Subsea Automotive System Travelling Along a Pipeline
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/10/2023 and 10/30/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim a limitation is: “mobility means enabling the system to move along the outer surface of a pipeline” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al Nahwi (US 20180080905).
Regarding claim 1, Al Nahwi discloses, in figures 1-9, an automotive underwater system (TITLE, “underwater pipeline inspection crawler”) including: mobility means (¶ 0054, Al Nahwi’s driving wheels are actuated) enabling the system (102) to move (¶ 0054, “during movement of the inspection crawler 102 along the pipeline, at least the front-most and rear-most pairs of wheels are actuated to ensure that at least one pair of driving wheels is propelling the inspection crawler 102 at all times”) along the outer surface of a pipeline (135), coaxially (see fig. 3A) to said pipeline (135), the pipeline (135) being longitudinally extended along a pipeline axis (see fig. 3A, the examiner construes Al Nahwi’s pipeline axis the run axially along the length of the pipeline), a body (104) elongated along a body axis (see fig. 3A), the body (104) having a front end and a rear end (not enumerated, see fig. 3A), at least three bearing members (130, 132) mounted on the body (104) in such a way as to each bear in a mobile, rolling or sliding, way (¶ 0038, Al Nahwi’s driving wheels are configured to propel the crawler across the surface of the pipe, ¶ 0048, Al Nahwi’s rolling elements are mecanum wheel configured to roll forward and sideways along the pipe) on the pipeline (135), in order to create a mobile connection between said body (104) and said pipeline (135), enabling the body (104) to roll and/or slide in a stable way in at least one direction at least parallel (¶ 0050, Al Nahwi’s latching arms selectively hug the surface of the pipe with the rolling elements providing a mechanism for remaining movingly coupled to the pipeline) to the pipeline axis (see previous comment), on the surface (see previous comment) of said pipeline (135), at least one articulated side arm (128) carrying one at least of the bearing members (130) to enable this bearing member to move transversely (see figs. 6A-6D, examiner notes Al Nahwi depicts the rolling elements at different transverse positions relative to the crawler housing) to the body axis (see previous comment) between, on the one hand, an open position (¶ 0051, “selectively… retract from the surface of the pipe”) for installing the system (102) on the pipeline (135) with the other bearing members (130, 132) bearing against the pipeline (135), and, conversely, uninstalling the system (102), and on the other hand, a service position in which said at least one bearing member carried (130) by said at least one articulated side arm (128) is folded back against the pipeline in order to form (¶ 0051, “selectively hug onto the surface of the pipe”), with the other bearing members (132), said mobile connection (see previous comment) of the body (104) to the pipeline (135), said at least one articulated side arm (128) being held in service position by at least one blocking member (150), at least three of said bearing members (130, 132) being applied, in the service position, on the pipeline surface in radial directions angularly offset about the body axis and distinct from each other (see at least fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 10, Al Nahwi discloses, in figures 1-9, at least one of the bearing members (130) is motorized (¶ 0054, Al Nahwi’s driving wheels are actuated, the examiner construes actuated wheels to mean motorized wheels) to enable a controlled movement (¶ 0038, Al Nahwi’s driving wheels are configured to propel the crawler across the surface of the pipe, of the body (104) on the pipeline (135).
Regarding claim 11, Al Nahwi discloses, in figures 1-9, at least two of the bearing members (130, 132) are wheels (see fig. 3A, Al Nahwi depicts the driving wheels and rolling elements as wheels) and the system (102) includes a front wheel (not enumerated, see fig. 3A) and a rear wheel (not enumerated, see fig. 3A) arranged in a same plane containing the body axis (see fig. 3A), at least one of the front wheel (130) and the rear wheel (130) being motorized (¶ 0054, Al Nahwi’s driving wheels are actuated).
Regarding claim 19, Al Nahwi discloses, in figures 1-9, at least one of the bearing members (130, 132) is directional to enable the mobility direction (¶ 0038, “driving wheels 132 are configured to propel the inspection crawler 102 across the surface of the pipeline”, ¶ 0072, Al Nahwi’s driving members move the crawler in a forward and backward direction) of the body (104) on the pipeline (135) to be controlled.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Nahwi (US 20180080905) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mims (US 20200132239).
Regarding claim 18, Al Nahwi fails to disclose an emergency release.
Mims teaches, in figures 6A-6B, each articulated side arm (142, 144) includes an emergency release device (152), and in the case where the system (100) also includes one or several connecting profiles (examiner notes Mims includes at least the cam-action quick release buckle connecting profile), at least one of them also includes an emergency release device (152).
Examiner notes that the limitation: “intended to stop the service position by releasing the pipeline surrounding and to enable the system to be released from the pipeline” is an intended use type statement. Applicant is reminded that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Mims teaching of a quick release mechanism to teach Al Nahwi to design the crawler with a quick release mechanism to quickly release the latching arm from the pipeline. Doing so saves time during emergency disconnections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 12-17 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 2, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al Nahwi to include wherein the bearing members are four in number and are wheels, the system including a front wheel and a rear wheel arranged in a same plane containing the body axis, the system including two articulated side arms ended by two side wheels, wherein the two side wheels can be moved against or away from the pipeline surface by moving the two articulated side arms, each wheel being of circular shape defining a circular plane and having a rotation axis perpendicular to said circular plane and passing by the center of said circular plane, et wherein, when the two front and rear wheels and the two side wheels are applied against the pipeline, the two side wheels are applied on the pipeline surface in radial directions angularly offset about the pipeline axis and distinct from each other and with respect to the radial direction of application of the front and rear wheels, and the points of application of the two side wheels on the pipeline surface are contained in an intermediate pipeline section plane, the point of application of the front wheel on the pipeline surface is contained in a front pipeline section plane, the point of application of the rear wheel on the pipeline surface is contained in a rear pipeline section plane, and the intermediate pipeline section plane is, along the pipeline, in an intermediate position between the front pipeline section plane and the rear pipeline section plane. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Dependent claims 3-9, 16-17 and 20 would be allowable for at least the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 12, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al Nahwi to include the front end and the rear end of the body include complementary coupling devices in such a way that the adjoining ends of two bodies of two systems can be coupled together and that a train consisted of a chain of systems can be formed, in which the systems are coupled together by pairs. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Dependent claim 13 would be allowable for at least the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 14, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al Nahwi to include the front end and the rear end of the body include complementary electric connectors, said electric connectors being intended for data and/or for power supply. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Regarding claim 15, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al Nahwi to include an attitude central unit and acoustic transmission means comprising an acoustic positioning beacon and/or an acoustic communication modem, the attitude central unit enabling in particular the angular position of the system to be measured, the system further including feedback-control means receiving the angular position of the system in order to orient the acoustic transmission means in a determined direction, in particular towards the surface or towards the laying vessel. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wehlin (US 20210094186) discloses a pipe traversing apparatus with arm members supports wheels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855