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 .
Response to Arguments
The objection to the abstract, set forth to the Non-Final Office action mailed on 9/08/2025 has been withdrawn because of the amendment filed on 12/10/2025. However, the new amended abstract is objected again because the abstract has less than 50 words as amended on 12/10/2025. Therefore, the new amended abstract is Objected, as set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 5-6, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20110167914 A1 in view of DEBNAR BEINSSEN (Hereinafter, “Debnar”) in the Patent Publication Number DE 19714685 A1 (Publication Date 1997-10-30) and further in view Lima et al. (Hereinafter “Lima”) in the US patent Number US 5659142 A and the rejection of Claim(s) 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland ‘914 A1 in view of Debnar ‘685 A1 and Lima ‘142 A, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mandziuk et al. (Hereinafter, “Mandziuk”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20070022830 A1 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 5-6, of the remarks, filed on 12/09/2025, regarding the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20110167914 A1 in view of DEBNAR BEINSSEN (Hereinafter, “Debnar”) in the Patent Publication Number DE 19714685 A1 (Publication Date 1997-10-30) and further in view Lima et al. (Hereinafter “Lima”) in the US patent Number US 5659142 A and the rejection of Claim(s) 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland ‘914 A1 in view of Debnar ‘685 A1 and Lima ‘142 A, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mandziuk et al. (Hereinafter, “Mandziuk”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20070022830 A1, that “Applicant respectfully submits that none of these references, taken either alone or in combination, disclose all of the elements of claim 1 or the claims that depend therefrom.
Particularly, none of the references disclose a PIG with a pair of coils having a geometric axis of winding parallel to an inspection direction of the internal surface of the pipe. Nor do any of these references disclose that each coil pair is differentially connected, nor do they only disclose one face is in contact with the internal surface of a pipe. Further, none of the cited references disclose a PIG with a pressure vessel.
In fact, none of these references use words from claim 1 such as winding parallel to inspection direction, differentially connected, pressure vessel nor mandrel.
Sutherland discloses a PIG for non-destructive pipe testing but it does not disclose Applicant's claimed invention. While Sutherland's PIG has a number of sensors, it does not include a pressure vessel mounted in a central housing as claimed. The Office Action points to sensor head 50 as the pressure vessel, but this is merely a rectangular sensor housing that can have a polymer (Remarks-Page 5) cover which contacts the wall of a pipe. Further, electronics such as data acquisition electronics, are positioned outside the sensor head 50, of Sutherland.
The references to Debnar Beinssen and Lima, et al. do not remedy these deficiencies. For example, neither of these references disclose a pressure vessel.
The Debnar Beinssen PIG uses eddy currents to detect defects in pipes.
Lima, et al. discloses a PIG that logs data continuously for locating clogged sites.
Neither Mandziuck, US Patent Publication No. US 2007/0022830 nor Banks, US Patent Publication No. US 2018/0172638 is applied to independent claim 1 (Remarks-Page 6).”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 5-6 (stated above), filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20110167914 A1 in view of DEBNAR BEINSSEN (Hereinafter, “Debnar”) in the Patent Publication Number DE 19714685 A1 (Publication Date 1997-10-30) and further in view Lima et al. (Hereinafter “Lima”) in the US patent Number US 5659142 A and the rejection of Claim(s) 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland ‘914 A1 in view of Debnar ‘685 A1 and Lima ‘142 A, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mandziuk et al. (Hereinafter, “Mandziuk”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20070022830 A1, as applied to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 9/08/2025 have been fully considered and is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument, “Particularly, none of the references disclose a PIG with a pair of coils having a geometric axis of winding parallel to an inspection direction of the internal surface of the pipe. Nor do any of these references disclose that each coil pair is differentially connected, nor do they only disclose one face is in contact with the internal surface of a pipe. Further, none of the cited references disclose a PIG with a pressure vessel” is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument none of the reference discloses the limitation is not persuasive. Examiner in the rejection explained that Sutherland discloses a pair of coils (Figure 4) having a geometric axis of winding parallel to an inspection direction of the internal surface of the pipe. Figure 3: Modified Figure 3 of Sutherland below shows that the pair of coils (Figure 4) having a geometric axis of winding parallel to an inspection direction of the internal surface of the pipe. Claim does not recite anything about inspection direction. Claim does not recite what is inspection direction and how it is situated or what is the function of inspection direction. Therefore, for the broadest reasonable interpretation any direction in the internal surface of the pipe line can be considered as the inspection direction as shown below in Modified Figure 3 of Sutherland. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Modified Figure 3 of Sutherland
Examiner in the rejection then explained that Sutherland does not disclose that coil pairs are differentially connected. DEBNAR teaches, “Two circumferential coils 3, 4 in Figure 2 and 3 are arranged immediately adjacent to the transmitter coil 2. The windings of these coils are also not shown. The circumferential coils 3, 4 are located in the direct field of the transmitter coil 2 and are used for direct field measurement. When evaluating their signals, either an absolute circuit or the differential circuit described above can be used; paragraph [0049] Line 1-6; In the far field of both the transmitter coil 1 and the transmitter coil 2, two axially adjacent far-field circumferential coils 5, 6 are arranged. The receiver coils 5, 6 can be operated either in absolute or differential circuit; Paragraph [0050] Line 1-6”. DEBNAR clearly discloses that the coils can be operated in differential circuit and the coils are differentially connected. DEBNAR also discloses in Figures 2 and 3 that only one face in contact with the internal surface of the pipe of each of the plurality of sensors (transmitter coils and receiver coils as the sensor), including the respective coils [3, 4, 5, 6], has the same radius of curvature as that of the internal surface of said pipe [1]. Therefore, the combination of Sutherland and DEBNAR discloses the limitation, “a pair of coils having a geometric axis of winding parallel to an inspection direction of the internal surface of the pipe. And each coil pair is differentially connected and one face is in contact with the internal surface of a pipe.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument, “In fact, none of these references use words from claim 1 such as winding parallel to inspection direction, differentially connected, pressure vessel nor mandrel” is not persuasive. It is not needed that the same exact word should be disclosed in the references to reject. The combination of Sutherland and DEBNAR discloses the limitation and Figure 3: Modified Figure 3 of Sutherland above shows the limitation, “parallel”. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the references does not disclose “pressure vessel” is not persuasive. Sutherland discloses “sensor head” and which is considered as the pressure vessel. Applicant argues, “sensor head 50 as the pressure vessel, but this is merely a rectangular sensor housing that can have a polymer (Remarks-Page 5) cover which contacts the wall of a pipe. Further, electronics such as data acquisition electronics, are positioned outside the sensor head 50” which is not persuasive. Sutherland discloses “sensor head” as the pressure vessel. Because the purpose of pressure vessel in the claim is to house a set of electronics. The sensor head of Sutherland also functions as to house different electronics circuit. Sutherland “As shown in FIG. 4, the coil 30, and the MFL transducer 20, are located within a common housing, referred to herein as sensor head 50 (Paragraph [0034])”. The purpose of sensor head in Sutherland is same as disclosed by the claim limitation “pressure vessel”. Again, from Google, “a sensor head can be a pressure vessel itself, or more commonly, it can be an integral component of a larger pressure vessel system, designed to measure internal conditions.” Therefore, although Sutherland does not disclose the word, “pressure vessel”, sensor head disclosed by Sutherland functions same as the pressure vessel. Claim does not recite any specific structure or function of pressure vessel that can differentiate the present application from prior art reference Sutherland. Therefore, for the broadest reasonable interpretation Sutherland also discloses the claim limitation. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that “The references to Debnar Beinssen and Lima, et al. do not remedy these deficiencies. For example, neither of these references disclose a pressure vessel. Neither Mandziuck, US Patent Publication No. US 2007/0022830 nor Banks, US Patent Publication No. US 2018/0172638 is applied to independent claim 1” is not persuasive. Because in the rejection Debnar Beinssen and Lima, Mandziuck, and Banks is never applied to reject the limitation, “pressure vessel”. Sutherland is applied to reject the limitation, “pressure vessel” as explained above.
In response to Applicant’s argument that does not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., pressure vessel) are rejected under Sutherland. Debnar and Lima is never applied in the rejection to reject the limitations. Sutherland teaches all the limitation of the independent claims and Debnar and Lima was applied to remedy the deficiency of Sutherland. So applicant’s argument that Debnar Beinssen and Lima does not disclose the limitation is not persuasive. Applicant’s argument regarding references Mandziuck, and Banks is also not persuasive because of the same reason as stated above.
Applicant then argued about the limitation, “mandrel” in dependent claim 2. However, the limitation “mandrel” is not required by the claim. Claim 2 recites, “wherein the PIG structural body can be any one of a foam PIG, a mandrel PIG, or a flex PIG”. Claim requires only one limitation either a foam PIG or a mandrel PIG, or a flex PIG. Examiner in the rejection explained that the Sutherland and DEBNAR does not disclose the limitation, “wherein the PIG structural body can be any one of a foam PIG, a mandrel PIG, or a flex PIG”. Lima is applied to meet the limitation. Lima discloses, “Referring now to FIG. 2, pig (30) comprises three main parts: (9) i) A body (36) which is preferably, but not necessarily, cylindrical. Its geometrical shape is that best adapted for the specific desired application and it may, for example, be a sphere. The pig body is made up of a spongy expanded (foamed) polymer, or of a spongy elastomer, which can be selected from suitable known materials (one particularly preferred example of which is a flexible polyurethane foam), having a specific gravity below 40 kg per cubic meter.; Column 3 Line 39-50).” Therefore, Lima discloses a foam PIG and “Mandrel” word is not required by the claim. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The rejection of Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20110167914 A1 in view of DEBNAR BEINSSEN (Hereinafter, “Debnar”) in the Patent Publication Number DE 19714685 A1 (Publication Date 1997-10-30) and further in view Lima et al. (Hereinafter “Lima”) in the US patent Number US 5659142 A and the rejection of Claim(s) 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland ‘914 A1 in view of Debnar ‘685 A1 and Lima ‘142 A and further in view of Mandziuk et al. (Hereinafter, “Mandziuk”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20070022830 A1, as applied to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 9/08/2025 is maintained below. See the rejection set forth below.
