DETAILED ACTION
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 10/28/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 15-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 15-20: A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p) II. These claims should be rewritten to use language such as “configured to” or otherwise not require active steps being performed.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 6-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieau et al. (US 20180149622 A1) in view of Zagrai et al. (“N-SCAN®: New Vibro-Modulation System for Crack Detection, Monitoring, and Characterzation”).Regarding claim 1:Vieau teaches a method for detecting defects in a pipeline, comprising:
generating one or more high frequency resonating waves inside a circumferential section of the pipeline; generating one or more low frequency resonating waves inside the circumferential section of the pipeline; detecting one or more nonlinear interactions between the high frequency resonating waves and the low frequency resonating waves;([0039]-[0043]; FIGS. 1-3 and 8)Vieau strongly suggests but fails to explicitly teach:
calculating one or more damage parameter values based on the one or more nonlinear interactions; and detecting damage to the pipeline based on the one or more damage parameter valuesZagrai teaches:
calculating one or more damage parameter values based on the one or more nonlinear interactions (Pages 141-1416, “Vibro-Modulation Technique”); and detecting damage to the pipeline based on the one or more damage parameter values (Abstract; Conclusion)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate one or more damage parameter values and detect damage based on the one or more damage parameter values, as taught by Zagrai, in the method of Vieau, to be able to characterize the type and extent of damage.
Regarding claim 2:Vieau and Zagrai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Zagrai inherently teaches:
wherein the damage is detected by comparing the one or more damage parameter values to a threshold damage parameter value(Abstract; Pages 141-1416, “Vibro-Modulation Technique”; Conclusion)
This is inherently taught by Zagrai in that Zagrai teaches “any structural material possesses a certain degree of nonlinearity even in the absence of a localized defect”. Further, there is inherently some noise in the detection. Zagrai also teaches “damage detection and characterization”. As such, there must inherently be one or more thresholds applied which separates an undamaged specimen, a specimen with damage, the type of damage, the location of the damage, etc.
Regarding claim 3:Vieau and Zagrai teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Zagrai inherently teaches or renders obvious:
dynamically updating the threshold damage parameter value
In equation 1, the damage index and MI is dependent upon the chosen frequencies. Further, Zagrai teaches (paragraph spanning pages 1417-1418) that the device operates in Spectrum Analyzing (SA) mode to determine the frequencies and then Vibro-Modulation testing (VM) mode is used, which is where equation 1 is applied. As such, it would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the SA mode is used prior to VM mode for a given structure (i.e., if there are two structure types, then SA followed by VM modes should be used on each section, yielding differing thresholds/frequencies/etc. due to the differing structure types / sections).
Regarding claim 4:Vieau and Zagrai teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Zagrai inherently teaches or renders obvious:
wherein different threshold damage parameter values are associated with different sections of the pipeline (see claim 3 rejection rationale above)
Regarding claim 6:Vieau and Zagrai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Zagrai inherently teaches or renders obvious:
detecting a spike in the one or more damage parameter values, wherein a spike is detected based on a percent change between a first damage parameter value and a second damage parameter value
This is inherently taught or rendered obvious by Zagrai in that Zagrai teaches “any structural material possesses a certain degree of nonlinearity even in the absence of a localized defect”. Further, there is inherently some noise in the detection. Zagrai also teaches “damage detection and characterization”. As such, there must inherently be one or more thresholds applied which separates an undamaged specimen, a specimen with damage, the type of damage, the location of the damage, etc. The examiner holds that the instant claim limitation is merely a form of threshold, inherently taught or rendered obvious by Zagrai, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 7:Vieau and Zagrai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vieau also teaches:
wherein the generating one or more high frequency resonating waves, the generating one or more low frequency resonating waves inside the circumferential section of the pipeline, and the detecting one or more nonlinear interactions between the high frequency resonating waves and the low frequency resonating waves are implemented by a first measurement module mounted onto a pipeline inspection gauge (“PIG”)([0039]-[0043]; FIGS. 1-3 and 8)
Regarding claim 8:Vieau and Zagrai teach all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Vieau also teaches:
detecting one or more additional characteristics of the pipeline via one or more additional sensors of the PIG, wherein the one or more additional characteristics are different from the one or more nonlinear interactions between the high frequency resonating waves and the low frequency resonating waves, and wherein the one or more additional sensors are different from the first measurement module([0125]-[0133])
Regarding claim 14:Vieau and Zagrai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Vieau and Zagrai inherently teach:
wherein each of the one or more damage parameter values correlates with a length along the pipeline
The combination in the rejection of claim 1 yields the device of Vieau moving through the pipeline, calculating damage parameter values (as set forth in Zagrai) as it goes. Thus, the damage parameter values correlate with the specific length along the pipeline that the device is scanning / active upon.
Claims 9-10, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieau et al. (US 20180149622 A1) in view of Zagrai et al. (“N-SCAN®: New Vibro-Modulation System for Crack Detection, Monitoring, and Characterzation”) and further in view of Hirao et al. (“An SH-wave EMAT technique for gas pipeline inspection”).Regarding claim 9:Vieau and Zagrai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vieau fails to teach:
wherein the one or more nonlinear interactions are detected via one or more magnetic flux leakage sensorsHirao teaches or renders obvious:
wherein the one or more nonlinear interactions are detected via one or more magnetic flux leakage sensors (Section 2. “measurement with PPM-EMAT”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect change in magnetic field, as taught by Hirao, in the method of Vieau as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for sensing the receiving signal. Hirao teaches that, in “the receiving stage, the static field is perturbed by the incoming ultrasound due to the inverse magnetostrictive and Lorentz force mechanisms. A dynamic field arises…and is picked up by the coil in the EMAT.” The detection of a changing magnetic field by a device that is not inside the wall of the pipe may be interpreted as “a magnetic flux leakage sensor”.
Regarding claim 10:Vieau and Zagrai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vieau fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more high frequency resonating waves are generated via electromotive interaction between a section of a magnetic field oriented orthogonal to an outer surface of the pipeline and one or more high frequency electric fields oriented coplanar to the outer surface of the pipeline and transverse to a lengthwise direction of the pipelineHirao teaches or renders obvious
wherein the one or more high frequency resonating waves are generated via electromotive interaction between a section of a magnetic field oriented orthogonal to an outer surface of the pipeline and one or more high frequency electric fields oriented coplanar to the outer surface of the pipeline and transverse to a lengthwise direction of the pipeline (e.g., FIG. 1 and associated discussion)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wave generation methodology of Hirao in the method of Vieau as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for generating resonating waves inside a circumferential section of the pipeline.
