DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2023 and 5/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 4: the term “the measuring object” lacks antecedence. In the interest of expediting prosecution, the Examiner shall assume that the term should read “the strand”.
Claim 5: the term “optical axis” lacks antecedence. In the interest of expediting prosecution, the Examiner shall assume that the term should read “the measuring axis”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The loose nature by which the claims are drafted calls into question whether some steps (claims 1-20) or some functional limitations (claims 21-30) are, in fact, required by the claims.
Claim 2 is further indefinite at least because the terms “direction of extrusion” and “transport direction” are not defined in terms of what is being extruded or transported, nor are the relationships with the remaining limitations of the claim and its parent claim clear.
Claim 8 is further indefinite at least because antecedent basis is lacking for “overlapping faults”, nor is there a step for determining overlapping faults.
Claims 12 and 14 are each further indefinite at least because the terms “extrusion” (claim 12) and “transport” (claims 12 and 14) are not defined in terms of what is being extruded or transported, nor are the relationships with the remaining limitations of the claims and their parent claim(s) clear.
Claim 15 is further indefinite at least because antecedent basis is lacking for “during transport of the strand”. Parent claim 1 does not have any step that requires motion of any component of the x-ray system or of the strand.
Claim 17 is further indefinite at least because the claim simply does not make sense.
Claim 22 is further indefinite because the “axis of symmetry” is undefined.
Claims 24 and 25 are further indefinite because the pronoun “it” obscures the structure being modified by the limitation.
Claim 29 is further indefinite because the phrase “in particular” calls into question what range is in fact required by the claim; nor is it grammatically clear to which range the phrase refers. The Examiner recommends simply deleting the phrase, and, in the interest of expediting prosecution, the phrase shall be ignored for the purposes of claim interpretation.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-7, 9-17, 21, 22, 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morgan (US 5,614,720).
Regarding claim 1, Morgan discloses a measuring method for measuring a strand 18 (Figs.1C and 13), including:
a) providing an x-ray measuring device having an x-ray source 58 and an x-ray detector 60 and a measuring space formed in-between;
b) emitting x-rays from the x-ray source 58 through the measuring space and the strand 18 in a measuring plane along a measuring axis and detecting the x-rays passing through the strand 18 by means of the x-ray detector 60, which includes at least one detector row of measurement channels 238;
c) generating a transmission curve as measuring signal by means of the x-ray detector 58, where the transmission curve expresses detected values of the intensity of the measuring channels (averaged measurements from several scans, col.17, lines 47-50, also see Figs.18A and 18B);
d) storing the transmission curve as at least one reference transmission curve (col.21, line 52, through col.22, line 2);
e) carrying out at least one further, current x-ray measurement by means of the x-ray source 58 and the x-ray detector 60, and generating a current transmission curve (see at least Fig.19A);
f) comparing the current transmission curve with at least the reference transmission curve, whereby all measuring channels are compared (Fig.19B); and
g) evaluating the comparison and determining whether a fault is present in the strand 18 (col.22, lines 2-5).
With respect to claim 2, Morgan further discloses that the strand 18 is continuously measured along a transport direction (col.21, lines 8-23).
With respect to claim 3, Morgan further discloses that multiple reference measurements of the strand 18 are made and an averaged reference transmission curve is generated (average of all of the scans along the length of the pipe: col.21, line 52, through col.22, line 2).
With respect to claim 4, Morgan further discloses that the multiple reference measurements of the strand 18 are made at multiple points in time (average of all of the scans, where each scan takes time to complete: col.21, line 52, through col.22, line 2).
With respect to claim 5, Morgan further discloses that the x-rays emitted by the x-ray source 58 form a divergent bundle of rays around the measuring axis in the measuring plane (Fig.13), where the transmission curve includes outer curve regions with high absorption in which the walls of the strand that are on the outside relative to the measurement axis and a middle curve region with less absorption (Figs.18A and 18B); where both the outer curve regions and the middle curve region of the current transmission curve and the reference transmission curve are compared with one another (Figs.19A and 19B).
With respect to claim 6, Morgan further discloses that the comparison of the current transmission curve with the reference transmission curve includes comparing (calculating the difference between) the intensities of the individual measuring channels of the current transmission curve with the corresponding measurement channels of the reference transmission curve (Fig.19B) for classifying faults (col.22, lines 1-16).
With respect to claim 7, Morgan further discloses that at least one characteristic is determined as a fault in the current transmission curve by means of the comparison with the reference transmission curve, the characteristic being a weakening of material (wall thinning, col.22, lines 5-7; plastic deformation, lines 8-10), an imperfection or defect (all identified faults are imperfections or defects by definition: col.22, lines 1-16).
