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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20150153170 A1 (“Gonzalez”).
As per Claim 12, Gonzalez discloses a system for measuring a diameter of a pipe traversed by a robotic apparatus, comprising:
a robotic apparatus (¶ 54—“robotic vehicle”);
a sensor coupled to the robotic apparatus at a fixed position and orientation and configured to measure a distance between the fixed position and a surface of the pipe when the robotic apparatus is coupled to the pipe (¶ 121—“a non-contact sensor 946 (e.g., ultrasound, light, laser, etc.) that can measure the distance between the sensor 946 and the surface of the object in line with the sensor”); and
a processor configured to:
calculate, based on a known geometry of the robotic apparatus, an expected vector between the sensor and the centerline of the pipe and an expected distance between the sensor and a centerline of the pipe (¶ 115—“the measured angle about the hinge can be used to determine the diameter of the pipe…The maximum measured angle, combined with the geometer data of the robot, can be used for determining the diameter of the pipe upon which the robot is traveling”); and
calculate a diameter of the pipe based on the measured distance, the expected vector, and the expected distance (¶ 115—“the measured angle about the hinge can be used to determine the diameter of the pipe…The maximum measured angle, combined with the geometer data of the robot, can be used for determining the diameter of the pipe upon which the robot is traveling”).
As per Claim 15, Gonzales further discloses wherein the sensor is configured to measure a position of a contact member configured to physically contact the surface of the pipe relative to the fixed position (¶ 120—“by measuring the amount of displacement of element 934 in accordance with the methods described above, wherein the rotation of a pivot is substituted for linear displacement, the orientation of an object being held by the gripper can be determined”; Fig. 9C).
As per Claim 16, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the contact member has a first end rotationally coupled to the robotic apparatus and a second end biased towards the surface of the pipe (¶ 120—“by measuring the amount of displacement of element 934 in accordance with the methods described above, wherein the rotation of a pivot is substituted for linear displacement, the orientation of an object being held by the gripper can be determined”; Fig. 9C),
wherein the sensor is configured to measure a rotation angle of the contact member for use in calculating the distance between the fixed position and the surface of the pipe based on the measured rotation angle and a known length of the contact member (¶ 120—“by measuring the amount of displacement of element 934 in accordance with the methods described above, wherein the rotation of a pivot is substituted for linear displacement, the orientation of an object being held by the gripper can be determined”; Fig. 9C).
As per Claim 17, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the sensor is oriented on the robotic apparatus to measure the distance between the fixed position and a surface of the pipe along the expected vector (¶ 120—“by measuring the amount of displacement of element 934 in accordance with the methods described above, wherein the rotation of a pivot is substituted for linear displacement, the orientation of an object being held by the gripper can be determined”; Fig. 9C), and
wherein calculating the diameter of the pipe comprises subtracting the measured distance from the expected distance (¶ 63—“The value in degrees of this angle is a function of the geometry of the vehicle, the diameter of the curved surface (e.g., pipe) on which the vehicle is located, and orientation of the vehicle with respect to the curved surface”).
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150153170 A1 (“Gonzalez”) in view of US 20150346164 A1 (“St-Laurent”).
As per Claim 1, Gonzalez discloses a system for tracking a position of a robotic apparatus on a pipe, comprising:
a robotic apparatus (¶ 54—“robotic vehicle”);
at least one sensor mounted on the robotic apparatus and configured to measure axial and circumferential translation of the robotic apparatus on the pipe (¶ 63—“sensor”; ¶ 70—“vehicle 10 is orientating perpendicular to the pipe 50, which would result in the vehicle traveling on a circumferential (circular) path…vehicle's orientation with respect to the pipe changes from perpendicular to longitudinal”; ¶ 106—“sensors”); and
a processor configured to determine, based on the measured axial and circumferential translation, an axial and circumferential position of the robotic apparatus on the pipe (¶ 64—“The localization scheme allows the vehicle to constantly and accurately determine its position and orientation with respect to the pipe”).
St-Laurent teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Gonzalez, including namely that the sensor is an optical flow sensor (¶ 43—“The proposed method to achieve this is to use pattern movement analysis tools such as optical flow process in order to produce a trend line illustrating the general lateral movement of the probe relative to the weld”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gonzalez to include the limitations as taught by St-Laurent to provide a general idea of the displacement between one scan position and the next (St-Laurent: ¶ 43).
As per Claim 2, St-Laurent teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Gonzalez, including namely wherein the at least one optical flow sensor is configured to measure an apparent motion of a surface of the pipe within a field of view of the optical flow sensor (¶ 43—“The proposed method to achieve this is to use pattern movement analysis tools such as optical flow process in order to produce a trend line illustrating the general lateral movement of the probe relative to the weld”; ¶ 57—“It should be noted that optical flow pattern recognition is a widely known image recognition method”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gonzalez to include the limitations as taught by St-Laurent to provide a general idea of the displacement between one scan position and the next (St-Laurent: ¶ 43).
As per Claim 3, St-Laurent teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Gonzalez, including namely wherein measuring the apparent motion of the surface of the pipe is based on a distance between the optical flow sensor and the surface of the pipe, dimensions of the field of view of the optical flow sensor, and pixel displacement in the field of view of the optical flow sensor (¶ 43—“The proposed method to achieve this is to use pattern movement analysis tools such as optical flow process in order to produce a trend line illustrating the general lateral movement of the probe relative to the weld. It must be understood that such a process will provide a general idea of the displacement between one scan position and the next, but it is expected that drift relative to the real position of the weld will appear and accumulate over a given scan distance.”; ¶ 57—“It should be noted that optical flow pattern recognition is a widely known image recognition method”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gonzalez to include the limitations as taught by St-Laurent to provide a general idea of the displacement between one scan position and the next (St-Laurent: ¶ 43).
As per Claim 4, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the at least one sensor is mounted on the robotic apparatus such that it remains at a fixed distance from the surface of the pipe (¶ 121—“non-contact sensor 946”; Fig. 9D). St-Laurent teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Gonzalez, including namely that the sensor is an optical flow sensor (¶ 43—“The proposed method to achieve this is to use pattern movement analysis tools such as optical flow process in order to produce a trend line illustrating the general lateral movement of the probe relative to the weld”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gonzalez to include the limitations as taught by St-Laurent to provide a general idea of the displacement between one scan position and the next (St-Laurent: ¶ 43).
As per Claim 5, Gonzalez further discloses at least one distance sensor mounted at a second fixed position on the robotic apparatus and configured to measure a distance between the second fixed position and a surface of the pipe (¶ 121—“a non-contact sensor 946 (e.g., ultrasound, light, laser, etc.) that can measure the distance between the sensor 946 and the surface of the object in line with the sensor”).
St-Laurent teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Gonzalez, including namely wherein the at least one optical flow sensor is mounted at a first fixed position on the robotic apparatus (¶ 43—“The proposed method to achieve this is to use pattern movement analysis tools such as optical flow process in order to produce a trend line illustrating the general lateral movement of the probe relative to the weld”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gonzalez to include the limitations as taught by St-Laurent to provide a general idea of the displacement between one scan position and the next (St-Laurent: ¶ 43).
As per Claim 6, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the axial translation and circumferential translation of the robotic apparatus on the pipe is determined as equal in magnitude and opposite in direction of the measured apparent motion of the surface of the pipe (¶ 70—“vehicle 10 is orientating perpendicular to the pipe 50, which would result in the vehicle traveling on a circumferential (circular) path…vehicle's orientation with respect to the pipe changes from perpendicular to longitudinal”).
As per Claim 7, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to calculate, based on the axial translation and the circumferential translation of the robotic apparatus along the pipe and a diameter of the pipe, a relative position of the robotic apparatus on the pipe (¶ 63—“the diameter of the surface on which the vehicle will be deployed to inspect (e.g., curved pipe) is a factor that can be measured and known and that remains constant during an inspection performed by the robot”; ¶ 64—“The localization scheme allows the vehicle to constantly and accurately determine its position and orientation with respect to the pipe”; ¶ 70—“vehicle 10 is orientating perpendicular to the pipe 50, which would result in the vehicle traveling on a circumferential (circular) path…vehicle's orientation with respect to the pipe changes from perpendicular to longitudinal”).
As per Claim 8, Gonzalez further discloses wherein, in calculating the relative position of the robotic apparatus on the pipe, the processor uses the pipe diameter to convert the circumferential translation to angular position of the robotic apparatus on the pipe (¶¶ 63-63—“The value in degrees of this angle is a function of the geometry of the vehicle, the diameter of the curved surface (e.g., pipe) on which the vehicle is located, and orientation of the vehicle with respect to the curved surface. Using the exemplarily calculations, localization data of the vehicle can be determine which is useful for determining the position of the vehicle and identifying the location at which inspection data is being collected in order to determine where a failure in a structure may be located.”).
As per Claim 9, Gonzalez further discloses at least one sensor configured to measure the diameter of the pipe, and wherein the processor uses the measured diameter of the pipe in calculating the relative position of the robotic apparatus on the pipe (¶¶ 63-64—“the diameter of the surface on which the vehicle will be deployed to inspect (e.g., curved pipe) is a factor that can be measured and known and that remains constant during an inspection performed by the robot…the angle about the hinge in degrees can be measured via a sensor…Using the exemplarily calculations, localization data of the vehicle can be determine which is useful for determining the position of the vehicle and identifying the location at which inspection data is being collected in order to determine where a failure in a structure may be located.”).