Regarding claim 15:Vieau teaches a system for detecting defects in a pipeline, comprising:
wherein one or more high frequency resonating waves are generated inside a circumferential section of the pipeline ([0039]-[0043], [0097]-[0099]; FIGS. 1-3 and 8);
wherein one or more low frequency resonating waves are generated inside the circumferential section of the pipeline ([0039]-[0043], [0097]-[0099]; FIGS. 1-3 and 8);
a sensor configured to detect one or more nonlinear interactions between the high frequency resonating waves and the low frequency resonating waves (abstract, [0039]-[0043], [0097]-[0099]; FIGS. 1-3 and 8); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the sensor, wherein the processor is configured to: detect damage to the pipeline (e.g., abstract) Vieau fails to teach:
a magnetic field source;
a first electric field source configured to emit one or more high frequency electric fields and the high frequency resonating waves are via electromotive interaction between the one or more high frequency electric fields and a magnetic field emitted by the magnetic field source
a second electric field source configured to emit one or more low frequency electric fields and the low frequency resonating waves are via electromotive interaction between the one or more low frequency electric fields and the magnetic field emitted by the magnetic field source
calculate one or more damage parameter values based on the one or more nonlinear interactions, the detected damage based on the one or more damage parameter valuesZagrai teaches:
calculate one or more damage parameter values based on the one or more nonlinear interactions (Pages 141-1416, “Vibro-Modulation Technique”), the detected damage based on the one or more damage parameter values (Abstract; Conclusion) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate one or more damage parameter values and detect damage based on the one or more damage parameter values, as taught by Zagrai, in the device of Vieau, to be able to characterize the type and extent of damage.Hirao teaches:
a magnetic field source; an electric field source configured to emit one or more high frequency electric fields and the high frequency resonating waves are via electromotive interaction between the one or more high frequency electric fields and a magnetic field emitted by the magnetic field source and configured to emit one or more low frequency electric fields and the low frequency resonating waves are via electromotive interaction between the one or more low frequency electric fields and the magnetic field emitted by the magnetic field source(paragraph spanning pages 127-128; FIG. 1; page 128)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wave generation of Hirao in the device of Vieau as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for generating resonating waves in a circumferential section of pipeline for defect detection. Additionally/alternatively, Vieau is directed to the nonlinear interaction detection between low and high frequency waves to detect damage in a pipeline but does not provide sufficient details for how such waves are generated. Vieau mentions that the waves may be generated by an EMAT (e.g., [0056]). Hirao provides explicit details for how EMATs produce such waves.
Regarding the limitations of a “first” and “second” electrical field source. The examiner holds it obvious to pick between the use of: one electric field source with a large bandwidth; or two electric field sources, one configured for low frequency and one configured for high frequency. This is supported or taught by the combination since Vieau mentions that the low (pump) and high (probe) frequency waves may be generated by a single wide band transducer or two different transducers operating at different frequencies (e.g., Vieau - [0097]).
Regarding claim 16:Vieau, Zagrai, and Hirao teach all the limitations of claim 15, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 15 rejection above, Zagrai inherently teaches:
wherein the processor detects the damage by comparing the one or more damage parameter values to a threshold damage parameter value (Abstract; Pages 141-1416, “Vibro-Modulation Technique”; Conclusion)
This is inherently taught by Zagrai in that Zagrai teaches “any structural material possesses a certain degree of nonlinearity even in the absence of a localized defect”. Further, there is inherently some noise in the detection. Zagrai also teaches “damage detection and characterization”. As such, there must inherently be one or more thresholds applied which separates an undamaged specimen, a specimen with damage, the type of damage, the location of the damage, etc.
Regarding claim 18:Vieau, Zagrai, and Hirao teach all the limitations of claim 15, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 15 rejection above, Zagrai inherently teaches or renders obvious:
wherein the processor is further configured to detect at least one spike in the one or more damage parameter values based on a percent change between a first damage parameter value and a second damage parameter value
This is inherently taught or rendered obvious by Zagrai in that Zagrai teaches “any structural material possesses a certain degree of nonlinearity even in the absence of a localized defect”. Further, there is inherently some noise in the detection. Zagrai also teaches “damage detection and characterization”. As such, there must inherently be one or more thresholds applied which separates an undamaged specimen, a specimen with damage, the type of damage, the location of the damage, etc. The examiner holds that the instant claim limitation is merely a form of threshold, inherently taught or rendered obvious by Zagrai, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 19:Vieau, Zagrai, and Hirao teach all the limitations of claim 15, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 15 rejection above, Vieau and Hirao teach:
a first measurement module mounted onto a pipeline inspection gauge (“PIG”), wherein the first measurement module includes the magnetic field source, the first electric field source, the second electric field source, and the sensor(Vieau - [0039]-[0043]; FIGS. 1-3 and 8. The remaining limitations such as the magnetic field source, first electric field source, and second electric field source are met upon combination, as set forth in the claim 15 rejection above.)