For expedite prosecution Applicant is invited to call to discuss the present rejection also if any further clarification needed and to discuss any possible amendment to overcome the references to make the claims allowable.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 set forth in the amendment submitted 12/10/2025 form the basis of the present examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract should be in narrative form within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20110167914 A1 in view of DEBNAR BEINSSEN (Hereinafter, “Debnar”) in the Patent Publication Number DE 19714685 A1 (Publication Date 1997-10-30) and further in view Lima et al. (Hereinafter “Lima”) in the US patent Number US 5659142 A.
Regarding claim 1, Sutherland teaches a tool for inspection of the condition of the internal surface of pipes (an integrated multi-sensor device for non-destructive testing of metallic structures, to methods of acquiring and processing data from at least one such integrated sensor device, and to non-destructive testing of pipelines, including the use of intelligent pigs to diagnose defects in the walls of oil and gas pipelines; Paragraph [0002] Line 4-9), comprising:
a Pipe Intervention Gadget (“PIG”) structural body [1] (FIG. 1A depicts a side view of an illustrative pipeline inline inspection tool or pig 1; Paragraph [0030] Line 1-2);
a plurality of eddy current sensors [5] (multi sensor devices 5 comprises sensors 22, 24, 26 as shown in Figure 5) arranged spaced around the circumference [7] of the PIG structural body [1] (Pig 1 includes a plurality of a multi-sensor devices 5 arranged in a circular/ring 7 configuration; Paragraph [0030] Line 4-5; More specifically, multi-sensor device 5, in such an embodiment, includes a microprocessor 75; a caliper sensor 10; an MFL transducer 20 implemented as at least one (i.e., one or more) axially oriented Hall sensor 22, at least one radially oriented Hall sensor 24, and at least one circumferentially oriented Hall sensor 26; Paragraph [0035] Line 5-10),
wherein each of the plurality of sensors [5] comprises a pair of coils (common coil and separate coils) having a geometric axis of winding parallel to an inspection direction of the internal surface of the pipe [27] in Figure 2A (More specifically, FIG. 2A schematically depicts a pipeline portion comprising several straight segments separated by several bends; Paragraph [0031] Line 1-3; In accordance with some embodiments, a multi-sensor assembly operable in characterizing a metallic structure comprises: (1) a housing comprising (i) at least one electrically conductive coil …..The at least one electrically conductive coil may comprise a common coil that is operable as both at least one EMAT sensor and at least one EC sensor and/or may comprise separate coils for implementing at least one EMAT sensor and at least one EC sensor; Paragraph [0006] Line 1-21; As shown in FIG. 4, the coil 30, and the MFL transducer 20, are located within a common housing, referred to herein as sensor head 50, which may be implemented with a lower cover or housing 37; Paragraph [0034] Line 7-11; Figure 3 shows sensors [5] comprises a pair of coils (Figure 4) having a geometric axis of winding parallel to an inspection direction of the internal surface of the pipe [27]); and
a pressure vessel (Sensor head 50 as the pressure vessel) mounted in a central housing of the PIG structural body [1] (As shown in FIG. 4, the coil 30, and the MFL transducer 20, are located within a common housing, referred to herein as sensor head 50, which may be implemented with a lower cover or housing 37 and a wear-resistant, non-conductive (i.e., non-electrically conductive, such as a polymer) cover 33, which may contact the inner wall of the pipe as the pig moves therethrough; Paragraph [0034] Line 7-14; According to the some embodiments, microcontroller 75 may be mounted on a circuit board and connected to the single coil and configured to induce a waveform in the coil via a coil driver 35 and thereby create an eddy current and/or acoustic vibration in the pipeline wall adjacent the sensor body. Though not explicitly depicted as such, microprocessor 75 may be coupled to receiver circuitry for receiving signals from the EC/EMAT coil. In some embodiments, such receiver circuitry may be provided together with (e.g., integrated with) transmitter circuitry of the coil driver 35 so that the microprocessor interfaces with the EC/EMAT coil via the coil driver (e.g., transceiver) for both exciting the coil and receiving signals from the coil; Paragraph [0036] Line 13-26),
wherein the pressure vessel [50] tightly houses a set of electronics (The sensor head 50 is attached to a sensor arm 40, which is attached to the body of the multi-sensor device at a joint which includes a caliper sensor 10. For clarity, FIG. 4 does not explicitly depict other components that, in various embodiments, may be included within head 50, such as circuitry for driving, as well as for receiving signals from, coil 30 (e.g., transmit/receive circuitry), local memory for storing acquired data, a processor (e.g., microcontroller) operable, for example, in controlling the sensors as well in transferring acquired data from local memory to a storage medium or media (e.g., semiconductor memory) located in instrumentation vehicle 45; Paragraph [0034] Line 19-30),
wherein the set of electronics includes at least a plurality of Data Acquisition (“DAQ”) [75] electronic boards connected, respectively, to each of the plurality of sensors [5] (FIG. 5 is an illustrative block diagram of a multi-sensor device 5 in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention, schematically representing that each of the sensors in one multi-sensor device are connected to a microprocessor 75; Paragraph [0035] Line 1-5; Figure 5 shows one sensor of a multi sensor assembly. One sensor 5 comprises one DAQ and therefore at least a plurality of Data Acquisition (“DAQ”) [75] electronic boards connected, respectively, to each of the plurality of sensors), an electronic Data Logger comprising at least one internal memory [80], a transmitter [30], an angular positioning sensor [10] (FIG. 5 is an illustrative block diagram of a multi-sensor device 5 in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention, schematically representing that each of the sensors in one multi-sensor device are connected to a microprocessor 75. More specifically, multi-sensor device 5, in such an embodiment, includes a microprocessor 75; a caliper sensor 10; an MFL transducer 20 implemented as at least one (i.e., one or more) axially oriented Hall sensor 22, at least one radially oriented Hall sensor 24, and at least one circumferentially oriented Hall sensor 26; an EC/EMAT coil 30; a coil driver 35; a memory 80 for storing acquired signal data and/or programs executed by microprocessor 75; and a power supply 90 to power the microprocessor 75 and other components that may require power (e.g., memory 80, coil driver, etc.); Paragraph [0035] Line 1-12; The caliper or deformation sensor 10 measures a rotation about a pivot axis where the sensor arm and head are mounted. Rotational movement about the pivot axis generates a signal in the sensor which then can be interpreted. The caliper sensor 10 may be implemented using any of a variety of transducer types (e.g., optical, electrical, magnetic, electromechanical (such as a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT), magnetic, etc.) to convert rotational motion into a relative or proportional measurable signal reflecting a change in strain, capacitance, resistance, etc. The known dimensions of the sensor head 50 and arm 40 can be used to determine a deflection distance of the head 50; Paragraph [0038] Line 1-12), and a power source [90] for powering said electronic components (FIG. 5 is an illustrative block diagram of a multi-sensor device 5 comprises a power supply 90 to power the microprocessor 75 and other components that may require power (e.g., memory 80, coil driver, etc.). As understood by those skilled in the art, power may be supplied from a power source in the instrumentation vehicle to power supply 90, which may be implemented as a power regulator or converter (e.g., a switched mode power supply) to generate and control the power requirements of the various powered components in multi-sensor device 5. Alternatively or additionally, power may be supplied from a power source in the instrumentation directly to the microprocessor and/or other components (e.g., eliminating power supply 90). While memory 80 is depicted as separate from microprocessor 75, memory 80 generally represents any memory located in multi-sensor device 5, such as one or more on-chip (i.e., on-chip with respect to the microprocessor) and/or off-chip memories, which may be implemented as one or more types of memory (e.g., volatile, non-volatile, SRAM, DRAM, FLASH, etc.). Data collected from the sensors as well as programs implemented by the microprocessor may be stored separately or together in one or more of such on-chip and/or off-chip memories; Paragraph [0035]).
Sutherland fails to teach that each coil of the pair is differentially connected, and wherein only one face in contact with the internal surface of the pipe of each of the plurality of sensors, including the respective coils, has the same radius of curvature as that of the internal surface of said pipe; a battery for powering said electronic components.
DEBNAR teaches devices for material testing of a metallic wall using far-field eddy current testing technology according to the preambles of the independent claims (Paragraph [0001] Line 1-2),
wherein each coil [2, 3, 4, 5, 6] of the pair is differentially connected (Two circumferential coils 3, 4 in Figure 2 and 3 are arranged immediately adjacent to the transmitter coil 2. The windings of these coils are also not shown. The circumferential coils 3, 4 are located in the direct field of the transmitter coil 2 and are used for direct field measurement. When evaluating their signals, either an absolute circuit or the differential circuit described above can be used; paragraph [0049] Line 1-6; In the far field of both the transmitter coil 1 and the transmitter coil 2, two axially adjacent far-field circumferential coils 5, 6 are arranged. The receiver coils 5, 6 can be operated either in absolute or differential circuit. The sending/or The reception characteristics of the coils mentioned so far are identical in all radial directions; Paragraph [0050] Line 1-6), and
wherein only one face in contact with the internal surface of the pipe of each of the plurality of sensors, including the respective coils, has the same radius of curvature as that of the internal surface of said pipe [1] (Figures 2 and 3 shows that only one face in contact with the internal surface of the pipe of each of the plurality of sensors (transmitter coils and receiver coils as the sensor), including the respective coils [3, 4, 5, 6], has the same radius of curvature as that of the internal surface of said pipe [1]). The purpose of doing so is to test asymmetrical geometries, such as: Pipe bends, pipe ends or diameter or Thickness changes (Paragraph [0026]), to enable characterization of the disturbances through a special type of signal evaluation, and in this evaluation, to represent the signal as a trajectory in the complex plane of impedance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sutherland in view of DEBNAR, because DEBNAR teaches to connect each coil of the pair differentially provides the ability to test asymmetrical geometries, such as: Pipe bends, pipe ends or diameter or Thickness changes (Paragraph [0026]), enables characterization of the disturbances through a special type of signal evaluation, and in this evaluation, represents the signal as a trajectory in the complex plane of impedance. (Paragraph [0041]).
The combination of Sutherland and DEBNAR fails to teach that a battery is used for powering said electronic components.
Lima teaches an improved process for the monitoring of the log of a parameter along a pipeline, aimed at determining precisely the location and extend of clogged regions or of any other interferences, such process being carried out with the aid of a pig provided with a pressure sensor in its interior (Column 2 Line 13-18), wherein
a battery is used for powering said electronic components (iii) Finally, housed in the cavity defined by the hole (37), a pressure sensor (31) coupled to a single unity comprising a processor, memory and power source (battery), housed in any suitable container which is waterproof and pressure resistant; Column 3 Line 51-56). The purpose of doing so is to secure the displacement or the travelling of the pig throughout the whole pipeline, to reduce in the cost of the overall operation in view of the very low price of the pig used and the battery.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sutherland and DEBNAR to include the battery as the power source as disclosed by Lima, because Lima teaches to include a battery secures the displacement or the travelling of the pig throughout the whole pipeline (Column 4 Line 7-9), reduces in the cost of the overall operation in view of the very low price of the pig used and the battery (Column 4 Line 17-18).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sutherland and Debnar fails to teach a tool for inspection of the condition of the internal surface of pipes, wherein the PIG structural body can be any one of a foam PIG, a mandrel PIG, or a flex PIG.
Lima teaches an improved process for the monitoring of the log of a parameter along a pipeline, aimed at determining precisely the location and extend of clogged regions or of any other interferences, such process being carried out with the aid of a pig provided with a pressure sensor in its interior. (Column 2 Line 13-18),
wherein the PIG structural body can be any one of a foam PIG, a mandrel PIG, or a flex PIG [30] (Referring now to FIG. 2, pig (30) comprises three main parts: (9) i) A body (36) which is preferably, but not necessarily, cylindrical. Its geometrical shape is that best adapted for the specific desired application and it may, for example, be a sphere. The pig body is made up of a spongy expanded (foamed) polymer, or of a spongy elastomer, which can be selected from suitable known materials (one particularly preferred example of which is a flexible polyurethane foam), having a specific gravity below 40 kg per cubic meter. One of the ends of the pig (30) has a tapered conical shape (35); Column 3 Line 39-50). The purpose of doing so is to provide high compressibility, imparted to the pig used in the present process by the very low-density polymeric foam of which it is made, to allow the pig in the present process to be introduced at various different launching openings, even if such opening is of reduced dimensions compared with the size of the pig. Thus, there is no longer the need to provide for various introduction means of various external diameters to be adapted to the various diameters of the pipelines which are to be freed of paraffinic clogs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sutherland and Debnar by including a foam PIG, a mandrel PIG, or a flex PIG as disclosed by Lima, because Lima teaches to include a foam PIG, a mandrel PIG, or a flex PIG provides high compressibility, imparted to the pig used in the present process by the very low-density polymeric foam of which it is made, allows the pig in the present process to be introduced at various different launching openings, even if such opening is of reduced dimensions compared with the size of the pig. Thus, there is no longer the need to provide for various introduction means of various external diameters to be adapted to the various diameters of the pipelines which are to be freed of paraffinic clogs (Column 3 Line 58-67).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sutherland and Debnar fails to teach a tool for inspection of the condition of the internal surface of pipes, wherein the structural body is preferably coated with elastomer.
Lima teaches an improved process for the monitoring of the log of a parameter along a pipeline, aimed at determining precisely the location and extend of clogged regions or of any other interferences, such process being carried out with the aid of a pig provided with a pressure sensor in its interior. (Column 2 Line 13-18),
wherein the structural body is preferably coated with elastomer (Referring now to FIG. 2, pig (30) comprises three main parts: (9) i) A body (36) which is preferably, but not necessarily, cylindrical. Its geometrical shape is that best adapted for the specific desired application and it may, for example, be a sphere. The pig body is made up of a spongy expanded (foamed) polymer, or of a spongy elastomer, which can be selected from suitable known materials (one particularly preferred example of which is a flexible polyurethane foam); Column 3 Line 39-50). The purpose of doing so is to provide high compressibility, imparted to the pig used in the present process by the very low-density polymeric foam of which it is made, to allow the pig in the present process to be introduced at various different launching openings, even if such opening is of reduced dimensions compared with the size of the pig. Thus, there is no longer the need to provide for various introduction means of various external diameters to be adapted to the various diameters of the pipelines which are to be freed of paraffinic clogs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sutherland and Debnar in view of Lima, because Lima teaches to have the structural body preferably coated with elastomer provides high compressibility, imparted to the pig used in the present process by the very low-density polymeric foam of which it is made, allows the pig in the present process to be introduced at various different launching openings, even if such opening is of reduced dimensions compared with the size of the pig. Thus, there is no longer the need to provide for various introduction means of various external diameters to be adapted to the various diameters of the pipelines which are to be freed of paraffinic clogs (Column 3 Line 58-67).
Regarding claim 4, Sutherland teaches a tool for inspection of the condition of the internal surface of pipes,
wherein the set of electronics comprises a shape/arrangement compatible with a cylindrical shape of the pressure vessel (FIG. 1A depicts a side view of an illustrative pipeline inline inspection tool or pig 1 that may be implemented in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention. Pig 1 includes a plurality of a multi-sensor devices 5 arranged in a circular/ring 7 configuration, magnetizing brushes 15a and 15b respectively coupled to opposite poles of a magnet (not shown), odometer wheels 25, and an instrumentation vehicle 45; Paragraph [0030] Line 1-8; in alternative embodiments, rather than providing a single circumferential ring 7 of integrated multi-sensor devices 5, two or more circumferential rings may be provided with the sensors from different rings offset in the circumferential direction (i.e., azimuthally) to provide a desired circumferential spatial resolution (e.g., without necessarily requiring a particularly close circumferential packing of the multi-sensor devices in a given ring); Paragraph [0032] Line 18-25; Figure 1A shows that the sensing device in the PIG 1 is arranged in a circumferential ring and the pressure vessel as the head 50 is placed in the sensing device which is also circumferentially arranged. Figure 2A shows cylindrical pipe and the electronics in the pressure vessel is placed in cylindrically in the sensor as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Sutherland teaches an inspection method using an inspection tool as defined in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), comprising the steps of:
recording at each instant and in a single file the information on voltage, current, current phase, and angular position of each of the sensors (The stored data for each sensor then undergoes characterization and/or calibration on a group-wise basis (step 67); for example, over one or more subsets of the stored data values, such as the data values corresponding to a plurality of localized regions (e.g., pixels or voxels), which may comprise a region of interest (ROI). Such calibration may include data pre-processing, such as filtering (e.g., spatial filtering over local regions comprising a plurality of data values corresponding to pixels or voxels), converting voltage quantities to material property dimensions or spatial dimensions, and/or assessing whether the data is meaningful; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-11; Variations in the standoff distance determined from the EC measurement may be due to various causes, such as sensor movement away from the pipeline wall or absence of pipeline material (e.g., due to dents or corrosion). In accordance with some embodiments of the present invention, processing of the acquired EC signal may include comparing the amplitude and phase of the acquired EC signal to one or more known reference signals (e.g., acquired on an essentially identical reference pipeline having known properties), wherein deviation from and/or similarity to one or more known reference signals is indicative of various changes in geometry and/or material properties at or near the surface; Paragraph [0042] Line 1-12);
calculating the values of resistance, inductive reactance, impedance modulus, and impedance phase (The caliper or deformation sensor 10 measures a rotation about a pivot axis where the sensor arm and head are mounted. Rotational movement about the pivot axis generates a signal in the sensor which then can be interpreted. The caliper sensor 10 may be implemented using any of a variety of transducer types (e.g., optical, electrical, magnetic, electromechanical (such as a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT), magnetic, etc.) to convert rotational motion into a relative or proportional measurable signal reflecting a change in strain, capacitance, resistance, etc.; Paragraph [0038] Line 1-10);
analyzing the inspection in each of the previous variables for each sensor, separately or together, to generate an inspection map (The stored data for each sensor then undergoes characterization and/or calibration on a group-wise basis (step 67); for example, over one or more subsets of the stored data values, such as the data values corresponding to a plurality of localized regions (e.g., pixels or voxels), which may comprise a region of interest (ROI). Such calibration may include data pre-processing, such as filtering (e.g., spatial filtering over local regions comprising a plurality of data values corresponding to pixels or voxels), converting voltage quantities to material property dimensions or spatial dimensions, and/or assessing whether the data is meaningful. Such processing is subject to various assumptions and error sources, such as sensor proximity "liftoff" relative to a nominal reference standoff distance, variations in the orientation of the sensor relative to the inspection area, various types of features causing responses that are beyond the sensing capabilities and/or sampling resolution, localization error due to sensors separated by significant distance (e.g., relative to the physical feature), and assumed nominal reference values (or ranges of values) for signal magnitudes and the target (i.e., measured structure); Paragraph [0049] Line 1-21);
in possession of the resistance and inductive reactance data, reconstructing the inspection information into an impedance plane (For illustration purposes, FIG. 8 shows a representation of MFL and caliper sensor signals juxtaposed after each acquired sensor signal has been mapped onto a three-dimensional grid representative of the inner pipeline wall. The MFL Grid 200 shows a graphical representation of areas of metal loss, metal change, or corrosion. The MFL data may not precisely distinguish between dents, corrosion, metal loss, but the area 220 represents mild to moderate metal loss or change. The 230 areas represent heavy metal loss or change. In order to get a more accurate picture of the pipeline wall, the caliper data is used as represented in the 210 grid. The caliper data as presented in the 210 grid show areas 250 which contain a metal dent or deformation; Paragraph [0058] Line 1-13); and
performing a joint analysis of the variables with the impedance plane to identify patterns that correspond to defects, as well as patterns that correspond to components present in the line ([0046] In further embodiments, the independent standoff distance information provided by the caliper measurement may be leveraged for segregating the EC signal's amplitude and phase information, so that the EC signal may be used to further characterize the defects; Paragraph [0046] Line 1-5; As will be further understood in view of the ensuing description, the EMAT, EC, MFL, and caliper sensors may be operable to acquire signals at the same sampling rate (though different sampling rates are possible), and information from various combinations of the acquired signals may be processed to provide for improved feature detection. For example, the caliper measurement and the EC measurement include complementary information at least insofar as they both provide an indication of the standoff distance of the sensor head. For small standoff distances, both the EC and the caliper measurement may be used to inform the determination of the metal loss (and other volumetric discontinuities) from the MFL measurement. More specifically, both the EC and the caliper measurement may be used to more accurately determine a standoff distance, which in turn is used for point-by-point correction of the acquired MFL signal, allowing for more accurately quantifying and segregating the MFL information to allow for accurate determination of metal loss and other volumetric discontinuities. Also, the caliper measurement further assists in discerning between ID and OD metal losses, which may be inferred from the EC signal and MFL signals (e.g., if the MFL signal increases and the EC signal remains the same, then the volumetric loss may be inferred as being on the outer wall); Paragraph [0044] Line 1-24; Paragraph [0038]).
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland ‘914 A1 in view of Debnar ‘685 A1 and Lima ‘142 A, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mandziuk et al. (Hereinafter, “Mandziuk”) in the US patent Application Publication Number US 20070022830 A1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sutherland, Debnar and Lima fails to teach a tool for inspection of the condition of the internal surface of pipes, wherein the pressure vessel comprises an anterior cover, comprising a plurality of connectors with at least four connections, and a posterior cover comprising at least one connector with at least one connection.
Mandziuk teaches a sensor body for use in a pig for determining characteristics of a pipeline wall though which the pig passes (Paragraph [0005] Line 2-4),
wherein the pressure vessel comprises an anterior cover [60] (cover 60 in Figure 4 as the anterior cover) (In some configurations, sensor body 50 further comprises a sensor body cover 60 comprising a sledge 64 and a bottom cover 66, both molded about circuit board 52, the microcontroller 58, the hall effect sensing devices 56 and the single coil 54; Paragraph [0024] Line 16-21), comprising a plurality of connectors [87] in Figure 5 with at least four connections [87] (FIG. 4 is a side perspective view of a configuration of an assembly of a sensor block 80 that comprises four sensor bodies 50. Each sensor body 50 is supported by a spring support 82 that comprises or consists essentially of a material softer or less dense than the polyurethane used in sledge 64, or comprises or consists essentially of other suitable non-conductive material. Spring support 82 can be molded using suitable polyurethane epoxy, for example, so that entire sensor block 80 is a unitary component. An electrical cable 87 (partially shown in FIG. 5) from each sensor body 50 that communicates with microcontroller 58 and provides power and ground is embedded within a respective arm 84. These cables connect to a marshalling card 86, shown in the bottom view of FIG. 5. Marshalling card 86 is actually embedded in bottom section 88 of spring support 82, but is shown in FIG. 5; Paragraph [0028] Line 1-14), and
a posterior cover [86] (a marshalling card 86 as the posterior cover) comprising at least one connector with at least one connection [90] ([0028] Marshalling card 86 is actually embedded in bottom section 88 of spring support 82, but is shown in FIG. 5 because in some configurations, bottom section 88 is transparent or semitransparent. Marshalling card 86 concatenates and packetizes data from all four sensor bodies 50 and provides this data for further processing through a power and data cable 90 that exits sensor block 80; Paragraph [0028] Line 14-21). The purpose of doing so is to allow the arm to move radially inwardly and radially outwardly to provide clearance for the pig in the event that it encounters obstructions as it travels through the pipeline, to provide an electrostatic discharge (ESD) clamp. Voltage, data, clock, and ground signal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sutherland, Debnar and Lima by including an anterior cover and a posterior cover as discloses by Mandziuk, because Mandziuk teaches to include an anterior cover, comprising a plurality of connectors with at least four connections, and a posterior cover comprising at least one connector with at least one connection allows the arm to move radially inwardly and radially outwardly to provide clearance for the pig in the event that it encounters obstructions as it travels through the pipeline (Paragraph [0006]), provides an electrostatic discharge (ESD) clamp. Voltage, data, clock, and ground signal (Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sutherland, Debnar and Lima fails to teach a tool for inspection of the condition of the internal surface of pipes, wherein the respective anterior and posterior covers are configured to receive a sealing element.
