DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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:
While the prior art teaches all the limitations of claims 1-5 and further teaches a frustro-conical shape, it does not appear to teach, in combination with all the other recited elements of claims 1-5, that said frustro-conical shape is partially inserted into the tube.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-24 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.
In claim 1, line 4, “the idler pully” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 22, “L shaped” lacks clarity as to the metes and bounds of the claim scope. The letter L is shaped in many different ways across different fonts, capitalizations, italics, etc.
Claims 2-24 depend from claim 1.
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) 1-2, 7-11, 14, 16, 18-21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer (US 4,624,400) in view of Brill (US 4,597,294).
Zimmer teaches an electromagnetic probe drive apparatus comprising a rotatable drive pully (35) coupled to a motor (20); a pivot arm (51) pivotably moveable around a pivot axis (52) with idler pulleys (55) comprising at least one idler pulley (Fig. 1); the electromagnetic probe (12) comprising a test heat (12) and cable (11) routed between and engageable with the idler and drive pulleys (see Fig. 2; grooves 38 and 57); the idler pulley is operable to press the test cable against the drive pulley to maintain engagement therebetween (Col. 4:61-5:6); the rotating drive pully in a first direction feeds out cable from the apparatus and in a second rotation direction retracts cable back to the apparatus (Col. 6:7-43).
Zimmer does not specify that the probe is an eddy current testing apparatus or the bracket.
Brill teaches that electromagnetic probes may be operated as eddy current testing apparati (Col. 1:47-51); the feeding and retracting apparatus (60) which drives the probe (40) and test cable (85) is mounted to a bracket (61) configured for detachable coupling (via 70) to a tube sheet of a heat exchanger (25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Zimmer with the bracket, as taught by Brill, in order to allow for mounting an alignment with the test subject. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to utilize an eddy current testing apparatus, as taught by Brill, as Zimmer does not specify the type of testing apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Zimmer teaches a test probe feed opening (opening through 65) which slidably receives the test head and cable therethrough from the drive pully for insertion into the test subject.
Brill further teaches that the bracket (61) comprises a faceplate with a test probe feed opening (Col. 5:25-26).
It would have been obvious in the combination to provide the sliding test probe feed opening of Zimmer through a bracket face plate opening, as taught by Brill, in order to allow for feeding of the probe into a tube under test of the tube sheet.
Brill further teaches that: a pair of tube clamps (70) detachably couple to the face plate, they include a tubular securement sleeve (74) including a radially expandable portion (75) insertable into a respective second heat exchanger tube (Fig. 4)and third heat exchanger tube (Fig. 4) for anchoring the bracket thereto, per claim 7; each securement sleeve includes a radially expandable end (75) operable to frictionally engage inside surfaces of the second and third heat exchanger tubes to secure the bracket thereto (Fig. 4), per claim 8; the expandable ends of each securement sleeve comprise a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart slots (between each 75) oriented along a length of the securement sleeve, per claim 9; each tube clamp includes an operating rod extending through the sleeve with an expansion plug coupled proximate to a first end of the operating rod (72) and engageable with the expandable end of the securement sleeve (Col. 5:59-63) and configured to radially spread the expandable ends of each securement sleeve radially outwards to frictionally engage the inside surfaces of the second or third heat exchanger tubes, per claim 10; the expansion plug includes an inner portion inserted inside the expandable end of the securement sleeve (portion of 72 which does not engage 75 and is the only portion in the sleeve when not expanded)and a diametrically enlarged outer portion disposed outside the expandable end including an outside diameter larger than an inside diameter of the expandable end (the portion which bears upon the inside of 75 to expand them for engagement, e.g. in Fig. 4; see Col. 5:49-63), per claim 11; the tube clamps support the bracket from the tube sheet in a cantilevered manner when the actuating levers are in the locked position (see Fig. 4), per claim 14.