Regarding claim 20:Vieau, Zagrai, and Hirao teach all the limitations of claim 15, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 15 rejection above, Hirao teaches:
wherein a first section of the magnetic field is oriented orthogonal to an outer surface of the pipeline, and wherein the one or more high frequency electric fields are oriented coplanar to the outer surface of the pipeline and transverse to a lengthwise direction of the pipeline (e.g., FIG. 1 and associated discussion)
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieau et al. (US 20180149622 A1) in view of Zagrai et al. (“N-SCAN®: New Vibro-Modulation System for Crack Detection, Monitoring, and Characterzation”) and further in view of Cong et al. (“A longitudinal Mode EMAT Based on a Permanent Magnet Chain for Pipe Inspection”).Regarding claim 11:Vieau and Zagrai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vieau fails to teach:
wherein the one or more low frequency resonating waves are generated via electromotive interaction between a section of a magnetic field oriented coplanar to the outer surface of the pipeline and parallel to the lengthwise direction of the pipeline and one or more low frequency electric fields oriented coplanar to the outer surface of the pipeline and transverse to the lengthwise direction of the pipelineCong teaches:
wherein the one or more frequency resonating waves are generated via electromotive interaction between a section of a magnetic field oriented coplanar to the outer surface of the pipeline and parallel to the lengthwise direction of the pipeline and one or more frequency electric fields oriented coplanar to the outer surface of the pipeline and transverse to the lengthwise direction of the pipeline(e.g., pages 3-5)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wave generation methodology of Cong as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for generating waves in a pipe using EMAT.
Regarding claim 12:Vieau and Zagrai teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Vieau fails to teach:
wherein the one or more low frequency resonating waves are generated via variable magnetic attraction between a time-varying magnetic field and a surface of the pipelineCong teaches:
wherein the one or more frequency resonating waves are generated via variable magnetic attraction between a time-varying magnetic field and a surface of the pipeline (e.g., Introduction; the instant claim limitation is merely the magnetostrictive version of EMAT)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wave generation methodology of Cong as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for generating waves in a pipe using EMAT.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 are 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.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious detecting one or more characteristics associated with a first section of the pipeline and a second section of the pipeline; comparing the one or more characteristics associated with the first section of the pipeline and the second section of the pipeline; determining to dynamically update the threshold damage parameter value based on the comparing, in combination with the remaining claim limitations (claim 5 depends upon claims 4, 3, 2, and 1).
Regarding claim 13: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious wherein the one or more high frequency resonating waves and the one or more low frequency resonating waves are generated by at least two pairs of excitation modules, wherein the excitation modules within each pair are electrically phase-matched with respect to each other, and wherein each pair of excitation modules is electrically phase-mismatched with respect to every other pair of the at least two pairs of excitation modules, in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 17: This claim is allowable for essentially the same reasons as claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Donskoy et al. (US 20210156759 A1);
Feng et al. (US 20190145934 A1);
Ganin (US 8479577 B2);
Simek et al. (US 8319494 B2);
Donskoy et al. (US 6301967 B1);
Thompson, R. Bruce. "A model for the electromagnetic generation of ultrasonic guided waves in ferromagnetic metal polycrystals." IEEE Transactions on Sonics and Ultrasonics 25.1 (2005): 7-15.;
Donskoy, Dimitri M., and Alexander M. Sutin. "Vibro-acoustic modulation nondestructive evaluation technique." Journal of intelligent material systems and structures 9.9 (1998): 765-771.;
Jiao, Jingpin, et al. "Vibro-acoustic modulation technique for micro-crack detection in pipeline." Seventh International Symposium on Precision Engineering Measurements and Instrumentation. Vol. 8321. SPIE, 2011.; and
Van Den Abeele, Koen EA, et al. "Micro-damage diagnostics using nonlinear elastic wave spectroscopy (NEWS)." Ndt & E International 34.4 (2001): 239-248.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855