DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
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.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP2014106130, hereinafter Yamashita) in view of Cataldo et al. (9,134,280, hereinafter Cataldo). Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses a method and apparatus comprising a calibration block comprising a metal base 102 (See Figs. 1 and 16b) having a first surface opposite a second surface; a manual weld overlay 101 extending from the first surface of the calibration block to a second surface of the calibration block; and a phased array probe 2 configured to transmit and receive pulsed echo signals (See Pg. 2, Para. 5 and Pg. 3, Para. 3). Yamashita fails to disclose a corrosion resistant alloy coupled to the first surface of the calibration block and at least two phased array probes configured to transmit and receive pulsed echo signals.
However, Cataldo discloses a method comprising a corrosion resistant alloy 6 coupled to two pipe sections 2 (See Figs. 1a, 1b) and at least two phased array probes 8a, 8b configured to transmit and receive pulsed echo signals (See Fig. 3) arranged on the pipe sections (See Col. 11, lines 31 – 42 and 66 – 67 and Col. 12, lines 1 – 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yamashita according to the teachings of Cataldo for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device non-destructively tests a weld between two sections of a metal pipe during the laying of a pipeline (See Cataldo, Col. 2, lines 8 – 12). Regarding claim 2, Yamashita fails to disclose that the at least two phased array probes include a first probe and a second probe. However, in Cataldo, the corrosion resistant alloy 6 is coupled to two pipe sections 2 (See Figs. 1a, 1b) and at least two phased array probes 8a, 8b are configured to transmit and receive pulsed echo signals (See Fig. 3) arranged on the pipe sections (See Col. 11, lines 31 – 42 and 66 – 67 and Col. 12, lines 1 – 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yamashita according to the teachings of Cataldo for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device non-destructively tests a weld between two sections of a metal pipe during the laying of a pipeline (See Cataldo, Col. 2, lines 8 – 12). Regarding claim 3, Yamashita fails to disclose that the first probe and the second probe are located on the first surface of the base metal. However, in Cataldo, the corrosion resistant alloy 6 is coupled to two pipe sections 2 (See Figs. 1a, 1b) and at least two phased array probes 8a, 8b are configured to transmit and receive pulsed echo signals (See Fig. 3) and arranged on the surface of the metal pipe sections (See Col. 11, lines 31 – 42 and 66 – 67 and Col. 12, lines 1 – 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yamashita according to the teachings of Cataldo for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device non-destructively tests a weld between two sections of a metal pipe during the laying of a pipeline (See Cataldo, Col. 2, lines 8 – 12).5. Claims 4 – 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita and Cataldo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of St-Laurent et al. (9,759,692, hereinafter St-Laurent). Regarding claim 4, Yamashita and Cataldo fail to disclose that one or more gates are provided that cover a central axis of the manual weld overlay to a far fusion line. However, St-Laurent discloses a method and apparatus comprising gates 120, 122, 712 (See Figs. 1a, 4b) that cover a central axis of a manual weld overlay 104 (See Col. 2, lines 24 – 33 and Col. 6, lines 42 – 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yamashita and Cataldo according to the teachings of St-Laurent for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device positions data interpretation aids with dynamic gating guided by the response signals obtained either during a phased array ultrasonic inspection or post inspection (See St-Laurent, Col. 1, lines 17 - 22). Regarding claim 5, Yamashita and Cataldo fail to disclose that the manual weld overlay comprises a plurality of weld fusion zones located on first and second sides of the manual weld overlay. However, in St-Laurent, the manual weld overlay 104 comprises a plurality of weld fusion zones located on first and second sides of the manual weld overlay (See Figs. 1a, 4a, 4b, See Col. 2, lines 24 -33 and Col. 6, lines 42 – 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yamashita and Cataldo according to the teachings of St-Laurent for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device positions data interpretation aids with dynamic gating guided by the response signals obtained either during a phased array ultrasonic inspection or post inspection (See St-Laurent, Col. 1, lines 17 - 22). Regarding claim 6, Yamashita and Cataldo fail to disclose that each weld fusion zone has a length in a range from 1 mm (millimeters) to 3 mm. However, in Cataldo, the weld fusion zones have a desired length (See Col. 2, lines 12 – 33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yamashita and Cataldo according to the teachings of St-Laurent for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device positions data interpretation aids with dynamic gating guided by the response signals obtained either during a phased array ultrasonic inspection or post inspection (See St-Laurent, Col. 1, lines 17 - 22). Regarding claim 7, Yamashita and Cataldo fail to disclose that each weld fusion zone has a length of 3 mm.
However, in St-Laurent, the weld fusion zones have a desired length (See Col. 2, lines 12 – 33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yamashita and Cataldo according to the teachings of St-Laurent for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device positions data interpretation aids with dynamic gating guided by the response signals obtained either during a phased array ultrasonic inspection or post inspection (See St-Laurent, Col. 1, lines 17 - 22). Regarding claim 10, Yamashita and Cataldo fail to disclose that one or more gates are provided. However, in St-Laurent, gates 120, 122, 712 (See Figs. 1a, 4b) that cover a central axis of a manual weld overlay 104 are provided (See Col. 2, lines 24 – 33 and Col. 6, lines 42 – 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yamashita and Cataldo according to the teachings of St-Laurent for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device positions data interpretation aids with dynamic gating guided by the response signals obtained either during a phased array ultrasonic inspection or post inspection (See St-Laurent, Col. 1, lines 17 - 22).6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita and Cataldo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukutomi et al. (8,051,717, hereinafter Fukutomi).
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita and Cataldo fail to disclose that the base metal comprises carbon steel. However, Fukutomi discloses a method and apparatus comprising a structural support that includes a carbon steel material (See Col. 19, lines 62 – 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yamashita and Cataldo according to the teachings of Fukutomi for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device measures the flaw height in materials that are unsuited to ultrasonic flaw detection (See Fukutomi, Col. 1, lines 7 - 12).7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita and Cataldo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biskup et al. (JP5107492, hereinafter Biskup). Regarding claim 9, Yamashita and Cataldo fail to disclose that the manual weld overlay comprises a 625 grade alloy. However, Biskup discloses a method comprising a weld that includes a 625 metal alloy (See Pg. 6, Para. 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yamashita and Cataldo according to the teachings of Biskup for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device efficiently welds nickel alloys (See Biskup, Pg. 2, Para. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 – 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter: The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not anticipate or make obvious the provisions of “calibrating the at least two phased array probes of the system for non-destructive defect detection to form at least two calibrated phased array probes, wherein calibrating the at least two phased array probes comprises transmitting pulsed echo signals from each of the at least two phased array probes to an opposite side of the manual weld overlay; and
receiving the transmitted pulsed echo signals in each of the at least two phased array
probes” as well as, “providing the manual weld overlay of the calibration block; and
dividing the manual weld overlay into a plurality of zones on a first side of the manual
weld overlay and a plurality of zones on a second side of the manual weld overlay” (referring to claim 12), “the manual weld overlay is provided by the same welding
technique as provided to form a welded sample to be evaluated” (referring to claim 13), “each of the plurality of zones comprises a flat bottom hole in a range from 1 mm to 5 mm” (referring to claim 14), “preparing a welded sample for evaluation by placing a gate on the welded sample to cover a weld center line to a far fusion line, thereby providing a scanning section that includes any potential lack of fusion zones” (referring to claim 15), “installing the at least two phased array probes on the calibration block with inspection angles in a range from 88° to 92°; and
installing at least two calibrated probes on at least two sections of a welded sample” (referring to claim 16), “adjusting a volume of an incident signal from one or more adjacent zones from 6 dB (decibels) to 14 dB” (referring to claim 17), “adjusting a sensitivity for one or more signals received from one or more calibration
reflectors by each of the at least two phased array probes” (referring to claim 18), “adjusting the sensitivity a value in a range from 75 to 99% full screen height” (referring to claim 19) and “scanning a volumetric indication of the sample with a sectoral phased array scan with the at least two probes, wherein areas that are not covered by a pulse channel of the at least two probes are scanned with a creep probe” (referring to claim 20) in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 11.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
11. Poirier et al. (9,110,000) disclose a method and system for determining the position of an ultrasonic wedge and a probe. Akl et al. (2025/0271402) disclose systems and methods for inspection of complex weld geometries. Wang et al. (CN115112766) disclose ultrasonic phased array inspection method of welding seam. Feuilly et al. (11,585,788) disclose a method for automatically inspecting a weld bead deposited in a chamber formed between two metal pieces to be assembled. Jacques et al. (WO2012103628) disclose a method for ultrasonic inspection of welds.12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/20/26