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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-26 are presently pending where new claims 24-26 (e.g. on pages 2-3) were added in the preliminary amendment filed 6/3/25. At the same time, it appears claims are inadvertently omitted in the claim sheets (7 pages) submitted on 6/3/25 since there are 25 claims listed. Hence, the examiner is going to examine claims 1-26 (e.g. claims 1-23 of the 7 claim sheets filed on 6/3/25 and claims 24-26 on pages 2-3 of the amendment filed 6/3/25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/3/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Furthermore, a list of the publications needs to be provided on the PTO-1449 form under “Non-Patent Literature Documents” and not under “Foreign Patent Documents”. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In Figure 6, the block elements should be labeled with its description within its block element.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-26 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 5, line 4, the phrase “a sliding seal” should be changed to -- the sliding seal --.
In claim 9, lines 2-3, the phrase “the upper and lower contiguous LVDT moveable brackets” should be changed to -- the upper and lower LVDT moveable brackets -- to provide proper antecedent basis. In line 4, the phrase -- moveable brackets -- should be inserted after the word “LVDT” to provide proper antecedent basis.
In claim 10, line 1, the word -- the -- before the phrase “direct measurement”.
In claim 18, line 1, the phrase -- means for -- should be inserted before the word “continuous” to provide proper antecedent basis.
In claim 19, line 3, the phrase “a load” should be changed to -- the load --.
In claim 21, line 1, the phrase “the control of K” should be changed to -- the means for controlling of K -- to provide proper antecedent basis. In line 6, the word “da/dN” should be changed to -- dA/dN -- to provide consistency.
In claim 24, line 6, the phrase “a test specimen” should be changed to -- the test specimen --.
In claim 25, line 3, the phrase “DCPD module” should provide what DCPD stands for.
In claim 26, line 3, it appears the phrase -- to the -- should be inserted before the word “specimen”. In line 5, the word “da/dN” should be changed to -- dA/dN -- to provide consistency.
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 2-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 2, line 2, it is unclear if this “an autoclave” the same “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 1. Please clarify.
In claim 3, line 1, it is unclear if this “a specimen” the same as the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1. Please clarify. In line 2, the phrase “the autoclave wall” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 5, line 2, it is unclear if this “a specimen” the same as the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1 or the “a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. Please clarify.
In claim 8, line 2, the phrase “the autoclave” is vague. Is this referring to the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 1 or the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 2. Please clarify.
In claim 9, line 2, it is unclear if this “a specimen” the same as the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1 or the “a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. Please clarify.
In claim 12, line 1, it is unclear if this “a specimen” the same as the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1 or the “a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. Please clarify.
In claim 13, line 2, the phrase “an autoclave” is vague. Is this referring to the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 1 or the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 2. Please clarify.
In line 14, line 3, the phrase “an autoclave” is vague. Is this referring to the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 1 or the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 2. Please clarify. Furthermore, a period needs to be inserted at the end of the claim.
In claim 15, line 2, the phrase “the specimen” is vague. Is this referring to the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1 or the “a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. Please clarify. In line 3, the phrase “the specimen” is vague. Is this referring to the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1 or the “a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. Please clarify.
In claim 16, line 2, it is unclear if this “a pre-cracked specimen” the same as the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1 or the “a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. Please clarify.
In claim 17, line 2, the phrase “an autoclave” is vague. Is this referring to the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 1 or the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 2.
In claim 19, line 3, it is unclear if this “a pre-cracked specimen” the same as the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1 or the “a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. Please clarify.
In claim 20, line 3, the phrase “an autoclave” is vague. Is this referring to the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 1 or the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 2. Please clarify.
In claim 22, line 2, it is unclear if this “a pre-cracked specimen” the same as the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1 or the “a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. Please clarify. In line 2, the phrase “an autoclave” is vague. Is this referring to the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 1 or the “an autoclave” in line 2 of claim 2? Please clarify.
In claim 23, line 2, it is unclear if this “a specimen” the same as the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1 or the “a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. Please clarify. In line 5, it is unclear if this “a specimen” the same as the “a metallic pre-crack specimen” in line 1 of claim 1 or the “a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. Please clarify.
In claim 24, lines 12-13, it is unclear if this “the specimen” the same as the “a metallic specimen” in line 1 of the claim or the “a pre-crack test specimen” in line 3 of the claim. Please clarify. In line 14, it is unclear if this “the specimen” the same as the “a metallic specimen” in line 1 of the claim or the “a pre-crack test specimen” in line 3 of the claim. Please clarify.
In claim 25, line 4, it is unclear if this “the specimen” the same as the “a metallic specimen” in line 1 of the claim or the “a pre-crack test specimen” in line 3 of the claim. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,883,311 (Hettiarachchi et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Hettiarachchi et al. discloses a system for detection of crack comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-5, a system 10 (e.g. stress corrosion cracking test apparatus; column 4, lines 23-26; Figure 2) for a tensile test of a metallic pre-crack specimen 34 (e.g. metal sample – wire specimen, reactor) in an autoclave 14 (e.g. autoclave) comprising a means for application of a load of high temperature, high pressure and an adverse environment (e.g. column 1, lines 19-28; column 3, lines 5-12; column 5, lines 19-35; column 8, lines 17-23) and a means for a direct measurement of a metallic pre-crack specimen strain and extension responsive to the load (e.g. electrometer 50 generate strain signal - column 5, lines 3-8; extension rate – column 5, line 55 to column 6, line 13). (See, column 3, line 54 to column 9, line 13).
With regards to claim 2, Hettiarachchi et al. further discloses a load frame 26,28 (e.g. head portion and main body portion) in fluid (e.g. inlet water tube extends from an external pool of water) communication with an autoclave for production of high temperature, high pressure and hostile environment therein. (See, column 4, lines 59-62).
With regards to claim 3, Hettiarachchi et al. further discloses a specimen 34 (e.g. metal sample – wire specimen, reactor) is loaded through a pull-rod 24 (e.g. pull rod) that penetrates the autoclave wall and moves through a sliding seal 38 (e.g. sleeve engages with pull rod). (See, column 4, line 21 to column 5, line 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,883,311 (Hettiarachchi et al.) in view of U.S. Patent 11,573,168 (Rihan).
With regards to claim 4, Hettiarachchi et al. does not disclose a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen is pinned between two specimen grips mounted on the pull-rod.
‘168 Rihan discloses a stress corrosion cracking testing device comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-6, a system 100 (e.g. stress corrosion cracking test device; column 2, lines 33-34); an autoclave 102 (e.g. autoclave; column 2, line 35); a pre-crack CT specimen (e.g. compact tensile CT or center cracked plate CCP; column 1, lines 47-57) is pinned between two specimen grips 328,314 (e.g. loading shackles; column 3, lines 12-35) mounted on the pull-rod 318,302 (e.g. loading arm; column 3, lines 4-18). (See, column 2, line 33 to column 6, line 15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing a pre-crack CT (compact tension) specimen is pinned between two specimen grips mounted on the pull-rod as suggested by ‘168 Rihan to the system of Hettiarachchi et al. to have the ability to install, hold and secure the CT specimen within the autoclave for testing. (See, column 3, lines 1-35 of ‘168 Rihan)
With regards to claims 5 to 9, ‘168 Rihan further discloses LVDT (e.g. column 3, lines 36-50); however, the reference does not specify such structural arrangements as in these claims. To have set such structural configuration characteristics for the LVDT as in the claims are considered to have been a matter of design and choice possibilities to the manufacturer that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention and without altering and/changing the operation and/or performance of the system, namely to provide an electrical signal for reporting the position of the loading disc.
With regards to claim 10, Hettiarachchi et al. further discloses direct measurement of a specimen extension enables precision of a plurality of cyclic loading wave forms and accurate calculation of crack growth rates (e.g. rupture rates; column 5, line 45 to 6, line 26).
With regards to claim 11, ‘168 Rihan further discloses the metallic specimen includes a pre-existing crack prior to a tensile test (e.g. center cracked plate CCP; column 1, lines 47-57; column 5, line 55 to column 6, line 8).
With regards to claim 12, ‘168 Rihan further discloses a specimen is round, flat, a compact tension, or a single edge notched tension specimen (e.g. notched or compact tension; column 1, lines 47-55).
With regards to claim 13, Hettiarachchi et al. further discloses an adverse environment within an autoclave is a gas mixture selected from a group comprising nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, steam, H2S, CO2, or CH4 or a combination thereof. (See, steam from pool of water or from a gas pressure source; column 4, lines 59-62; column 8, lines 39-41).
With regards to claim 14, Hettiarachchi et al. does not specify such parameter, an adverse environment further comprises a condition of combined elevated temperature and elevated pressure, provided in an autoclave, at temperatures up to 600C and pressures up to 41MPa (6000psi), as in the claim. However, to have set such test characteristics as in the claim is considered to have been a matter of choice possibilities and known concept (e.g. as evidence by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0357253 issued to Dziekonski in paragraphs [0014] and [0017] with a temperature up to 450F and pressure up to 35,000psi) that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention.
With regards to claim 15, Hettiarachchi et al. further discloses an electrical isolation 110 (e.g. ceramic buttons used to isolate the specimen; column 6, lines 40-55) of the specimen for prevention of galvanic reactions between the specimen and the grips.
With regards to claim 16, ‘168 Rihan further discloses a pair of specimen grips 328,314 (e.g. loading shackles; column 3, lines 12-35) wherein a pre-cracked specimen (e.g. compact tensile CT or center cracked plate CCP; column 1, lines 47-57) is pinned between the pair of specimen grips prior to testing.
With regards to claim 17, Hettiarachchi et al. further discloses means for continuous measures of stress-strain inside an autoclave. (See, column 5, line 55 to column 8, line 13).
With regards to claim 18, Hettiarachchi et al. further discloses the continuous measures of a stress-strain are output to a direct current drop module 50 (e.g. electrometer) and to a computer 52 (e.g. computer). (See, column 6, lines 14-26).
With regards to claims 19 to 21, Hettiarachchi et al. does not disclose such parameters for the scaling stress intensity K, as in these claims. However, to have set such test characteristics as in the claims for the scaling stress intensity K as in the claims are considered to have been a matter of design and choice possibilities to the manufacturer and known concept (e.g. as evidence by U.S. Patent 9,541,485 issued to ‘485 Rihan in column 1, lines 38-44 and column 6, lines 7-17 to determine stress intensity K) that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention and without altering and/changing the operation and/or performance of the system, namely to utilize the stress intensity K to manipulate and control the performance of the specimen in the autoclave.
With regards to claim 22, Hettiarachchi et al. further discloses a means to measure crack growth rate of a pre-cracked specimen in an autoclave (e.g. rupture rates; column 5, line 45 to 6, line 26).
With regards to claim 23, Hettiarachchi et al. further discloses the means to measure crack growth rate comprising electrical current passed through a specimen exposed to high temperature and pressure and a gaseous adverse environment with consequent crack growth, increase of specimen resistance, wherein a potential drop across a specimen is measured (e.g. rupture rates; column 5, line 45 to 6, line 26).
With regards to claims 24-26, the claims are directed to method claims and are commensurate in scope with the above apparatus claims 1,4-5,13,19-21,23 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Mitsu, Skala, Manahan, Wang, Wada and Liu, are directed to system for testing material specimen for crack growth in an autoclave.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 EST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855