Zimmer further teaches that: the pivot arm is moveable between an inward engage position in which the first idler pully presses the test cable of the probe against the drive pully and an outward disengaged position which releases the test cable from the drive pulley (Col. 4:61-65), per claim 16; a second idler pully rotatably coupled to the pivot arm to press the cable against the drive pulley at a different location than the first pulley (Fig. 1), per claim 18; the idler pulleys maintain about 90 degrees of contact between the drive pulley and the cable (Fig. 1), per claim 19; the first and second idler pulleys are disposed on top and on one side of the drive pulley (Fig. 1; with any of 55 defined as in a “top” direction the others are to a “side” direction), per claim 20; the first end of the pivot arm is coupled via a pivot pin (52) which defines the pivot axis and a second end is not coupled and defines a handle (54) for manually moving the pivot arm about the pivot axis between engaged and disengaged positions, per claim 23; the motor and test probe are coupled to a programmable controller (see Fig.6) which rotates the drive pulley in first and second rotational directions via the motor, per claim 24.
Regarding claim 21, Zimmer teaches that the idler pulleys are oriented inline and parallel to each other (along the length of the pivot arm; see Fig. 1) and are in line with the direction of the cable feed. In Brill, the direction of the cable feed is perpendicular to the face plate (61) which is parallel to the tube sheet (25). Therefore in the combined teachings, it would have been obvious to orient the idler pulleys perpendicular to the bracket face plate and tube sheet, as claimed, in order to allow for feeding of the cable in the desired direction.
Claim(s) 17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer in view of Brill and Shoemaker (US 6,161,743).
Regarding claim 17, Zimmer in view of Brill does not specify the return spring.
Shoemaker teaches that it is old and well-known to provide the idler roller apparatus (114) with a return spring (124) to maintain pressure while still allowing for the removal of pressure in a disengaged state (Col. 8:51-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Zimmer in view of Brill with the spring of Shoemaker to maintain the pressure of the idler rollers in the engaged state.
Regarding claim 22, while the metes and bounds of “L shaped” are unknown, insofar as the shape illustrated in the disclosure is comprised of straight portions with bends between them, Shoemaker teaches that such construction (see 116, Fig. 4a) is old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form the device of Zimmer, as modified, with either the continuously curved or straight/bent pivot arm as this represents a mere change in shape which is within the ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer in view of Brill and Testu (US 8,146,297).
Zimmer, as modified, does not teach the manually operated actuating lever.
Testu teaches that it is old and well-known to operated such tube clamps manually via a manually operated actuating lever (500a) pivotably coupled (Figs. 3-4) to a second end of the operating rod (400a), per claim 12; wherein the lever is movable between a (i) locked position (Fig. 4) which draws the operating rod (400a) and the expansion plug (410a) toward the actuating lever and into the securement sleeve (300a) to spread the expandable end (310a) of the securement sleeve radially outwards to frictionally lock the tube clamp (see Fig. 4) and (ii) unlocked position (Fig. 3) which projects the operating rod (400a) and expansion plug (410a) away from the actuating lever (Fig. 3) and the expandable end of the securement sleeve (310a)to allow the expandable end to collapse radially inward to unlock the tube clamp (Fig. 3), per claim 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Zimmer, as modified, with such manually operated tube clamps, as taught by Testu, in order to simplify the device and/or to provide backup in case of failure of the automatic systems of Zimmer, as modified.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer in view of Brill and Foster (US 2007/0145220).
While the device of Zimmer as modified by Brill discusses in Brill the need for various tube clamp spacing for different devices, they do not discuss accommodating such varied spacing in a single embodiment.
Foster teaches that it is old and well-known to provide mounting hardware in slots in order to accommodate mounting in differently spaced/oriented devices (Para. [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Zimmer, as modified, with the slots of Foster to allow for broader use of the device.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer in view of Brill and Iwasaki (US 6,278,903).
Zimmer, as modified, does not teach the replaceable alignment ferrule.
Iwasaki teaches that it is old and well-known to provide probe devices with a ferrule (41) which spans the test probe feed opening (see Fig. 13) and slidably receives the test head and cable (13, 30) for insertion through the tube sheet (5), per claim 3; the alignment ferrule has an annular body comprising a central passage (41a) sized to pass the test heat and cable through (see Fig. 13), per claim 4; the alignment ferrule has a two-piece structure comprising a rear piece (interior, upper in Fig. 13, wide portion of 41) coupled to a front piece (exterior, lower in Fig. 13, wide portion of 41) through an opening in the device (Fig. 13), per claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Zimmer, as modified, with a ferrule, as taught by Iwasaki, in order to ensure alignment of the probe with the tube along its entire path from the device to the tube entrance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763