DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2025 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 4, 8-10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Owens et al. hereinafter Owens (US 10119942 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Owens discloses a system (Medium-range Magnetostrictive Ultrasonic Guided Wave Scanner Systems, Title), comprising:
a probe (probe 400), the probe including:
a shoe (probe body 500) configured to be coupled to an object to be tested (pipelines 200, see Figs. 3 and 4, see also col.5 lines 3-20);
at least one retention magnet (biasing magnet 800 and 802, Fig. 8a) supported by a body (500) of the probe (400) and configured to couple the probe to the object (see Fig. 4); and
at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly (ferromagnetic strip 402 and the receiver section of the sensor coils 401 that receives guided waves are interpreted as magnetostrictive sensor) supported by the shoe (500) of the probe (400); and
a pulser/receiver unit (pulser/receiver sensor coil 401) configured to be communicatively coupled to the at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly (the probe 400 generates guided waves via the magnetostrictive effect by which a time-varying strain is induced in the magnetostrictive material by means of generating a time-varying current in the probe coil 401 in the presence of a biasing magnetic field, col. 5 lines 44-48), the pulser/receiver unit configured to cause at least one ultrasonic guided wave into the object via the at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly and to receive a reflection of the at least one ultrasonic guided wave via the at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly (As illustrated in FIG. 5, the shear horizontal-type guided wave energy 504 propagates through the structure 200 away from the probe 400, and reflected wave energy 502 from any structural anomalies 503 is subsequently detected by the coil(s) 401 of probe 400 via the inverse magnetostrictive effect, col. 5 lines 58-63).
With respect to claim 4, Owens discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the shoe (500) includes a mechanical pressure coupling configured to couple the at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly to the surface of the object (a coil tensioner device coupled to the at least one flexible sensor coil and supported by the probe body for adjusting a tension of the at least one flexible sensor coil, col. 10 lines 64-67).
With respect to claim 8, Owens discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a surface of the at least one retention magnet is curved to facilitate coupling of the probe to a curved surface of the object (see Fig. 8a that illustrates curved surface of magnet 800).
With respect to claim 9, Owens discloses a system for non-destructively testing an object (Medium-range Magnetostrictive Ultrasonic Guided Wave Scanner Systems, Title), the system comprising:
a probe (probe 400), including:
a body (pipelines 200, see Figs. 3 and 4) including a shoe (probe body 500);
at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly (ferromagnetic strip 402 and the receiver section of the sensor coils 401 that receives guided waves are interpreted as magnetostrictive sensor) supported by the shoe (500);
at least one coupling device of a first type supported by the body (biasing magnet 800 and 802, Fig. 8a), the at least one coupling device of the first type configured to provide a first force for coupling the probe (400) to the object (see Fig. 4); and
at least one coupling device of a second type (ferromagnetic strip 402) supported by the body (200), the at least one coupling device of the second type configured to provide a second force for coupling the at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly to the object (one ferromagnetic strip 402 is coupled to the structure 200 and defines a path along which probe 400 travels, col. 5 lines 36-38).
With respect to claim 10, Owens discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the at least one coupling device of the first type includes a magnet (800) supported by the body (200) of the probe (400).
With respect to claim 17, Owens discloses the system of claim 9 above. Owens further discloses the at least one coupling device of the first type includes: a first magnet (biasing magnet 800) disposed on a first side of a handle of the body of the probe (400); and a second magnet (802) disposed on a second side of the handle of the body of the probe (see Fig. 8a).
With respect to claim 20, Owens discloses the system of claim 9, further comprising a pulser/receiver unit (pulser/receiver sensor coil 401) configured to be communicatively coupled to the at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly (the probe 400 generates guided waves via the magnetostrictive effect by which a time-varying strain is induced in the magnetostrictive material by means of generating a time-varying current in the probe coil 401 in the presence of a biasing magnetic field, col. 5 lines 44-48), the pulser/receiver unit configured to cause at least one ultrasonic guided wave into the test object via the at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly and to receive a reflection of the at least one ultrasonic guided wave via the at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly (As illustrated in FIG. 5, the shear horizontal-type guided wave energy 504 propagates through the structure 200 away from the probe 400, and reflected wave energy 502 from any structural anomalies 503 is subsequently detected by the coil(s) 401 of probe 400 via the inverse magnetostrictive effect, col. 5 lines 58-63).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Motzer et al. hereinafter Motzer (US 20140005840 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Owens discloses the system of claim 1 above. Owens discloses the use biasing magnet 800 and 802, but silent about the magnet includes a permanent-switchable type magnet.
Motzer invention related to methods and apparatus for inspecting a soft-tooled hollow structure discloses about the magnet includes a permanent-switchable type magnet (switch 310 controls the magnet, para, [0129]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Owens to include the permanent-switchable magnet taught by Motzer in order to allow selective activation and deactivation of the magnetic field, facilitating easier attachment and removal and reducing power consumption. Substituting Motzer’s switch-controlled permanent magnet for Owens’ biasing magnet is a predictable substitution of known elements performing the same function and would have yielded predictable results.
With respect to claim 3, Owens and Motzer disclose the system of claim 2 above. Motzer further discloses the probe includes at least one switch knob coupled to the at least one retention magnet for selectively engaging the at least one retention magnet (see Fig. 18A and para. [0137]).