Mandziuk teaches a sensor body for use in a pig for determining characteristics of a pipeline wall though which the pig passes (Paragraph [0005] Line 2-4), wherein
the respective anterior [60] and posterior covers [86] are configured to receive a sealing element (In some configurations, sensor body 50 further comprises a sensor body cover 60 comprising a sledge 64 and a bottom cover 66, both molded about circuit board 52, the microcontroller 58, the hall effect sensing devices 56 and the single coil 54. Sledge 64 consists essentially of a wear resistant, non-conductive polymer material, such as for example, polyurethane filled with a wear resistant filler such as silicon carbide and/or other non-conductive fillers. ("Non-conductive," as used herein, means "electrically non-conductive," unless otherwise explicitly stated. Another suitable non-conductive filler may include diamond chips.) Bottom cover 66 consists essentially of a polyurethane without the silicon carbide or other non-conductive fillers; Paragraph [0024] Line 16-28). The purpose of doing so is to allow to cure, and to cure to form bottom cover, to provide hardness and extended wear resistance as pig moves against pipe wall, to increase the life of sensor bodies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sutherland, Debnar and Lima in view of Mandziuk, because Mandziuk teaches to receive a sealing element allows to cure, and to cure to form bottom cover, provides hardness and extended wear resistance as pig moves against pipe wall (Paragraph [0024]), increases the life of sensor bodies (Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sutherland, Debnar and Lima fails to teach a tool for inspection of the condition of the internal surface of pipes, wherein the respective anterior and posterior covers comprise, respectively, at least two eyelets.
Mandziuk teaches a sensor body for use in a pig for determining characteristics of a pipeline wall though which the pig passes (Paragraph [0005] Line 2-4),
wherein the respective anterior [60] and posterior covers [86] comprise, respectively, at least two eyelets (Figure 4 and Figure 5 shows the respective anterior 60 and posterior 86 covers comprise, respectively, at least two eyelets). The purpose of doing so is to allow to cure, and to cure to form bottom cover, to provide hardness and extended wear resistance as pig moves against pipe wall, to increase the life of sensor bodies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sutherland, Debnar and Lima in view of Mandziuk, because Mandziuk teaches to include at least two eyelets allows to cure, and to cure to form bottom cover, provides hardness and extended wear resistance as pig moves against pipe wall (Paragraph [0024]), increases the life of sensor bodies (Paragraph [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lott et al. (US 20190178844 A1) discloses, “DIFFERENTIAL MAGNETIC EVALUATION FOR PIPELINE INSPECTION-[Abstract] A system and methods for inspecting a section of pipe are disclosed. The system includes two excitation coils disposed circumferentially around the section of pipe and a ring of magnetometer pairs arranged around the pipe between the two excitation coils. [0013] FIG. 1 depicts a perspective view of an inspection system 100 (the “system”) that is mounted to a pipe 102. The inspection system 100 includes first and second excitation coils 110a and 110b that wrap around the outer surface of pipe 102. A magnetometer ring 112 is disposed between the first and second excitation coils 110a and 110b. A transportation assembly 106, which includes multiple drive units 108 having rotating propulsion tracks, is mounted to excitation coils 110a, 110b and the magnetometer ring 112. The transportation assembly provides motive force to move the inspection system along pipe sections. System 100 also includes a controller 104, which provides control signals to the coils 110a, 110b, and the transportation assembly 106 and receives data from the magnetometer ring 112. As will be described in additional detail herein, signals applied to the excitation coil induce a magnetic field in the metal portions of pipe, which is detected and measured by the magnetometer ring. [0014] The first and second excitation coils 110a and 110b are positioned around the exterior surface of pipe 102 at first and second axial positions, respectively. For convenience, the excitation coils 110a and 110b may each be formed from two semicircular halves that are configured to surround half of pipe 102. The two semicircular halves may be attached to each other at the ends of the halves using a clamp or clamps 113. The clamp (or clamps) 113 securely fasten the two halves of a given excitation coil to each other. However, the configuration depicted in FIG. 1 is merely an example. In some embodiments, the two halves of a given excitation coil 110a and 110b may be connected to each other with a movable hinge on one end and a clamp (or clamps) on the other end, allowing the two halves of the given excitation coil to remain attached to each other when system 100 is being attached to pipe 102. Each excitation coil 110a, 110b includes loops of conductive material, such as a copper wire, used to carry an electric current. The conductive material in each half of a given excitation coil may be connected to the conductive material in the other half with an electrical connector that is releasably engageable such that each coil 110a, 110b may be opened when inspection system 100 is attached to pipe 102. When attached to the pipe, the electrical connector ensures that the coil halves are connected and current can flow the coil-However Lott does not disclose a pressure vessel mounted in a central housing of the PIG structural body, wherein the pressure vessel tightly houses a set of electronics, wherein the set of electronics includes at least a plurality of Data Acquisition (“DAQ”) electronic boards connected, respectively, to each of the plurality of sensors, an electronic Data Logger comprising at least one internal memory, a transmitter, an angular positioning sensor, and a battery for powering said electronic components.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIMA MONSUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/NASIMA MONSUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858