ASD searched in advance is obtained, and the deviation is outputted from a control board 14 to a follow-up motor 9 as a copying signal 15 to perform follow-up control, and an angle signal 16 is outputted as a control signal of a bossed annealer device”) based on a deviation amount (26), the deviation amount detected by the position detection method for a seam portion and a heated portion of a welded steel pipe according to claim 6 (see the rejection of claim 6 above).
Yamaguchi does not disclose controlling a quality of the welded steel pipe based on a deviation amount of a position of a heated portion with respect to a position of a seam portion.
However, Kodama discloses a similar system including controlling a quality of a welded steel pipe (12) based on a deviation amount of a position of a heated portion with respect to a position of a seam portion (“the invention of claim 10 detects the seam position of the electric sewing tube and the area heated by the seam annealer on the seam annealer outlet side, respectively, and coordinates of the center of the seam position in the width direction and the coordinates of the center of the heated area in the width direction. The third problem is solved by a method for controlling the position of a heating element of a seam annealer, wherein the position correction amount of the heating element of the seam annealer is determined based on the deviation”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to join the quality control method and position detection method of Yamaguchi to the heated portion and seam portion deviation technique of Kodama as part of introducing the anti-deviation benefit of Yamaguchi further into an annealing system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 and 3, claim 1 is broad enough to read on Yamaguchi, but Yamaguchi does not operate in a way that discloses, or renders obvious, the specific features of these claims.
Shiozumi et al. (US Pat. 4,734,766) and Kodama et al. (JP 2007-120985 A, cited by the Office) are also cited as relevant prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights