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 .
Response to Arguments
102 Rejection
Based on applicant’s filed amendments, the previous 102 rejection is withdrawn.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, 18 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on those references with respect to the argued limitations.
Applicant further argues the combination of MacKay in view of ODO as being non-obvious, stating the communication of test data from the site of the heat exchanger tube for the remote is accomplished using cloud data storage and that the arrangements allows for unexpected results of having higher-level technician be remote thereby cutting cost due to an in-person visit. However, applicant has not provided any objective evidence supporting the assertion, as attorney argument cannot substitute for evidence. With respect to the argument that remote analysis might reduce onsite visits and cost, such an outcome would have been a predictable result when implementing remote storage of data. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded.
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 3 and 5 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.
With respect to claim 3, the examiner is unsure how the claim further defines claim 1. Further, “a tool” is recited in line 3. Is this a different tool than the one recited in claim 1? To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as --the tool--. However, clarification is required.
With respect to claim 5, the examiner is unsure how the claim further defines claim 1. Further, “a tool” is recited in line 3. Is this a different tool than the one recited in claim 1? To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as --the tool--. However, clarification is required.
With respect to claim 18, the examiner is unsure how the claim further defines claim 15. Further, “a tool” is recited in line 3. Is this a different tool than the one recited in claim 15? To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as --the tool--. However, clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 appears to be a repeat of the newly added language of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-3, 5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay et al. (2023/0314373) in view of ODO et al. (JPH 09-72501), further in view of LI et al. (WO 2022/251462A1).
With respect to claim 1, MacKay et al. teaches in Fig. 3 a method for non-destructive testing of heat exchanger tubing [0026], comprising: using a test probe (102/302) inserted in the specific heat exchanger tube (101); store the test data (as MacKay et al. teaches storing the test data in a storage module 308); and accessing (through save instruction control logic found on the processor) the test data of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube (101 during test; 206) in the data storage (308) and determining a structural health assessment of the specific heat exchanger tube (101) using the accessed test data (i.e. the test data stored in the storage module 308) of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube (101) in comparison to calibration data (i.e. a reference tube; [0035]) associated with at least one calibration standard heat exchanger tube that is more closely related to the specific heat exchanger tube than to a generic tube (insofar as what is structurally recited a defining “a generic tube” and a standard defining their respective similarities), in terms of its structural characteristics (as MacKay et al. teaches “[a] calibration algorithm can then be applied to the captured calibration data to extract calibration parameters therefrom. In order for such algorithms to be applicable, specific signatures in the calibration data need to be identified, such as signatures corresponding to known indications in the reference tube (for example, a signature corresponding to a hole or other reference defect in the reference tube)), wherein the calibration standard heat exchanger tube includes a plurality of known defects wherein the calibration standard heat exchanger tube includes a plurality of known defects (as MacKay et al. teaches the reference tube creating the signatures includes known defects in the tub; [0035]).
MacKay et al. remains silent regarding the test probe is used in conjunction with machine-controlled testing that comprises using robotics to position and operate a tool comprising the test probe, storing and accessing the test data in cloud storage.
ODO et al. teaches a similar testing for a heat exchanger having tubes [0001] that includes a test probe (21) is used in conjunction with machine-controlled testing (as ODO teaches [0007] control means that controls the robotics, probe and data collection) that comprises using robotics (7) to position and operate a tool (i.e. a probe insertion nozzle 20) comprising the test probe (21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of MacKay et al. to include the robot and corresponding control means, as taught in ODO et al, because such a modification aids in improving the inspection process through automation, thereby reducing the influence of human error and inaccuracies during testing.
MacKay et al. as modified remains silent regarding the step of storing and accessing the test data in cloud storage.
LI et al. teaches a similar algorithmic health assessment algorithm that utilizes cloud-based storage [0043]. The cloud-base storage allows for offsite storage and access of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the storage of MacKay et al. to include cloud-based storage capable of accessing test data and calibration, as taught in LI et al., because such a modification increases the versatility of the system taught in MacKay et al. by allocating computing resources, e.g., compute time or storage, to a variety of users; [0043]. Thereby aiding in optimizing resource usage.
With respect to claim 2, MacKay et al. as modified by LI et al. teaches the method of using cloud-based storage for the test data of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube and the calibration data associated with the at least one calibration-standard heat exchanger tube [0035] of MacKay et al., wherein accessing comprises accessing the cloud-based storage (as taught by LI et al.; [0043]).
With respect to claims 3 MacKay et al. as modified teaches where using the test probe with machine-controlled testing (as ODO teaches [0007] control means that controls the robotics, probe and data collection) comprises using robotics (7) to position and operate the tool (20) comprising the test probe (21).
With respect to claim 5, MacKay et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, including the test probe comprises: using the tool (as modified) mounted in an ergonomic fixture (302, as the fixture is considered to be ergonomic, insofar as how “ergonomic” is structurally defined), the ergonomic fixture (302) configured to relieve user fatigue and position the test probe (as the cylindrical shape allows for a more natural and comfortable grip) and the tool (as modified) having a machine-controlled pull-rate for the at least one test probe (via a machine-controlled probe pulling-back means that includes a motor 34, clutch 35, drum 32, etc. seen in Fig. 6 of ODO et al.).
With respect to claim 7, MacKay et al. teaches in Fig. 3 the method wherein producing the test data of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube (101) and determining the structural health assessment of the specific heat exchanger tube (101) are performed prior to delivery or installation of the specific heat exchanger tube (as MacKay teaches testing can occur prior to installation depending on the nature of the object being tested; interpreted as meaning, depending on where the object is, testing can occur prior to delivery if the object is not located at the object’s final site).
With respect to claim 8, MacKay et al. teaches in Fig. 3 the method wherein: using the test probe (102/302), producing the test data of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube (101), is performed in situ where the specific heat exchanger tube is installed in a component (i.e. object) at a first location (i.e. a location of the object at the time of inspection); and determining the structural health assessment of the specific heat exchanger tube (101) is performed by a remote analyst (as the disclosed inspection generates a report; [0007] and handed to a remote analyst, i.e. asset owner; [0028]), wherein the remote analyst (i.e. asset user) is not on site at the location where the specific heat exchanger tube is installed in the component (as the remote analyst, i.e. asset owner is capable of being located anywhere other than the object under test, insofar as how the remote analyst is structurally differentiates the claimed method over the prior art MacKay et al.).
With respect to claim 9, MacKay et al. teaches in Fig. 3 the method further comprising: arranging a plurality of defects (in the calibration data relative to their respective signatures that represent those defects; [0035]) comprising unacceptable wall damage and acceptable surface damage on at least one heat exchanger tube (101) to form the at least one calibration standard heat exchanger tube (as MacKay et al. indirectly teaches the specific unacceptable wall damage and acceptable surface damage standard by disclosing the system’s ability to detect wall thickness, dents, loss of material; [0028]); and with a same or related test probe (102/302) inserted in the at least one calibration standard heat exchanger tube with same or related testing (i.e. reference tube; [0035]), producing the calibration data associated with the at least one calibration standard heat exchanger tube (as reference tubes with similar issues are used to create signatures used to extract calibration parameters used by the system; [0035]).
Claim(s) 10, 14, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay et al. (2023/0314373) in view of ODO et al. (JPH 09-72501).
With respect to claim 15, MacKay et al. teaches in Fig. 3 a system for non-destructive testing of heat exchanger tubing [0026], wherein the system (seen in Fig. 3) is to provide test data (i.e. a subprocess of data actuation; [0034]) and calibration data (as the disclosed subprocess utilizes calibration data; [0034]) used in health assessment of heat exchanger tubes (as the process is used to carry out a health assessment of tubes 101, Fig. 1B, in a non-destructive manner; [0028]), the system comprising: at least one memory (i.e. memory; [0030]); and at least one processor (i.e. processor; [0030]) coupled to the at least one memory (as read in [0030]), and arranged to: receive test data of non-destructive testing (as 206; Fig. 2) of a specific heat exchanger tube (101) produced using a test probe (102/302) inserted in the specific heat exchanger tube (101); store the test data of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube (101) in a data storage (as MacKay et al. teaches storing the test data in a storage module 308); store calibration data (in a calibration model; 306) associated with at least one calibration standard heat exchanger tube (i.e. a reference tube; [0035]) that is more closely related to the specific heat exchanger tube (101) than to a generic tube (insofar as what is structurally recited a defining “a generic tube” and a standard defining their respective similarities), in terms of its structural characteristics (as MacKay et al. teaches “[a] calibration algorithm can then be applied to the captured calibration data to extract calibration parameters therefrom. In order for such algorithms to be applicable, specific signatures in the calibration data need to be identified, such as signatures corresponding to known indications in the reference tube (for example, a signature corresponding to a hole or other reference defect in the reference tube)), wherein the calibration standard heat exchanger tube includes a plurality of known defects (as MacKay et al. teaches the reference tube creating the signatures includes known defects in the tub; [0035]); and support accessing (through save instruction control logic found on the processor) the test data of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube (101 during test; 206) in the data storage (308) and the calibration data from the testing of the at least one calibration standard heat exchanger tube (i.e. reference tube; [0035]), to enable a structural health assessment of the specific heat exchanger tube (101) based on the test data and the calibration data (as 208-212 enable the system to make a structural health assessment of the tub under testing).
MacKay et al. remains silent regarding the test probe is used in conjunction with machine-controlled testing that comprises using robotics to position and operate a tool comprising the test probe.
ODO et al. teaches a similar testing for a heat exchanger having tubes [0001] that includes a test probe (21) is used in conjunction with machine-controlled testing (as ODO teaches [0007] control means that controls the robotics, probe and data collection) that comprises using robotics (7) to position and operate a tool (i.e. a probe insertion nozzle 20) comprising the test probe (21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of MacKay et al. to include the robot and corresponding control means, as taught in ODO et al, because such a modification aids in improving the inspection process through automation, thereby reducing the influence of human error and inaccuracies during testing.
With respect to claim 10, MacKay et al. teaches a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media (Abstract) having instructions thereupon [0012] which, when executed by a processor [0012], cause the processor [0012] to perform the rejected method and its steps during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 15.
With respect to claims 14 and 20, MacKay et al. teaches in Fig. 3 the system wherein a plurality of defects of the at least one calibration standard heat exchanger tube is represented in the calibration data (as MacKay et al. teaches specific signatures in the calibration data corresponding to known indications in the reference tube, for example, a signature corresponding to a hole or other reference defect in the reference tube; [0036]).
With respect to claim 18, MacKay et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 15, but remains silent regarding the system further comprising: a tool comprising at least one test probe and having a machine-controlled pull-rate for the at least one test probe.
ODO et al. teaches a similar testing for a heat exchanger having tubes that includes: a tool (i.e. a probe retracting means; as disclosed by ODO) comprising at least one test probe (i.e. eddy current probe; 21) and having a machine-controlled pull-rate for the at least one test probe (via a machine-controlled probe pulling-back means that includes a motor 34, clutch 35, drum 32, etc. seen in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify probe supporting structure of MacKay et al. to include robotic probe structure seen in Fig. 6, as taught in ODO et al, because such a modification aids in improving the inspection process by automating the inspection, thereby reducing the influence of human error and inaccuracies during testing.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay et al. (2023/0314373) in view of ODO et al. (JPH 09-72501), as applied to claims 1, 10 and 15, further in view of LI et al. (WO 2022/251462A1).
With respect to claim 11, MacKay et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 10 including the method further comprising: using the calibration data associated with the at least one calibration-standard heat exchanger tube [0035], but remains silent regarding using cloud-based storage for the test data of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube and the calibration data, wherein accessing comprises accessing the cloud-based storage.
LI et al. teaches a similar algorithmic health assessment algorithm that utilizes cloud-based storage [0043]. The cloud-base storage allows for offsite storage of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the storage of MacKay et al. to include cloud-based storage capable of accessing test data and calibration, as taught in LI et al., because such a modification increases the versatility of the system taught in MacKay et al. by allocating computing resources, e.g., compute time or storage, to a variety of users; [0043]. Thereby aiding in optimizing resource usage.
With respect to claim 16, MacKay et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 15 but remains silent regarding using cloud-based storage for the test data of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube and the calibration data, wherein accessing comprises accessing the cloud-based storage.
LI et al. teaches a similar algorithmic health assessment algorithm that utilizes cloud-based storage [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the storage of MacKay et al. to include cloud-based storage, as taught in LI et al., because such a modification increases the versatility of the system taught in MacKay et al. by allocating computing resources, e.g., compute time or storage, to a variety of users; [0043]. Thereby aiding in optimizing resource usage.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay et al. (2023/0314373) in view of ODO et al. (JPH 09-72501) and LI et al. (WO 2022/251462A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hernandez et al. (ES 2676036).
With respect to claim 6, MacKay et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the system wherein the test data of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube comprises preliminary test data using a probe of a first probe type, and secondary test data using a probe of a second, more sensitive probe type.
Hernandez et al. teaches a similar system that comprises preliminary test data using a probe of a first probe type (depending on an area or defect), and secondary test data using a probe of a second, more sensitive probe type (depending on an area of defect, a second probe can be used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of MacKay et al. to include first and second probes, selectively used, depending on sensitivity needs based on area and defects, as taught by Hernandez et al. because Hernandez et al. teaches such a modification aids in preventing positioning errors based on inappropriate probe type.
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay et al. (2023/0314373) in view of ODO et al. (JPH 09-72501), as applied to claims 10 and 15, further in view of Hernandez et al. (ES 2676036).
With respect to claims 13 and 19, MacKay et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claims 1, 10 and 15, but remains silent regarding the system wherein the test data of the non-destructive testing of the specific heat exchanger tube comprises preliminary test data using a probe of a first probe type, and secondary test data using a probe of a second, more sensitive probe type.
Hernandez et al. teaches a similar system that comprises preliminary test data using a probe of a first probe type (depending on an area or defect), and secondary test data using a probe of a second, more sensitive probe type (depending on an area of defect, a second probe can be used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of MacKay et al. to include first and second probes, selectively used, depending on sensitivity needs based on area and defects, as taught by Hernandez et al. because Hernandez et al. teaches such a modification aids in preventing positioning errors based on inappropriate probe type.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Petrosky et al. (2011/0125462) which teaches a system used to inspect tubes.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights