DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Claim 1, the Examiner is not relying upon Wang (CN 104325294 A) to teach the “providing a second length of stock pipe…” and “cutting the stock pipe…” limitations. Instead, the Examiner is relying upon Industrial Solutions & Innovation ("Automated 3D pipe cutting & welding/Watts Mueller brochure 2018"; 2018; Watts Mueller; herein ISI) to teach those limitations.
Regarding Claims 13 and 24, the Examiner is no longer relying upon Shiyouichiro (JP 2007309690) to teach the laser limitation. Instead, the Examiner is relying upon Cruickshank (US 4,800,104) to teach the laser limitation.
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 1-2, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 104325294 A, Pub. Date February 4, 2015, herein Wang) in view of Industrial Solutions & Innovation ("Automated 3D pipe cutting & welding/Watts Mueller brochure 2018"; 2018; Watts Mueller; herein ISI).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches:
A method of testing of a component of a system that includes a pipe of a first length (The automobile airbag steel tube production line performs flaw detection - "method of testing" - of steel tubes of equal length - "component of a system that includes a pipe of a first length" [0006-0008].), the method comprising the steps of:
inspecting the cut pipe using a non-destructive inspection technique, the non-destructive inspection technique including the steps of:
performing a first non-destructive test on an inner surface of the cut pipe (Low-frequency eddy current detection device 66 performs flaw detection - "performing a first non-destructive test" - on the inner wall - "inner surface" - of the steel tube - "cut pipe" [0006],[0018],[0048].; see Fig 1 & 9-10);
performing a second non-destructive test on an outer surface of the cut pipe (High-frequency eddy current detection device 67 performs flaw detection - "performing a second non-destructive test" - on the surface - "outer surface" - of the steel tube - "cut pipe" [0006],[0018],[0048].; see Fig 1 & 9-10); and
rejecting the cut pipe if the step of inspecting the pipe identifies a flaw (If the low-frequency device 66 identifies a flaw, then the steel tube is sprayed by first paint spraying device 68, and if the high-frequency device 67 identifies a flaw, then the steel tube is sprayed by second pain spraying device 69 [0048]. Then the staff can identify the steel tube with flaw detection problems - "if the step of inspecting the pipe identifies a flaw" - at a glance and classify it as an unqualified steel tube - "rejecting the cut pipe" [0045-0048].; see Fig 1 & 9-10).
Wang does not teach:
providing a second length of stock pipe, the second length being greater than the first length;
cutting the stock pipe to the first length to produce a cut pipe;
However, ISI teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang in view of ISI by cutting the stock pipe into the cut pipe using the machines and methods of ISI, and then inspecting the cut pipe using the method of Wang.
providing a second length of stock pipe, the second length being greater than the first length; cutting the stock pipe to the first length to produce a cut pipe (The pipe cutting machines shown throughout the document cut longer pipes - "stock pipe"- into shorter pipes - "cut pipe" [pp.10-15]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang in view of ISI by having providing a second length of stock pipe, the second length being greater than the first length; cutting the stock pipe to the first length to produce a cut pipe because it is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of extruding one large pipe creates a continuous high-speed flow of material, while reducing setup costs and time, lowering material and labor costs and maintaining quality control.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang teaches:
the first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test are both eddy current tests or laser visual tests (Both the low and high frequency eddy current detection devices 66 & 67, respectively, are eddy current testers that perform eddy current tests [0048].; see Fig 1 & 8-9).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang teaches:
the step of providing a second length of stock pipe comprises the steps of:
drawing the stock pipe through a die to reduce an outer diameter of the stock pipe (Pickling device 3 takes the steel pipe that has been cut - "second length of stock pipe" - to remove oxide scale on the surface - "reduce an outer diameter of the stock pipe" [0045].; see Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang teaches:
the stock pipe is formed of a ferromagnetic material (The steel tube is made of steel [0006]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang teaches:
the system being manufactured is a vehicle airbag inflator (The steel tube or pipe is used for automobile safety airbags [0002].).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of ISI and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 106645394 A, Pub. Date May 10, 2017, herein Zhang).
Wang and ISI do not teach the limitations.
However, Zhang teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang and ISI in view of Zhang by using the method of [0031] of Zhang of rotating the cut pipe for both the low and high frequency eddy current detection devices 66 & 67 of Figures 8 & 9 of Wang.
the step of rotating the cut pipe such that the first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test are performed on an entire inner surface and an entire outer surface of the cut pipe (The pipe is rotated so that the entire diameter is tested [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang and ISI in view of Zhang by having the step of rotating the cut pipe such that the first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test are performed on an entire inner surface and an entire outer surface of the cut pipe because it can accurately perform eddy current testing of the tube as taught by Zhang [0035].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of ISI and further in view of Weischedel (US 6,265,870 B1, Pub Jul 24, 2001).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang and ISI do not teach the limitations.
However, Weischedel teaches:
Weischedel teaches a MFL sensor 57 in Figure 3A that tests a pipe P before eddy current sensors 72. The Examiner is combining Wang in view of Weischedel by arranging inspection device 52 of Weischedel along conveyor 63 of Figure 9 Wang at a point before eddy current sensors 66 and 67.
further comprising the step of: performing a magnetic flux leakage test (Magnetic flux leakage sensor 57 performs a MFL test [5:45-62].; see Fig 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang and ISI in view of Weischedel by having the step of rotating the cut pipe such that the first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test are performed on an entire inner surface and an entire outer surface of the cut pipe because it is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of allowing for the magnetic flux leakage sensing to find outer diameter and inner diameter longitudinal and transverse flaws, while the eddy current system is useful for comparison of metallurgical mass and permeability differences.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang and ISI do not teach the limitations.
However, Weischedel teaches:
Weischedel teaches a MFL sensor 57 in Figure 3A that tests a pipe P before eddy current sensors 72. The Examiner is combining Wang in view of Weischedel by arranging inspection device 52 of Weischedel along conveyor 63 of Figure 9 Wang at a point before eddy current sensors 66 and 67.
the magnetic flux leakage test is performed before the first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test (MFL sensor 57 inspects a section of pipe P [5:45-62] before the eddy current sensors 66 & 67 of Wang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang and ISI in view of Weischedel by having the magnetic flux leakage test is performed before the first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test because it is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of allowing for the magnetic flux leakage sensing to find outer diameter and inner diameter longitudinal and transverse flaws, while the eddy current system is useful for comparison of metallurgical mass and permeability differences.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of ISI and further in view of Weischedel and further in view of Matsutani et al. (JP S61264251 A, Pub. Date November 22, 1996, herein Matsutani).
Wang teaches:
the first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test are both an eddy current test (Both the low and high frequency eddy current detection devices 66 & 67, respectively, are eddy current testers that perform eddy current tests [0048].; see Fig 1 & 8-9)
Wang, ISI and Weischedel do not teach:
the method further comprising the step of:
demagnetising the cut pipe between:
the magnetic flux leakage test; and
the first and second non-destructive tests.
However, Matsutani teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang, ISI and Weischedel in the same way as in Claim 5.
The Examiner is combining Wang, ISI and Weischedel in view of Matsutani by placing degausser/demagnetization machine 4 immediately before eddy current detectors 66 & 67 of Figure 9 of Wang.
the method further comprising the step of:
demagnetising the cut pipe (Before flaw detection part/eddy current flaw inspector 3 inspects a material, it degausses the material using degausser/demagnetization machine 4 [p.1].; see Fig 1) between:
the magnetic flux leakage test (see explanation above); and
the first and second non-destructive tests (see explanation above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, ISI and Weischedel in view of Matsutani by having the method further comprising the step of: demagnetising the cut pipe between: the magnetic flux leakage test; and the first and second non-destructive tests because demagnetizing the specimen removes the possibility of judgement mistakes caused by magnetization of the specimen as taught by Matsutani [p.2].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of ISI and further in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyouichiro et al. (JP 2007309690 A, Pub. Date November 29, 2007, herein Shiyou) and further in view of Cruickshank (US 4,800,104, Pub. Date January 24, 1989).
Wang, ISI and Weischedel do not teach:
the visual test is performed after the first non-destructive test and the second non- destructive test.
However, Shiyou teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang, ISI and Weischedel in view of Shiyou by putting surface defect inspection device 20 of Figure 1 of Shiyou after eddy current detection devices 66 & 67 of Wang.
the visual test is performed after the first non-destructive test and the second non- destructive test (Illumination light 25 is irradiated onto surface f of test material W and CCD camera 22 captures images of the workpiece [0021-0023]. Surface defect inspection device 20 - "visual test" - performs the test after eddy current inspection device 10 - "first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test" [0021-0023] & see explanation above.; see Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, ISI and Weischedel in view of Shiyou by having the visual test is performed after the first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test because it allows for the reliable detection of surface defects on the surface of the test material as taught by Shiyou [0024].
Wang, ISI, Weischedel and Shiyou do not teach:
performing a laser visual test on an inner surface of the cut pipe also on an outer surface of the cut pipe, wherein the laser visual test includes projecting a laser onto the pipe and capturing an image of the projected laser
However, Cruickshank teaches:
performing a laser visual test on an inner surface of the cut pipe (Port section 35 uses laser 41 and optical elements 40, 38 and 34 to provide a circumferential band of light to illuminate a complete circumferential portion of the inner surface of a tubular member [9:41-62]. Light reflected from the inner surface of the tubular member is captured by camera 39 via optical elements 37 and 38 so that viewed information of the pipe wall in a live scan format can be provided [9:41-62]; see Fig 5, 6 & 8) and
also on an outer surface of the cut pipe (External surface scanning chamber 57 uses laser projection and video units 58 to illuminate the outer circumference of the tubular member 5 [11:6-16]. Cameras 59 allow a full scanning of the entire outer circumference of the tubular member [11:6-16].; see Fig 7-8), wherein
the laser visual test includes projecting a laser (Lasers 41 and 57 are projected onto the respective surfaces of pipe [9:41-62],[11:6-16].; see Fig 5-8) onto the pipe (tubular 5; see Fig 8) and capturing an image of the projected laser (Cameras 39 and 59 capture the respective images [9:41-62],[11:6-16].; see Fig 5-8),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, ISI, Weischedel and Shiyou in view of Cruickshank by having performing a laser visual test on an inner surface of the cut pipe also on an outer surface of the cut pipe, wherein the laser visual test includes projecting a laser onto the pipe and capturing an image of the projected laser because it allows for the discovery of defects such as corrosive attack on the wall surfaces, wall thinning, ovality and internal wall faults as taught by Cruickshank [1:17-26].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of ISI and further in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank and further in view of Jo et al. (KR 20170121685 A, Pub. Date November 2, 2017, herein Jo).
Wang, ISI, Weischedel , Shiyou and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Jo teaches:
the laser visual test(s) are only performed if the first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test do not identify a flaw (Steps S27 to S29 of inspecting damage with a camera unit are omitted when damage is found through the magnetic flux testing performed in S24 to S26 [0042].; see Fig 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, ISI, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Jo by having the laser visual test(s) are only performed if the first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test do not identify a flaw because it is a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of reducing the amount of time to test a specimen.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of ISI and further in view of Junker et al. (US 4,763,274, Pub. Date August 9, 1988, herein Junker).
Wang and ISI do not teach the limitations.
However, Junker teaches:
the step of rejecting the cut pipe if the step of inspecting the pipe identifies a flaw comprises comparing a measurement of the cut pipe to a threshold, wherein the threshold is varied based upon a longitudinal location of the measurement along the cut pipe (A computer builds signatures of the structure of pipes including the tube ends, and builds signatures of defects on the pipes, such as of flaws and dents. Eddy current data is used to define a signature of a test object along its length. The signature of the test object is compared against the signatures of the structures and defects, and determines whether the test object has flaws and dents [2:65-4:49].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang and ISI in view of Junker by having the step of rejecting the cut pipe if the step of inspecting the pipe identifies a flaw comprises comparing a measurement of the cut pipe to a threshold, wherein the threshold is varied based upon a longitudinal location of the measurement along the cut pipe because it allows for the determination of defects on a tube and the location of the defects as taught by Junker [4:26-31].
Claims 13-15, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank.
Regarding Claim 13, Wang teaches:
A testing device for non-destructive testing of a pipe (A flaw detection mechanism for performing flaw detection on the surface and inner wall of the steel tube [0006]; see Fig 1) comprising:
a second testing arrangement positionable relative to the pipe comprising (Low and high frequency eddy current detection devices inspect airbag steel pipe D [0042-0043]; see Fig 1 & 9-10):
one or more conductive coils for sensing eddy currents in the pipe (Low and high frequency eddy current detectors 663 & 673 are coils [0042-0043].; see Fig 1 & 9-10);
Wang does not teach:
a first testing arrangement positionable relative to the pipe comprising:
at least one magnet comprising a north pole and a south pole; and
one or more magnetic sensors arranged between the north pole and the south pole arranged to detect magnetic flux leakage from the pipe;
However, Weischedel teaches:
Weischedel teaches a MFL sensor 57 in Figure 3A that tests a pipe P before eddy current sensors 72. The Examiner is combining Wang in view of Weischedel by arranging inspection device 52 of Weischedel along conveyor 63 of Figure 9 Wang at a point before eddy current sensors 66 and 67.
a first testing arrangement positionable relative to the pipe (Inspection device 52 - “first testing arrangement” - is positionable relative to pipe P.; see Fig 3A) comprising:
at least one magnet comprising a north pole and a south pole (Magnets 54 and 56; see Fig 3A); and
one or more magnetic sensors arranged between the north pole and the south pole arranged to detect magnetic flux leakage from the pipe (MFL sensor 57 [5:45-62]; see Fig 3-4A);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang in view of Weischedel by having a first testing arrangement positionable relative to the pipe comprising: at least one magnet comprising a north pole and a south pole; and one or more magnetic sensors arranged between the north pole and the south pole arranged to detect magnetic flux leakage from the pipe because it is capable of identifying [0012].
Wang and Weischedel do not teach:
a third testing arrangement positionable relative to the pipe:
However, Shiyou teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang and Weischedel in view of Shiyou by putting surface defect inspection device 20 of Figure 1 of Shiyou after eddy current detection devices 66 & 67 of Wang.
a third testing arrangement positionable relative to the pipe (Visual Surface defect inspection device 20 is positioned with respect to test material W and comes after flaw detection device 2 and eddy current flaw detection device 10 [0014,0022].; see Fig 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang and Weischedel in view of Shiyou by having a third testing arrangement positionable relative to the pipe because it allows for the reliable detection of surface defects on the surface of the test material as taught by Shiyou [0024].
Shiyou does not teach:
a first laser emitter arranged to project a laser onto the pipe; and a camera arranged to capture an image of the pipe where the laser is projected
However, Cruickshank teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou in view of by Cruickshank by substituting the illumination light 25 of Shiyou with a laser 41 of Cruickshank.
a first laser emitter arranged to project a laser onto the pipe; and a camera arranged to capture an image of the pipe where the laser is projected (Port section 35 uses laser 41 - "laser emitter" - and optical elements 40, 38 and 34 to provide a circumferential band of light to illuminate a complete circumferential portion of the inner surface of a tubular member [9:41-62]. Light reflected from the inner surface of the tubular member is captured by camera 39 - "camera" - via optical elements 37 and 38 so that viewed information of the pipe wall in a live scan format can be provided [9:41-62]; see Fig 5, 6 & 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou in view of Cruickshank by having a first laser emitter arranged to project a laser onto the pipe; and a camera arranged to capture an image of the pipe where the laser is projected because it allows for the discovery of defects such as corrosive attack on the wall surfaces, wall thinning, ovality and internal wall faults as taught by Cruickshank [1:17-26] and because it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of having a laser that allows for direct precise measurements of pipe characteristics and generate 3D models of the pipe’s surface and create a clear consistent profile on the surface without a reflection (as opposed to LEDs).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang teaches:
the one or more conductive coils comprise:
a first conductive coil arranged to sense eddy currents associated with an inner surface of the pipe (Low frequency eddy current detector 663 - "first conductive coil" - detects flaws on the inner wall of the steel tube [0006],[0042]. ; see Fig 9-10); and
a second conductive coil arranged to sense eddy currents associated with an outer surface of the pipe (High frequency eddy current detector 673 - "second conductive coil" - detects flaws on the surface of the steel tube [0006],[0043].; see Fig 9-10).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou do not teach the limitations.
However, Cruickshank teaches:
the first laser emitter is arranged to project a laser onto an inner surface of the pipe (Port section 35 uses laser 41 - "first laser emitter" - and optical elements 40, 38 and 34 to provide a circumferential band of light to illuminate a complete circumferential portion of the inner surface of a tubular member [9:41-62]. Light reflected from the inner surface of the tubular member is captured by camera 39 via optical elements 37 and 38 so that viewed information of the pipe wall in a live scan format can be provided [9:41-62]; see Fig 5, 6 & 8); and
the third testing arrangement comprises a second laser emitter arranged to project a laser onto an outer surface of the pipe (External surface scanning chamber 57 uses laser projection and video units 58 - "second laser emitter" - to illuminate the outer circumference of the tubular member 5 [11:6-16]. Cameras 59 allow a full scanning of the entire outer circumference of the tubular member [11:6-16].; see Fig 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou in view of Cruickshank by having the first laser emitter is arranged to project a laser onto an inner surface of the pipe; and the third testing arrangement comprises a second laser emitter arranged to project a laser onto an outer surface of the pipe because it allows for the discovery of defects such as corrosive attack on the wall surfaces, wall thinning, ovality and internal wall faults as taught by Cruickshank [1:17-26].
Regarding Claim 19, Wang, Weischedel and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations of the Claim.
However, Shiyou teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang, Weischedel, and Cruickshank and further in view of Shiyou in the same way as Claim 13.
Wang in Figure 1 teaches conveying bracket 63; Shiyou in Figure 1 teaches conveyors K1 to K3.
The Examiner is combining Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou by having all the sensors on the same conveyor.
a conveying means arranged to transport the pipe between the first testing arrangement, the second testing arrangement, and the third testing arrangement (see explanation above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel and Cruickshank and further in view of Shiyou by having a conveying means arranged to transport the pipe between the first testing arrangement, the second testing arrangement, and the third testing arrangement because it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of reducing the amount of time required for testing and the amount of manual labor required because the pipes being tested are moved automatically along the conveyor belt.
Regarding Claim 20, Wang and Shiyou do not teach the limitations.
However, Weischedel teaches:
Weischedel teaches a MFL sensor 57 in Figure 3A that tests a pipe P before eddy current sensors 72. The Examiner is combining Wang in view of Weischedel by arranging inspection device 52 of Weischedel along conveyor 63 of Figure 9 Wang at a point before eddy current sensors 66 and 67.
the first testing arrangement is arranged before the second testing arrangement (see explanation above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Weischedel by having the first testing arrangement is arranged before the second testing arrangement because it is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of allowing for the magnetic flux leakage sensing to find outer diameter and inner diameter longitudinal and transverse flaws, while the eddy current system is useful for comparison of metallurgical mass and permeability differences.
Regarding Claim 22, Wang, Weischedel and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Shiyou teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang and Weischedel in view of Shiyou in the same way as Claims 13, 19 and 20.
The Examiner is combining Wang, Weischedel and Cruickshank in view of Shiyou by putting surface defect inspection device 20 of Figure 1 of Shiyou after eddy current detection devices 66 & 67 of Wang, which is after the magnetic flux leakage detector 72 of Weischedel.
the third testing arrangement is arranged after the first testing arrangement and the second testing arrangement (Surface defect inspection device 20 performs the test after eddy current inspection device 10 - "first non-destructive test and the second non-destructive test" [0021-0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel and Cruickshank in view of Shiyou by having the third testing arrangement is arranged after the first testing arrangement and the second testing arrangement because it allows for the reliable detection of surface defects on the surface of the test material as taught by Shiyou [0024].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank and further in view of Hibino et al. (US 2012/0161758 A1, Pub. Date June 28, 2012, herein Hibino).
Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Hibino teaches:
the one or more conductive coils have a coil diameter of less than 5 mm (pancake shaped coil with a 2.5 mm diameter [0052].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Hibino by having the one or more conductive coils have a coil diameter of less than 5 mm because it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable results of offering increased sensitivity for detecting smaller defects and more precise focusing of the magnetic field on a smaller area.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank and further in view of Lepage (US 2013/0249540 A1, Pub. Date September 26, 2013).
Regarding Claim 17 Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Lepage teaches:
the one or more conductive coils comprises a plurality of coils arranged in an array (There are coils 14a-14e, 13a-13e, 12a-12e & 11a-11e arranged in an array [0043-0044].; see Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Lepage by having the one or more conductive coils comprises a plurality of coils arranged in an array because the arrangement allows for the use of eddy current coils for both detection and lift-off measurement without the need for separate lift-off measurement coils as taught by Lepage [0020].
Regarding Claim 18, Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Lepage teaches:
one or more of the conductive coils in the plurality of coils are arranged to overlap one another in the array (The coils are overlapping [0043-0044].; see Fig 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Lepage by having one or more of the conductive coils in the plurality of coils are arranged to overlap one another in the array because the arrangement allows for the use of eddy current coils for both detection and lift-off measurement without the need for separate lift-off measurement coils as taught by Lepage [0020].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank and further in view of Matsutani.
Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Matsutani teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou in the same way as in Claims 13, 19 and 20.
Further, the Examiner is combining Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Matsutani by placing degausser/demagnetization machine 4 of Matsutani immediately before eddy current detectors 66 & 67 of Figure 9 of Wang.
a demagnetizer arranged to demagnetize the pipe before it is transferred to the second testing arrangement (Before flaw detection part/eddy current flaw inspector 3 inspects a material, it degausses the material using degausser/demagnetization machine 4 [p.1]. Also see explanation below.; see Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Matsutani by having a demagnetizer arranged to demagnetize the pipe before it is transferred to the second testing arrangement because demagnetizing the specimen removes the possibility of judgement mistakes caused by magnetization of the specimen as taught by Matsutani [p.2].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank and further in view of ISI.
Wang teaches:
An assembly line (production line [0006], [0036], [0045]; see Fig 1) comprising:
the testing device of claim 13 (see rejection of Claim 13);
pass the cut pipe to the testing device (pipe D - "cut pipe" - is passed by feeding apparatus 65 to be tested by detection devices 66 & 67.; see Fig 9 & 11).
Wang does not teach:
a cutting device arranged to: receive a stock pipe of a first length; cut the stock pipe to a first length to produce a cut pipe;
However, ISI teaches:
a cutting device arranged to: receive a stock pipe of a first length; cut the stock pipe to a first length to produce a cut pipe (The pipe cutting machines shown throughout the document cut longer pipes - "stock pipe"- into shorter pipes - "cut pipe" [pp.10-15]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank and further in view of ISI by having a cutting device arranged to: receive a stock pipe of a first length; cut the stock pipe to a first length to produce a cut pipe; because it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of extruding one large pipe creates a continuous high-speed flow of material, while reducing setup costs and time, lowering material and labor costs and maintaining quality control.
Claims 24-25 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank.
Regarding Claim 24, Wang teaches:
A method of testing a pipe for an airbag system, the method comprising inspecting the pipe for identifying flaws (Defect detection in the airbag steel pipe production line [0004].; see Fig 1), the method comprising the steps of:
performing an eddy current test on the pipe (Low and high frequency eddy current detectors 663 & 673 test the pipe [0042-0043].; see Fig 9-10); and
Wang does not teach:
performing a magnetic flux leakage test on the pipe;
However, Weischedel teaches:
Weischedel teaches a MFL sensor 57 in Figure 3A that tests a pipe P before eddy current sensors 72. The Examiner is combining Wang in view of Weischedel by arranging inspection device 52 of Weischedel along conveyor 63 of Figure 9 Wang at a point before eddy current sensors 66 and 67.
performing a magnetic flux leakage test on the pipe (Sensors such as a magnetometer 404 detect magnetic flux leakage on metal 420 [0021-0023].; see Fig 3-4A);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang in view of Weischedel by having performing a magnetic flux leakage test on the pipe because it is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of allowing for the magnetic flux leakage sensing to find outer diameter and inner diameter longitudinal and transverse flaws, while the eddy current system is useful for comparison of metallurgical mass and permeability differences.
Wang and Weischedel do not teach:
performing a visual test on the pipe
However, Shiyou teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang and Weischedel in view of Shiyou by putting surface defect inspection device 20 of Figure 1 of Shiyou after eddy current detection devices 66 & 67 of Wang.
performing a visual test on the pipe (Visual Surface defect inspection device 20 is positioned with respect to test material W and comes after flaw detection device 2 and eddy current flaw detection device 10 [0014,0022].; see Fig 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang and Weischedel in view of Shiyou by having performing a visual test on the pipe because it allows for the reliable detection of surface defects on the surface of the test material as taught by Shiyou [0024].
Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou do not teach:
performing a laser visual test on the pipe, by projecting a laser onto the pipe and capturing an image of the projected laser.
However, Cruickshank teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou in view of by Cruickshank by substituting the illumination light 25 of Shiyou with a laser 41 of Cruickshank.
performing a laser visual test on the pipe, by projecting a laser onto the pipe and capturing an image of the projected laser (Port section 35 uses laser 41 and optical elements 40, 38 and 34 to provide a circumferential band of light to illuminate a complete circumferential portion of the inner surface of a tubular member - "projecting a laser onto the pipe" [9:41-62]. Light reflected from the inner surface of the tubular member is captured - "capturing an image of the projected laser" - by camera 39 via optical elements 37 and 38 so that viewed information of the pipe wall in a live scan format can be provided [9:41-62]; see Fig 5, 6 & 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou in view of Cruickshank by having performing a laser visual test on the pipe, by projecting a laser onto the pipe and capturing an image of the projected laser because it allows for the discovery of defects such as corrosive attack on the wall surfaces, wall thinning, ovality and internal wall faults as taught by Cruickshank [1:17-26] and because it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of having a laser that allows for direct precise measurements of pipe characteristics and generate 3D models of the pipe’s surface and create a clear consistent profile on the surface without a reflection (as opposed to LEDs).
Regarding Claim 25, Wang, Shiyou and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Weischedel teaches:
Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank are being combined in the same way as in Claim 24.
Weischedel teaches a MFL sensor 57 in Figure 3A that tests a pipe P before eddy current sensors 72. The Examiner is combining Wang in view of Weischedel by arranging inspection device 52 of Weischedel along conveyor 63 of Figure 9 Wang at a point before eddy current sensors 66 and 67.
The Examiner is combining Wang and Weischedel in view of Shiyou by putting surface defect inspection device 20 of Figure 1 of Shiyou after eddy current detection devices 66 & 67 of Wang.
the magnetic flux leakage test is performed before the eddy current test and the laser visual test (see explanation above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Weischedel by having the magnetic flux leakage test is performed before the eddy current test and the laser visual test because it is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of allowing for the magnetic flux leakage sensing to find outer diameter and inner diameter longitudinal and transverse flaws, while the eddy current system is useful for comparison of metallurgical mass and permeability differences.
Regarding Claim 27, Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou do not teach the limitations.
However, Cruickshank teaches:
Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank are being combined in the same way as in Claim 24.
Weischedel teaches a MFL sensor 57 in Figure 3A that tests a pipe P before eddy current sensors 72. The Examiner is combining Wang in view of Weischedel by arranging inspection device 52 of Weischedel along conveyor 63 of Figure 9 Wang at a point before eddy current sensors 66 and 67.
The Examiner is combining Wang and Weischedel in view of Shiyou by putting surface defect inspection device 20 of Figure 1 of Shiyou after eddy current detection devices 66 & 67 of Wang.
The Examiner is combining Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou in view of by Cruickshank by substituting the illumination light 25 of Shiyou with a laser 41 of Cruickshank.
the laser visual test is performed after the magnetic flux leakage test and the eddy current test (see explanation above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou in view of Cruickshank by having the laser visual test is performed after the magnetic flux leakage test and the eddy current test because it allows for the discovery of defects such as corrosive attack on the wall surfaces, wall thinning, ovality and internal wall faults as taught by Cruickshank [1:17-26] and because it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of having a laser that allows for direct precise measurements of pipe characteristics and generate 3D models of the pipe’s surface and create a clear consistent profile on the surface without a reflection (as opposed to LEDs).
Regarding Claim 28, Wang teaches:
the eddy current test and/or the laser visual test is performed on an inner surface (Low frequency eddy current detector 663 detects flaws on the inner wall of the steel tube [0006],[0042]. ; see Fig 9-10) and an outer surface of the pipe (High frequency eddy current detector 673 detects flaws on the surface of the steel tube [0006],[0043].; see Fig 9-10).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank and further in view of Matsutani.
Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Matsutani teaches:
The Examiner is combining Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in the same way as in Claim 25.
Further, the Examiner is combining Wang, Weischedel and Shiyou in view of Matsutani by placing degausser/demagnetization machine 4 immediately before eddy current detectors 66 & 67 of Figure 9 of Wang.
further comprising the step of: demagnetising the pipe (Before flaw detection part/eddy current flaw inspector 3 inspects a material, it degausses the material using degausser/demagnetization machine 4 [p.1].; see Fig 1) between the steps of: performing the magnetic flux leakage test; and performing the eddy current test and the laser visual test (see explanation below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Matsutani by having further comprising the step of: demagnetising the pipe between the steps of: performing the magnetic flux leakage test; and performing the eddy current test and the laser visual test because demagnetizing the specimen removes the possibility of judgement mistakes caused by magnetization of the specimen as taught by Matsutani [p.2].
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank and further in view of Junker.
Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Junker teaches:
a flaw is identified by comparing a measurement from at least one of the magnetic flux leakage test, the eddy current test, and the laser visual test with a threshold, wherein the threshold is varied based upon a longitudinal location of the measurement along the pipe (A computer builds signatures of the structure of pipes including the tube ends, and builds signatures of defects on the pipes, such as of flaws and dents. Eddy current data is used to define a signature of a test object along its length. The signature of the test object is compared against the signatures of the structures and defects, and determines whether the test object has flaws and dents [2:65-4:49].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Junker by having a flaw is identified by comparing a measurement from at least one of the magnetic flux leakage test, the eddy current test, and the laser visual test with a threshold, wherein the threshold is varied based upon a longitudinal location of the measurement along the pipe because it allows for the determination of defects on a tube and the location of the defects as taught by Junker [4:26-31].
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank and further in view of Bryner et al. (US 2020/0264615 A1, Pub. Date August 20, 2020, herein Bryner).
Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Bryner teaches:
a flaw is identified by taking a plurality of measurements during at least one of the magnetic flux leakage test, the eddy current test, and the laser visual test, and wherein the measurements are taken at a first resolution at a first location on the pipe, wherein the measurements are taken at a second resolution at a second location on the pipe, the second resolution being different from the first resolution (When a defect has been detected at a particular location, the sensor resolution is increased for that location when additional data is gathered. But when a defect is not detected at other locations, then the sensor resolution is not increased for those locations [0362].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Bryner by having a flaw is identified by taking a plurality of measurements during at least one of the magnetic flux leakage test, the eddy current test, and the laser visual test, and wherein the measurements are taken at a first resolution at a first location on the pipe, wherein the measurements are taken at a second resolution at a second location on the pipe, the second resolution being different from the first resolution because it allows for the gathering of additional data regarding an anomaly or shape difference of the inspection surface as taught by Bryner [0362].
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weischedel and further in view of Shiyou and further in view of Cruickshank and further in view of Quittner (US 3,271,662, Pub. Date September 6, 1966).
Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank do not teach the limitations.
However, Quittner teaches:
a flaw is identified based on a detection sensitivity by taking a plurality of measurements during at least one of the magnetic flux leakage test, the eddy current test, and the laser visual test, and varying the detection sensitivity for different locations on the pipe (It is advantageous to vary the inspection sensitivity according to some predetermined plan such as across the width of the sample [1:44-50].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang, Weischedel, Shiyou and Cruickshank in view of Quittner by having a flaw is identified based on a detection sensitivity by taking a plurality of measurements during at least one of the magnetic flux leakage test, the eddy current test, and the laser visual test, and varying the detection sensitivity for different locations on the pipe because it is a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results of accounting for changes in lift-off due to expected non-defective variations in the diameter of a tube.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHUL MAINI whose telephone number is (571)270-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9am-4pm, 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 03/27/2026
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858