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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/04/23. These drawings are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a processor or computer or microprocessor for performing the gathered data analysis to evaluate the integrity and the condition of the pipeline which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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 1, it is unclear and confusing since it appears to be incomplete for failing to recite the essential step to perform the essential step to perform analysis of the obtained data from a processor or a computer to evaluate the condition or the integrity of the pipeline. Thus, the claim is indefinite. Clarification and correction are required.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
processor or computer or microprocessor for performing the gathered data analysis to evaluate the integrity and the condition of the pipeline.
Claims 2-18 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (GB 2508515) in view of Twitchell Jr. l et al. (US Patent 7,830,273), hereinafter, Twitchell.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the examiner, Luo discloses a method of monitoring a pipeline (flexible sensor array for ultrasonic monitoring of pipeline corrosion, see title, page 4, line 13 and 27-30);
providing a pipeline network (12), monitoring said first pipeline (12) with a first sensor array (30) comprising: a first ultrasonic sensor (34) mechanically coupled to said first pipe (12), a second ultrasonic sensor (34) mechanically coupled to said second pipe, see: page 5, lines 23-27 and page 6, lines 10-15); furthermore, Luo further discloses the sensor array 30 is fixedly and non-removably attached to the test pipe 12, to attach the sensor array 30, a fastener 64 is provided, while the fastener 64 is shown to be attached only to the test pipe 12 in FIG. 5, in further examples, the fastener 64 can be applied to either or both of the sensor array 30 or the test pipe 12. In other examples, the fastener 64 includes mechanical fasteners, such as nuts, bolts, screws, etc. While the fastener 64 in FIG. 5 is shown to extend non-consecutively around the test pipe 12, in other examples, the fastener 64 can extend completely around the test pipe 12 or around an inner surface of the sensor array 30, see: page 10, lines 15-24); in addition, it is to be understood, however, that other means for fastening the sensor array 30 to the test pipe 12 are also envisioned. For instance, in the removable attachment, the fastener 64 is not limited to be between the test pipe 12 and the sensor array 30. Rather, the fastener 64 can be applied on the outside surface of the sensor array 30, such as, for example, a clamp or the like
gathering first signals to a first sub-communication system from said first ultrasonic sensor, said second ultrasonic sensor, and said third ultrasonic sensor.
(the method for positioning the ultrasonic sensor assembly of claim 18, further including the step of transferring information between the sensor elements and a test apparatus, see: claim 19). However, Luo does not particularly disclose or suggest pipeline network comprising a first pipeline, said first pipeline comprising at least a first pipe and a second pipe directly contacted by and coupled by a first coupler and a second coupler directly contacting and coupling said second pipe to a third pipe. Luo discloses the sensor array 30 of the present disclosure is adjustable in length. As such, the sensor array 30 can be adjusted to match different perimeter distances around test pipes 12 of varying sizes. By providing the sensor array 30 as being adjustable in length, tools may no longer be needed for attaching or aligning the sensor array 30 to the test pipe 12 (page 11, lines 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to be motivated by the above teachings to recognize to use couplers for connecting a plurality of pipes in a pipeline network so as to allow an effective and reliable inspection for monitoring the condition of any of the pipes so as for the signals to be analyzed to determine characteristics of the test pipe 12 (e.g., defects, corrosion, cracks, etc.) and thereby making the above combination much more effective.
Regarding claim 11, Luo discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the step of: translating said first ultrasonic sensor along a length of said first pipe (see: page 6, lines 21-24).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (GB 2508515) in view of Luo et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0116440), hereinafter, Luo’40.
Regarding claim 12, Luo’15 discloses the sensor array being adjustable in length to substantially match a perimeter distance around an outer surface of the test pipe, (see: claim 1) and wherein the perimeter distance around the outer surface of the test pipe is a circumference and the sensor array is adjusted via removal of the excess portion to substantially match the circumference, see: claim 16). However, Luo does not particularly disclose or suggest a rotation of twenty degrees. Luo’40 discloses the first transducer ring 30 and second transducer ring 40 could be attached to the pipe 12. Once attached, the aforementioned method can quickly and accurately determine the relative positions of the transducer rings (see: par. 0048). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Luo’15 the transducer rings of Luo’40 because the rotation would allow the first transducer ring and second transducer ring to be used to accurately determine locations of characteristics at a desired angle (e.g., corrosion, thickness, voids, inclusions, etc.) within the pipe and thereby, making the above combination more effective.
Regarding claim 13, Luo’15 in view of Luo ’40 discloses wherein the signals from the array of receivers are indicative of one or more of corrosion, wall thickness, voids and inclusions, see claim 28, par. 00224) and the controller being configured to process the signals from the receivers to determine one or more of corrosion, wall thickness, voids and inclusions, see: par. 0024 and claim 28 of Luo’40.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 4-17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
The prior art of record taken alone and in combination does not disclose “The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: measuring said first pipe with a first force wave launched at a first angle relative to a length of said first pipe from an ultrasonic transducer element of said first ultrasonic sensor; and measuring said first pipe with a second force wave launched at a second angle relative to said length of said first pipe from said ultrasonic transducer element of said first ultrasonic sensor, said first angle at least ten degrees larger than said second angle” as recited in claim 2 and
“the method of claim 1, said step of monitoring further comprising the step of: tracking weather with a set of weather stations, at least five members of said set of weather stations positioned along said first pipeline with separation distances of greater than one mile and less than eleven miles” as recited in claim 18”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUES M SAINT SURIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2206. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Frid (Flex) 10:00 to 7:00.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at 571 272 4107. 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.
/JACQUES M SAINT SURIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855