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 .
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 of U.S. Application 18/554,434 filed on November 17,2025 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Entry of Amendments
Amendments to claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 13, 14, 17, and 19 have been entered.
Claim 15 has been cancelled.
Rejections under USC 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/17/2025 have been fully considered and are moot in view of a new rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6-9, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons et al (USPGPub 20170108469) in view of Shand et al (USPGPub 20120238991).
Regarding claim 1, Timmons discloses a method (shown in figs 1-20c) of detecting and/or monitoring the forming and/or the growth of cracks (abstract and par 36 discloses detecting cracks and par 76 discloses measure growing defect in size) or plastic deformation and/or suspected cracks or plastic deformation in ferromagnetic structures, comprising reading values of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) from a plurality of magnetometers mounted on a structure (such as 130) and placed over or near a suspected crack (phenomenon 135) or plastic deformation and/or suspected crack or plastic deformation (par 30 discloses sensors 101 being magnetometers), in an earlier reading at a first point in time (such as modeled or historical data disclosed in abstract and par 5), and storing the values of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) (par 35 and 36 discloses storing database), reading further values of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) from the plurality of magnetometers in a further reading at a further point in time (abstract discloses measured data), processing the further values of the further reading with the values from the earlier reading (abstract discloses comparing historical and measured data and par 76 discloses using previous scanned data), and determining a location of a singular point of the crack or plastic deformation and/or suspected crack or plastic deformation from the processed further reading (par 80 discloses determines location in 2D and 3D situation. Therefore, the suspected crack from the data). Timmons does not fully disclose passively reading values.
However, Shand discloses passively reading values (abstract and par 65 discloses determining conduit inspection using passive magnetometry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Timmons in view of Shand in order to collect data without actively magnetizing the fluid conduit (Shand abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Timmons discloses wherein the values of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) and the further values of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) are read passively (par 29 and 30 discloses many types of magnetometers and fig 1 does not show creating own magnetic fields. Therefore passively).
Regarding claim 6, Timmons discloses wherein processing the further values of the further reading with the values from the earlier reading involves at least one of calculating a moving average, a derivative, a difference, a mean squared error, a least squares error, zero-crossing or similar noise filtering and signal reduction processing steps (abstract and 67 discloses measures differences).
Regarding claim 7, Timmons discloses wherein values from the earlier reading are subtracted from the further values of the further reading (abstract and 67 discloses measures differences. Therefore, the readings are subtracted to each other).
Regarding claim 8, Timmons discloses a system (shown in figs 1-20c) for detecting and/or monitoring the growth of cracks or plastic deformation and/or suspected cracks (abstract and par 36 discloses detecting cracks and par 76 discloses measure growing defect in size) or plastic deformation in ferromagnetic in structures, comprising: a plurality of magnetometers (101); and means operably coupled to the plurality of magnetometers (shown in 100) for: reading values of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) from the plurality of magnetometers mounted on a structure (such as 130) and over or near a suspected crack (par 30 discloses sensors 101 being magnetometers) or plastic deformation and/or suspected crack or plastic deformation, at a first point in time (such as modeled or historical data disclosed in abstract and par 5); storing the values of magnetic flux leakage (par 35 and 36 discloses storing database); and reading further values of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) from the plurality of magnetometers at a further point in time (abstract discloses measured data and comparing historical and measured data and par 76 discloses using previous scanned data) . Timmons does not fully disclose passively reading values.
However, Shand discloses passively reading values (abstract and par 65 discloses determining conduit inspection using passive magnetometry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Timmons in view of Shand in order to collect data without actively magnetizing the fluid conduit (Shand abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Timmons discloses wherein the plurality of magnetometers comprises at least three magnetometers (par 30 and fig 1 discloses a magnetometer).
Regarding claim 12, Timmons discloses a transmitter coupled to the plurality of magnetometers and configured to send data read with the plurality of magnetometers (par 38 discloses communicates measurement. Therefore, there is a transmitter).
Regarding claim 14, Timmons discloses a computer-readable recording medium (shown in figs 1-20c) storing instructions to execute a method or detecting and/or monitoring the forming and/or the growth of cracks (abstract and par 36 discloses detecting cracks and par 76 discloses measure growing defect in size) or plastic deformation and/or suspected cracks (phenomenon 135) or plastic deformation in ferromagnetic structures, the method comprising: reading values of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) from a plurality of magnetometers mounted on a structure (such as 130) and over or near a suspected crack (par 30 discloses sensors 101 being magnetometers) or plastic deformation and/or suspected crack or plastic deformation, in an earlier reading at a first point in time (such as modeled or historical data disclosed in abstract and par 5). and storing the values of magnetic flux leakage (par 35 and 36 discloses storing database), reading further values of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) from the plurality of magnetometers in a further reading at a further point in time (abstract discloses measured data). processing the further values of the further reading with the values from the earlier reading (abstract discloses comparing historical and measured data and par 76 discloses using previous scanned data). and determining a location of a singular point of the crack or plastic deformation and/or suspected crack or plastic deformation from the processed further reading (par 80 discloses determines location in 2D and 3D situation. Therefore, the suspected crack from the data). Timmons does not fully disclose passively reading values.
However, Shand discloses passively reading values (abstract and par 65 discloses determining conduit inspection using passive magnetometry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Timmons in view of Shand in order to collect data without actively magnetizing the fluid conduit (Shand abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Timmons discloses wherein the plurality of magnetometers are arranged in an array or a line (abstract discloses in an array).
Regarding claim 20, Timmons discloses wherein distances between adjacent magnetometers of the plurality of magnetometers is equal (par 42 discloses any distance between magnetometer. Therefore, can be equal).
Claims 2-4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons et al (USPGPub 20170108469) in view of Shand et al (USPGPub 20120238991).
Regarding claim 2, Timmons in view of Shand does not fully disclose wherein the further reading is carried out at an interval shorter than one week.
However, It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention taught by Timmons in view of Shand limited to the further reading is carried out at an interval shorter than one week in order to immediately process and determine if the anomalies is getting worst.
Regarding claim 3, Timmons discloses wherein the values comprise data of MFL in two or more directions (par 40 discloses being 1, 2, and 3D arrays and pars 45 and 88 discloses processing magnetic flux leakage to determine direction. Therefore at least two direction).
Regarding claim 4, Timmons discloses comparing sets of values of MFL in different directions, selecting at least one set and determining the location of a singular point of the suspected crack from the at least one selected set (par 45 and 88 discloses processing magnetic flux leakage to determine direction and then located phenomenon).
Regarding claim 16, Timmons in view of Shand does not fully disclose wherein the further readings are carried out at the interval of one day or less than 24 hours.
However, It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention taught by Timmons in view of Shand limited to wherein the further readings are carried out at the interval of one day or less than 24 hours in order to immediately process and determine if the anomalies is getting worst.
Regarding claim 17, Timmons discloses wherein the plurality of magnetometers are arranged in an array or a line (abstract discloses in an array).
Regarding claim 18, Timmons discloses wherein distances between adjacent magnetometers of the plurality of magnetometers is equal (par 42 discloses any distance between magnetometer. Therefore, can be equal).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons et al (USPGPub 20170108469) in view of Shand et al (USPGPub 20120238991) in further view of Sankaravadivel et al (USPGPub 20200132783).
Regarding claim 11, Timmons discloses wherein said means comprise a controller configured to initiate the readings (pars 33 discloses using control 150 to initate scan routines). Timmons in view of Shand does not fully disclose turn the plurality of magnetometers on and turn the plurality of magnetometers off.
However, Sankaravadivel discloses turn the plurality of magnetometers on and turn the plurality of magnetometers off (par 60-62 discloses turning off and on the magnetometer to determine magnetic fields). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Timmons in view of Shand in further view of Sankaravadivel as a known processor controls the device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons et al (USPGPub 20170108469) in view of Shand et al (USPGPub 20120238991) in further view of Crandall et al (USPGPub 20190138025).
Regarding claim 13, Timmons in view of Shand does not fully discloses wherein the plurality of magnetometers are each accommodated in a housing and/or embedded in a surrounding material, which housing and/or embedding is water and/or oil resistant or weather, water- and/or oilproof.
However, Crandall discloses wherein the plurality of magnetometers are each accommodated in a housing and/or embedded in a surrounding material, which housing and/or embedding is water and/or oil resistant or weather, water- and/or oilproof (par 57 discloses waterproof enclosure). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Timmons in view of Shand in further view of Crandall because it is known that a waterproof housing protects the circuitry.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brooks et al (US Pat No. 449408): discloses leakage detection using passive transducers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/DOMINIC E HAWKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858