With respect to claim 9, Morgan further discloses that, when determining a position of the fault, it is determined whether the position is located in one or more area of the group of areas including a wall of the strand (pipe wall), on an exterior surface, in an exterior region of the pipe wall, on the inside of the strand, and on an exterior wall of the strand (Fig.20, location of fault may be located from the comparison at each rotation angle and tracing the intersecting rays that correspond to the detected fault: col.22, lines 17-45).
With respect to claim 10, Morgan further discloses determining a 3D extension of the fault by both:
h) determining the width of the fault in the measuring plane from adjacent measurement channels of the current transmission curve (matching shape from the scan projections: col.22, lines 30-45), and
i) determining a longitudinal extension of the fault in an adjustment direction from transmission curves of temporally successive measurements of the strand (higher-resolution scan along the length of the pipe based on the shape from the first scan: col.22, lines 17-35, particularly lines 24-26).
With respect to claim 11, Morgan further discloses that determining the 3D extension of the fault includes determining a shape of the fault (col.22, lines 30-45).
With respect to claim 12, Morgan further discloses that the determining of the fault includes a relative width of the fault in relation to the overall width of the transmission curve of the strand (shape and location along the transmission curves and between adjacent curves, Figs.19A-19B and col.22, lines 1-45); and/or the geometry of the projection from the x-ray source 58 to the x-ray detector 60 (Figs.13 and 20).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Morgan further discloses that determining a fault or a position of a fault is carried out by measuring in multiple measuring axes, including multiple static measurement axes arranged in the circumferential direction around the transport direction (longitudinal axis of the pipe) around an axis of symmetry of the measuring space (multiple scans along the pipe length, each scan performed at a fixed angle: col.21, lines 8-23).
With respect to claim 15, Morgan further discloses that the x-ray source 58 is adjusted relative to the strand 18, the direction including along the longitudinal axis of the strand (presumably intended by the “transport direction”) and in a circumferential direction that includes rotation around the longitudinal axis of the strand (col.21, lines 8-23).
With respect to claim 16, the subject matter applies exclusively to only one option of parent claim 15 out of several options listed in the alternative (“in the direction of a measuring axis of the respective x-ray source”). Therefore, Morgan anticipates claim 16 insofar as the claimed invention does not require adjustment in the direction of a measuring axis of the x-ray source, and it therefore follows that the claimed invention does not require the limitations of claim 16 (see MPEP §2111.04(II)).
Examiner’s Note: claim 16 should positively set forth the desired step that is intended to be further limited (delete “upon”, and positively set forth the adjustment step and then set forth the focusing step, thus ensuring that both are required by the claim).
With respect to claim 17, Morgan further discloses that the evaluating step includes a geometric determination (Fig.20).
Regarding claim 21, Morgan discloses an x-ray measuring device (Figs.1C and 13), including:
a) at least one x-ray source 58 for emitting x-rays along a measuring axis;
b) an x-ray detector 60;
c) a measuring space defined between the x-ray source 58 and the x-ray detector 60 for receiving a strand 18 in a transport direction (Fig.1C); and
d) an evaluator means including a memory, the evaluator means being adapted to receive transmission curves detected by the x-ray detector 60 and to store the transmission curves as reference transmission curves directly or after processing (averaged measurements from several scans, col.17, lines 47-50; col.21, line 52, through col.22, line 2; also see Figs.18A and 18B); and
e) the evaluator means being configured to compare current transmission curves of the x-ray detector 60 with the at least one reference transmission curve, and to use the comparison to carry out an evaluation as to whether a fault is present in the current transmission curve (col.22, lines 2-5; Figs.19A and 19B).
Examiner’s Note: the limitation “for receiving a strand transported in a transport direction” in an apparatus claim is reduced to an intended use due to the lack of a recitation of the necessary structure to perform the function. Therefore, the limitation does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art beyond a vague requirement that there is the potential for relative motion between the strand and the x-ray measuring device.
With respect to claim 22, Morgan further discloses multiple static measuring axes each including an x-ray source and an x-ray detector, the multiple static axes being offset against one another along a circumferential direction around the measuring space and concentrically aligned onto the axis of symmetry (multiple scans along the pipe length, each scan performed at a fixed angle: col.21, lines 8-23).
With respect to claim 24, Morgan further discloses that the measuring device includes an adjustment means for adjusting the x-ray source 58 and the x-ray detector 60 along a measuring direction (multiple scans along the pipe length, each scan performed at a different angle where the source and detector are rotated around the longitudinal axis of the pipe to the next angle between each scan: col.21, lines 8-23).
With respect to claim 25, Morgan further discloses that the measuring device includes an adjustment means for rotating the x-ray source and the x-ray detector about a transport axis (multiple scans along the pipe length, each scan performed at a different angle where the source and detector are rotated around the longitudinal axis of the pipe to the next angle between each scan: col.21, lines 8-23).
With respect to claim 26, Morgan further discloses that the x-ray detector 60 further includes one or more detector rows having multiple measurement channels 238 adjacent along a measuring direction (Fig.13).
With respect to claim 28, Morgan further discloses that the measuring channels 238 are scintillation counters (Figs.8A-9B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 8, 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Liu (CN 111596179 A, pagination corresponding to provided translation).
With respect to claim 8, Morgan does not specifically disclose determining areas in which both material weakening and material deposit are present.
Liu teaches the practice of identifying areas that have both material weakening (corrosion) and material deposit (corrosion byproduct) (see at least Fig.3 and corresponding description on p.9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Morgan to determine areas in which both material weakening and material deposit are present in order to effectively identify common defects, as taught by Liu.
With respect to claim 23, Morgan, as applied to claim 21 above, does not specifically disclose an adjusting means for adjusting or focusing a position of the x-ray source in the direction of the measuring axis.
Liu teaches the practice of selecting the optimal focal length for ensuring optimal fault detection of the pipe (p.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Morgan to have an adjustable focus in order to ensure optimal defect identification, as suggested by Liu.
With respect to claim 29, Morgan, as applied to claim 21 above, does not specifically disclose the claimed tube voltage range or tube current range. Morgan teaches higher-energy powered or radioactive sources for large pipes.
Liu teaches the practice of adapting an x-ray pipe defect inspection system (Fig.2) for a variety of pipe sizes and compositions, where appropriate tube settings for the size and content of the pipe include tube voltages between 15 and 70 keV and tube currents between 0.1 and 2 mA (p.3, also see p.9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Morgan to operate the x-ray measuring device with tube voltages between 15 to 70 keV and with tube currents between 0.1 and 2 mA in order to accommodate a wider variety of strands, as taught by Liu.
Claims 27 and 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan, as applied to claim 21 above, in view of Nisius (US 2022/0099598 A1).
With respect to claim 27, Morgan does not specify the number of measurement channels.
Nisius teaches the practice of providing detectors 111 of sufficient size and spatial resolution to effectively inspect various sizes of pipes, including a 35.6x43.2cm detector with a pixel pitch of 127μm, which results in over 3000 pixels in the longer direction (par.0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Morgan to have a detector with at least 3000 measuring channels in order to accommodate larger pipes at desired spatial resolution, as taught by Nisius.
With respect to claim 30, Morgan does not specifically disclose a planar detector. Morgan teaches a strand-centric curved detector structure for compactness.
Nisius teaches the practice of x-ray strand inspection by the use of a planar detector 111, providing substantially superior spatial resolution with all the advantages of modern sampling and data pre-processing as known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Morgan to use a planar detector in order to gain the advantages of modern high-resolution detectors for superior inspection and fault identification, as suggested by Nisius and as recognized in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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:
With respect to claim 18, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of continually changing the reference transmission curve by taking into account current transmission curves, where an adaptive comparison of the current transmission curve with the at least one previous transmission curve is carried out, as required by the combination of features as claimed. Both Morgan and US patent docs to Featonby (see attached PTO-892) teach the practice of taking an average of the scan data as a reference transmission curve, where Morgan averages the entire scan field, and Featonby takes an average of scans that are performed in areas of the pipe that have relatively few defects (par.0035 of the pre-grant pub). Neither teach updating the reference data by taking into account current transmission curves and adaptively comparing the current transmission curve with the at least one previous transmission curve.
Claim 19 is objected to by virtue of its dependence upon claim 18, thus incorporating the combination of allowable features.
With respect to claim 20, while inspecting corrugated pipes is generally known to include measurements carried out both in the ridges and valleys of the corrugated pipe and characteristics are determined at different areas or in different measuring planes of the corrugated pipe (see Liu, cited above), the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of comparing the reference transmission curve with a current transmission curve of a corrugated pipe, as required by the combination as claimed. The reference curves taught by the prior art are averages of smooth pipes; as such, there is no teaching or suggestion to adapt reference curves to corrugated pipes as required by the claim, absent the benefit of Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: EP 4450919 A teaches substantial details of inspecting corrugated pipes; however, the reference is not available as prior art; and the remaining prior art of record (see attached PTO-892) teaches various aspects of x-ray pipe inspection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached on 571.272.2273. 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884