Accordingly, providing a switch knob coupled to the retention magnet for selectively engaging the magnet, as taught by Motzer, would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since the particular actuator used to engage or disengage a switchable magnet is a known equivalent structure and performs the predictable function of actuating the magnet without changing the principle of operation of the device.
With respect to claim 5, Owens discloses the system of claim 4 above. Owens further discloses the magnetic pressure coupling includes a chamber defined by the shoe (one ferromagnetic strip 402 is coupled to the structure 200 and defines a path along which probe 400 travels, col. 5 lines 36-38 and Figs. 4 and 5). However, Owens is silent about the chamber is pneumatically pressurized.
Motzer further discloses the chamber is pneumatically pressurized (the respective housings receive pressurized air from an air supply 276 (see FIG. 18B) via a respective air line, para. [0121]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Owens to include pneumatic pressurization of the chamber as taught by Motzer in order to provide controlled pressure and improve probe coupling and movement, since applying pressurized air to a chamber is a known technique for generating controllable pressure and would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens and Motzer as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Danna et al. hereinafter Danna (US 6578429 B1).
With respect to claim 6, Owens and Motzer disclose the system of claim 5 above. Owens modified by Motzer is silent about an elastomeric pressure diaphragm is at least partially disposed within the chamber defined by the shoe.
Danna further discloses an elastomeric pressure diaphragm is at least partially disposed within the chamber defined by the shoe (see flexible diaphragm 244 within chamber 220, Fig. 9, col. 11 lines 29-52).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include the elastomeric pressure diaphragm of Danna within the pneumatically pressurized chamber of Owens as modified by Motzer in order to provide sealing and controlled pressure distribution, since elastomeric diaphragms are commonly used in pressurized chambers for pressure transfer and sealing and would have yielded predictable result.
With respect to claim 7, Owens, Motzer, and Danna disclose the system of claim 6 above. Danna further discloses the probe includes at least one pressure relief valve configured to prevent pressurization of the chamber (a change in the pressure of incoming fluid enters the bottom opening 226 of the housing 212, col. 12 lines 37-40). Danna is silent about a relief valve being used to control over pressurization. However, it would have been obvious to include a pressure relief valve to prevent over pressurization of the chamber because pressure relief valves are commonly used in pressurized fluid systems to regulate pressure and prevent damage to system components, and their use would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 11-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Danna.
With respect to claim 11, Owens discloses the system of claim 10 above. Owens further discloses the magnetic pressure coupling includes a chamber defined by the shoe (one ferromagnetic strip 402 is coupled to the structure 200 and defines a path along which probe 400 travels, col. 5 lines 36-38 and Figs. 4 and 5). However, Owens is silent about the at least one coupling device of the second type includes an elastomeric pressure diaphragm that is at least partially disposed within a chamber defined by the shoe.
Danna further discloses the at least one coupling device of the second type includes an elastomeric pressure diaphragm that is at least partially disposed within a chamber defined by the shoe (see flexible diaphragm 244 within chamber 220, Fig. 9, col. 11 lines 29-52).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include the elastomeric pressure diaphragm of Danna within the pneumatically pressurized chamber of Owens in order to provide sealing and controlled pressure distribution, since elastomeric diaphragms are commonly used in pressurized chambers for pressure transfer and sealing and would have yielded predictable result.
With respect to claim 12, Owens and Danna disclose the system of claim 11 above.
Danna further discloses the probe includes at least one pressure relief valve configured to prevent pressurization of the chamber (a change in the pressure of incoming fluid enters the bottom opening 226 of the housing 212, col. 12 lines 37-40). Danna is silent about a relief valve being used to control over pressurization. However, it would have been obvious to include a pressure relief valve to prevent over pressurization of the chamber because pressure relief valves are commonly used in pressurized fluid systems to regulate pressure and prevent damage to system components, and their use would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens and Motzer as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Danna.
With respect to claim 19, Owens discloses the system of claim 9 above. Owens is silent about an elastomeric pressure diaphragm is at least partially disposed within the chamber defined by the shoe.
Danna further discloses an elastomeric pressure diaphragm is at least partially disposed within the chamber defined by the shoe (see flexible diaphragm 244 within chamber 220, Fig. 9, col. 11 lines 29-52).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include the elastomeric pressure diaphragm of Danna within the pneumatically pressurized chamber of Owens in order to provide sealing and controlled pressure distribution, since elastomeric diaphragms are commonly used in pressurized chambers for pressure transfer and sealing and would have yielded predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The references separately or in combination fails to disclose the elastomeric pressure diaphragm is disposed within the chamber defined by the shoe and at least partially sealed with a coupling layer, and the at least one magnetostrictive sensor assembly is disposed between the elastomeric pressure diaphragm and the coupling layer.
Claims 14-16 and 18 are also objected as these claims depend on objected claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210310990 A1 discloses sensor includes a flexible cable arranged to provide a plurality of independent electrical coils and a connector. Each of the plurality of independent electrical coils extend from a first end to a second end and is configured to be wrapped at least partially around a surface of a structure to be tested. The connector is electrically coupled to the first end of at least one of the plurality of independent electrical coils. The plurality of independent electrical coils is configured such that current will flow in a common direction between the first ends and the second ends within each said independent coil.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEDEON M KIDANU whose telephone number is (571)270-0591. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/GEDEON M KIDANU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/31/26
Prosecution Insights