As per Claim 10, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the diameter of the pipe is predetermined and stored in a memory accessed by the processor (¶ 63—“the diameter of the surface on which the vehicle will be deployed to inspect (e.g., curved pipe) is a factor that can be measured and known and that remains constant during an inspection performed by the robot.”; ¶ 69—“he hinge also provides a self-adjustment feature to the vehicle that permits the vehicle to operate on surfaces of various curvatures and pipe diameters.”).
As per Claim 11, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to calculate an absolute position of the robotic apparatus on the pipe based on an absolute starting position from which the robotic apparatus began traversing the pipe, the relative position of the robotic apparatus on the pipe, and an absolute orientation of the pipe (¶ 64—“Using the exemplarily calculations, localization data of the vehicle can be determine which is useful for determining the position of the vehicle and identifying the location at which inspection data is being collected in order to determine where a failure in a structure may be located. The localization scheme allows the vehicle to constantly and accurately determine its position and orientation with respect to the pipe.”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150153170 A1 (“Gonzalez”) in view of WO 2019204946 A1 (“Rampersad”).
As per Claim 13, Rampersad teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Gonzalez, including namely wherein the sensor comprises a time-of-flight sensor (¶ 4—“The scanner assembly may contain Time of Flight Diffraction or Phased Array sensors”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gonzalez to include the limitations as taught by Rampersad to provide an ultrasonic scanner assembly suitable for inspection of a girth weld of a pipe (Rampersad: ¶ 30).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150153170 A1 (“Gonzalez”) in view of WO 2019016669 A1 (“Eliezer”)
As per Claim 14, Eliezer teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Gonzalez, including namely wherein the sensor comprises a capacitive displacement sensor (“the cantilever 4 can also comprise at least one distance sensor 12, which enables to keep a constant gap to the pipe. The distance sensor 12 can be embodied as an optical sensor, as an ultrasound sensor and/or as a capacitive or inductive sensor”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gonzalez to include the limitations as taught by Eliezer to provide a non-invasive inspection method for a pipeline (Eliezer).
Claim 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150153170 A1 (“Gonzalez”) in view of US 10589433 B2 (“Al Nahwi”)
As per Claim 18, Gonzalez discloses a system for measuring a diameter of a pipe traversed by a robotic apparatus, comprising:
a sensor configured to measure a rotation of at least one element of the clamping member (¶ 63—“the angle about the hinge in degrees can be measured via a sensor”); and
a processor configured to calculate a diameter of the pipe based on the measured rotation and a known geometry of the robotic apparatus (¶ 63—“The geometry of the vehicle, which can include the diameter of the wheels and the distance between the wheels and the hinge, are factors that can be measured and known and that remain constant during an inspection performed by the robot.”).
Al Nawhi teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Gonzalez, including namely a robotic apparatus comprising a first wheel configured for positioning on a first side of a pipe, a second wheel configured for positioning on a second, opposing side of the pipe, and a clamping member coupling the first wheel and the second wheel (Col 11 Line 7—“inspection robot”; Fig. 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gonzalez to include the limitations as taught by Al Nawhi to ease the inspection of pipelines when the pipeline starts from shore and transitions into a shallow zone of water (Al Nawhi: Col 1 Lines 36-37).
As per Claim 19, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a rotary encoder (¶ 63—“encoder”).
As per Claim 20, Gonzalez further discloses
wherein the sensor is configured to measure the rotation of at least one of the first end and the second end (¶ 63—“the angle about the hinge in degrees can be measured via a sensor”); and
wherein calculating the diameter of the pipe is based on the measured rotation of the first end and/or second end and a length of the arm (¶ 63—“The geometry of the vehicle, which can include the diameter of the wheels and the distance between the wheels and the hinge, are factors that can be measured and known and that remain constant during an inspection performed by the robot”).
Al Nawhi teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Gonzalez, including namely wherein the clamping member comprises an arm having a first end rotationally coupled to the first wheel and a second end rotationally coupled to the second wheel (Col 6 Lines 15-17—“The geometry of the vehicle, which can include the diameter of the wheels and the distance between the wheels and the hinge, are factors that can be measured and known and that remain constant during an inspection performed by the robot”; Fig. 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gonzalez to include the limitations as taught by Al Nawhi to ease the inspection of pipelines when the pipeline starts from shore and transitions into a shallow zone of water (Al Nawhi: Col 1 Lines 36-37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 PM.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658