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 Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 1, 12, 13 and 20 have been amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues (pg. 8-10) the operation sequence as being directed to a practical application. The processing sequence is emphasized to show that it is integrated into a practical application of characterizing seamless pipes. However, according to MPEP 20106.04(a)(2), the claim is directed to abstract idea groupings, specifically the groupings of mathematical concepts. The application of Fourier transforms, and identification of amplitude peaks are/use mathematical concepts. Additionally, the modeling step further contributes to mathematical calculations and the comparison step falls under the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. Applicant further argues the ultrasound measurement is not a mere data gathering step. However, according to MPEP 2106.05(g), it is still viewed as a mere gathering step. According to MPEP 2106.05(a) the use of a processor to perform the mathematical calculations, modeling and make comparisons is not sufficient; the claim lacks sufficient details from the specifications to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, however, the claim only recites instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery and it is simply linking the abstract idea to the field of the wall thickness of a seamless pipe according to MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment. Thus, applicant’s argument’s regarding the claim reciting significantly more than the abstract idea is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method of characterizing at least one rotational and at least one linear eccentricity modes of a wall thickness of a seamless pipe induced during a manufacturing process of the seamless pipe, the method comprises steps of:
a) measuring a wall thickness profile along a length and around a radius of the seamless pipe using an ultrasound-based measurement tool and receiving, by one or more processors, the wall thickness profile;
b) applying, by the one or more processors, a Fourier transform to the wall thickness profile to obtain a frequency spectrum;
c) identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more amplitude peaks in the frequency spectrum;
d) associating, by the one or more processors, each amplitude peak to a corresponding one of the at least one rotational eccentricity modes;
e) filtering, by the one or more processors, the one or more amplitude peaks out of the frequency spectrum;
f) applying, by the one or more processors, an inverse Fourier transform to the frequency spectrum to obtain a filtered wall thickness profile;
g)modeling, by the one or more processors, the filtered wall thickness profile into a radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes; and
h) comparing, by the one or more processors, the radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes to an expected radial profile of the seamless pipe.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of applying a Fourier transform to the wall thickness profile to obtain a frequency spectrum. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, applying a Fourier transform can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of identifying one or more amplitude peaks in the frequency spectrum. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, identifying one or more amplitude peaks in the frequency spectrum can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of associating each amplitude peak to a corresponding one of the at least one rotational eccentricity modes. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, associating each amplitude peak to a corresponding one of the at least one rotational eccentricity modes can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of filtering the one or more amplitude peaks out of the frequency spectrum. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, filtering the one or more amplitude peaks out of the frequency spectrum can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of applying an inverse Fourier transform to the frequency spectrum to obtain a filtered wall thickness profile. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, applying an inverse Fourier transform to the frequency spectrum to obtain a filtered wall thickness profile can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of modeling the filtered wall thickness profile into a radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, modeling the filtered wall thickness profile into a radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of comparing, the radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes to an expected radial profile of the seamless pipe. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, modeling the filtered wall thickness profile into a radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: one or more processors
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: measuring a wall thickness profile along a length and around a radius of the seamless pipe using an ultrasound-based measurement tool and receiving, the wall thickness profile;
The additional elements are similar to activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity that fall under the category of mere data gathering:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The following references disclose the conventionality of the limitation “measuring a wall thickness profile along a length and around a radius of the seamless pipe using an ultrasound-based measurement tool and receiving, the wall thickness profile”
US 20140208852 A1; MEASURING WALL THICKNESS LOSS FOR A STRUCTURE; Instanes; Geir et al. teaches measuring a wall thickness profile along a length and around a radius of the seamless pipe using an ultrasound-based measurement tool (par.49-66) and receiving, the wall thickness profile (par.95-96)
US 6666094 B1; Method and device for contactless online measuring of the wall thickness of hot-rolled pipes; Sauerland; Martin teaches measuring a wall thickness profile along a length and around a radius of the seamless pipe using an ultrasound-based measurement tool and receiving, the wall thickness profile (col.3 ln 4-33)
US 10935361 B2; Method for the hot measuring, during rolling, of a size of metal profiles; Ardesi; Alessandro et al. teaches measuring a wall thickness profile along a length and around a radius of the seamless pipe using an ultrasound-based measurement tool and receiving, the wall thickness profile (col.1 ln 62 – col.2 ln 1-5)
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of distinguishing different eccentricity modes and associated source. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the ultrasound-based measurement tool comprises a hollow passageway and one or more laser ultrasonic-based measuring probe projecting therein.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the measuring a wall thickness profile along a length and around a radius of the seamless pipe comprises, concurrently:- translating the seamless pipe through the hollow passageway;- rotating the one or more measuring probes around the seamless pipe or rotating the seamless pipe; and - probes around the seamless pipe or rotating the seamless pipe.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the at least one rotational eccentricity modes comprises an eccentricity mode stemming from a rotation of a piercing mandrel during a piercing step of the manufacturing process of the seamless pipe.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… comprising associating the eccentricity mode stemming from a rotation of a piercing mandrel with one or more amplitude peaks of the frequency spectrum at higher frequencies.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the at least one rotational eccentricity modes comprises an eccentricity mode stemming from a rotation of a rotary hearth heating furnace during a heating step of the manufacturing process of the seamless pipe.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… comprising associating the eccentricity mode stemming from a rotation of a rotary hearth heating furnace with one or more amplitude peaks of the frequency spectrum at lower frequencies.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising characterizing the rotational eccentricity modes associated with amplitude peaks in the frequency spectrum.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 8, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein characterizing the rotational eccentricity modes comprises:- applying a low-pass filter on the frequency spectrum selected to isolate said amplitude peaks, thereby obtaining a low frequency filtered frequency spectrum; - applying an inverse Fourier transform to the low frequency filtered frequency spectrum, thereby obtaining a low frequency filtered wall thickness profile; and - analyzing sub-profiles of the low frequency filtered wall thickness profile associated with the rotational eccentricity modes.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein filtering the one or more amplitude peaks out of the frequency spectrum comprises applying a high-pass filter to the frequency spectrum.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein modeling the filtered wall thickness profile includes comprises mapping an internal diameter position of the seamless pipe with respect to the outer diameter position.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the expected radial profile of the seamless pipe is a perfect circle.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites a system for characterizing at least one rotational and at least one linear eccentricity modes of a wall thickness of a seamless pipe induced during a manufacturing process of the seamless pipe, the system comprising: - an ultrasound-based measurement tool to measure a wall thickness profile along and around a length of the seamless pipe; and - a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions for:- receiving the wall thickness profile from the ultrasound-based measurement tool;- applying a Fourier transform to the wall thickness profile to obtain a frequency spectrum; identifying one or more amplitude peaks in the frequency spectrum;- associating each amplitude peak to a corresponding one of the at least one rotational eccentricity modes;- filtering the one or more amplitude peaks out of the frequency spectrum;- applying an inverse Fourier transform to the frequency spectrum to obtain a filtered wall thickness profile; modeling the filtered wall thickness profile into a radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes; and- comparing the radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes to an expected radial profile of the seamless pipe.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of applying a Fourier transform to the wall thickness profile to obtain a frequency spectrum. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, applying a Fourier transform can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of identifying one or more amplitude peaks in the frequency spectrum. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, identifying one or more amplitude peaks in the frequency spectrum can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of associating each amplitude peak to a corresponding one of the at least one rotational eccentricity modes. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, associating each amplitude peak to a corresponding one of the at least one rotational eccentricity modes can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of filtering the one or more amplitude peaks out of the frequency spectrum. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, filtering the one or more amplitude peaks out of the frequency spectrum can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of applying an inverse Fourier transform to the frequency spectrum to obtain a filtered wall thickness profile. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, applying an inverse Fourier transform to the frequency spectrum to obtain a filtered wall thickness profile can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of modeling the filtered wall thickness profile into a radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, modeling the filtered wall thickness profile into a radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of comparing, the radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes to an expected radial profile of the seamless pipe. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, modeling the filtered wall thickness profile into a radial profile of the seamless pipe representative of the at least one linear eccentricity modes can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: an ultrasound-based measurement tool to measure a wall thickness profile along and around a length of the seamless pipe, receiving the wall thickness profile from the ultrasound-based measurement tool
The additional elements are similar to activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity that fall under the category of mere data gathering:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The following references disclose the conventionality of the limitation “an ultrasound-based measurement tool to measure a wall thickness profile along and around a length of the seamless pipe, receiving the wall thickness profile from the ultrasound-based measurement tool”
US 20140208852 A1; MEASURING WALL THICKNESS LOSS FOR A STRUCTURE; Instanes; Geir et al. teaches an ultrasound-based measurement tool to measure a wall thickness profile along and around a length of the seamless pipe, receiving the wall thickness profile from the ultrasound-based measurement tool(par.49-66) and receiving the wall thickness profile from the ultrasound-based measurement tool (par.95-96)
US 6666094 B1; Method and device for contactless online measuring of the wall thickness of hot-rolled pipes; Sauerland; Martin teaches an ultrasound-based measurement tool to measure a wall thickness profile along and around a length of the seamless pipe, receiving the wall thickness profile from the ultrasound-based measurement tool (col.3 ln 4-33)
US 10935361 B2; Method for the hot measuring, during rolling, of a size of metal profiles; Ardesi; Alessandro et al. teaches an ultrasound-based measurement tool to measure a wall thickness profile along and around a length of the seamless pipe, receiving the wall thickness profile from the ultrasound-based measurement tool (col.1 ln 62 – col.2 ln 1-5)
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of distinguishing different eccentricity modes and associated source. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the ultrasound-based measurement tool comprises a hollow passageway and one or more measuring probe projecting therein.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the one or more measuring probes are laser ultrasonic-based.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 14, which depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the ultrasound-based measuring tool further comprises a rotational displacement system having the one or more measuring probes mounted thereon such that the one or more measuring probes can perform at least a complete revolution around the hollow passageway.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the at least one rotational eccentricity modes comprises an eccentricity mode stemming from a rotation of a piercing mandrel during a piercing step of the manufacturing process of the seamless pipe.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 18 depends on claim 14, which depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the at least one rotational eccentricity modes comprises an eccentricity mode stemming from a rotation of a rotary hearth heating furnace during a heating step of the manufacturing process of the seamless pipe.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 19 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the non-transitory computer- readable medium further stores thereon processor-executable instructions for characterizing the rotational eccentricity modes associated with amplitude peaks in the frequency spectrum.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 20 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the expected radial profile of the seamless pipe is a perfect circle.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 5581037 A; Kwun; Hegeon et al. is Nondestructive evaluation of pipes and tubes using magnetostrictive sensors.
US 20140278193 A1; Breon; Luke et al. is a system and method for focusing guided waves beyond curves in test structures.
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 CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights