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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-16, drawn to a cathodic protection unit.
Group II, claim(s) 17-20, drawn to a method of monitoring/calculating cathodic conditions in a pipe.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a unit comprising a piezoelectric wire to encircle and monitor a pipe, and a clamp assembly which has clamp sections attached to each other to form a complete envelope about the pipe upon installation, wherein the wire is threaded into the clamp assembly through an opening following a groove in the clamp assembly until it wraps around the pipe, and a fitting is attached to the wire to connect to an outgoing cable, a signal booster, an antennae, and/or an I/O controller, wherein the installed wire presses against the pipe, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Engel (U.S. 2005/0072216) and Engel (U.S. Patent No. 7,249,525, hereinafter Engel2).
Engel teaches a unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, sensor 15; Paragraph 0048, lines 1-2), comprising: a piezoelectric wire to encircle and monitor a pipe (see e.g. Fig. 1, cable 2 comprising piezoelectric material 5 wrapped around pipe 14 for measurement; Paragraph 0048), and a clamp assembly which has clamp sections attached to each other to form a complete envelope about the pipe upon installation (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 11, band 3 comprising clamp wrapping around, i.e. enveloping, pipe 14; Paragraph 0072, lines 1-13), the wire being threaded into the clamp assembly through an opening in the clamp assembly until it wraps around the pipe (see e.g. Figs. 9 and 11-12, cable 2 wrapped around pipe 14 and extending out of sealed side of surrounding clamp 3, i.e. structurally equivalent to being threaded through an opening to wrap around the pipe; Paragraph 0072, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0074; see MPEP §2113 regarding product-by-process), and a fitting is attached to the wire to connect to an outgoing cable, a signal booster, and/or an I/O controller (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 4, ends of cables 2 from sensor 15 electrically connected, e.g. via industrial connector, with respective outgoing flexible cables to processing unit 20, i.e. I/O controller, or a charge amplifier, i.e. signal booster, coupled to the processing unit; Paragraphs 0061, lines 5-10, Paragraph 0070, lines 4-10, and Paragraph 0075), wherein the installed wire presses against the pipe (see e.g. Fig. 1, cable 2 compressed against pipe 14 by band 3; Paragraph 0048, lines 3-6).
Engel2 teaches an apparatus for measuring a parameter of a fluid passing through a pipe (see e.g. Abstract) comprising sensors each in the form of a piezocable which is compressed against the pipe (see e.g. Fig. 3, sensor 15 comprising cable 2 compressed against pipe 14; Col. 4, lines 26-30 and 35-40), the sensors being compressed between the pipe and a sleeve which may have grooves formed therein that help keep the piezocable in place during operation (see e.g. Fig. 3, grooves 62 in sleeve 16; Abstract and Col. 4, lines 28-34).
During a telephone conversation with Mary Holroyd on 06/24/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1-16 are under consideration in this Office action.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “54” has been used to designate both an “I/O controller” in paragraph 0040 and a “wireless signal transmitter” in paragraph 0041 of the instant specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “56” in paragraph 0041; “52” in paragraph 0042; “64” and “68” in paragraph 0043.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0043, line 17, “snap-is” should read “snap-in”.
In paragraph 0044, lines 4-5, the “()” after “Zener barrier” appears to be extraneous or missing and identifying number.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, lines 7, “wherein when the” should read “wherein
In claim 4, line 3, “(54), or a GPS (56), or a camera (58), or” should read “(54),
In claim 6, line 12, “respectively;” should read “respectively; and”.
In claim 6, line 14, “each the quarter circle profile” should read “their quarter circle profiles”
In claim 8, line 2, “an housing” should read “a housing”.
In claim 13, line 3, “(58), or a cellular data connection (78), or one or more charge amplifiers (3), or” should read “(58), .
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.
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 5 and 13-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the mini pod" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of a “mini pod” in the dependency of the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "one or more charge amplifiers (30)" in lines 3-4. The limitation of “a signal booster (30)” is previously introduced in line 10 of claim 1. As they are referred to with the different terms but the same number “(30)” it is unclear whether the limitation of claim 13 is referring to the previous limitation or introducing a new limitation. For examination purposes, based on paragraph 0040 of the instant specification, they have been interpreted as the same/equivalent elements.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the charge amplifier (30)" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “one or more charge amplifiers” is previously introduced in lines 3-4 of the claim. In the case of more than one charge amplifier, it is therefore unclear which individual “charge amplifier” is being referred to later in the claim.
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel (U.S. 2005/0072216) in view of Engel (U.S. Patent No. 7,249,525, hereinafter Engel2).
Regarding claim 1, Engel teaches a unit (see e.g. Fig. 1, sensor 15; Paragraph 0048, lines 1-2), comprising:
a piezoelectric wire to encircle and monitor a pipe (see e.g. Fig. 1, cable 2 comprising piezoelectric material 5 wrapped around pipe 14 for measurement; Paragraph 0048), and
a clamp assembly which has clamp sections attached to each other to form a complete envelope about the pipe upon installation (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 11, band 3 comprising clamp wrapping around, i.e. enveloping, pipe 14; Paragraph 0072, lines 1-13),
the wire being threaded into the clamp assembly through an opening in the clamp assembly until it wraps around the pipe (see e.g. Figs. 9 and 11-12, cable 2 wrapped around pipe 14 and extending out of sealed side of surrounding clamp 3, i.e. structurally equivalent to being threaded through an opening to wrap around the pipe; Paragraph 0072, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0074; see MPEP §2113 regarding product-by-process), and
a fitting is attached to the wire to connect to an outgoing cable, a signal booster, and/or an I/O controller (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 4, ends of cables 2 from sensor 15 electrically connected, e.g. via industrial connector, with respective outgoing flexible cables to processing unit 20, i.e. I/O controller, or a charge amplifier, i.e. signal booster, coupled to the processing unit; Paragraphs 0061, lines 5-10, Paragraph 0070, lines 4-10, and Paragraph 0075),
wherein the installed wire presses against the pipe (see e.g. Fig. 1, cable 2 compressed against pipe 14 by band 3; Paragraph 0048, lines 3-6).
Engel does not teach the wire following a groove in the clamp assembly, but does teach the desire for the cable to be held in place and prevented from vibrating (see e.g. Paragraph 0074, lines 6-9).
Engel2 teaches an apparatus for measuring a parameter of a fluid passing through a pipe (see e.g. Abstract) comprising sensors each in the form of a piezocable which is compressed against the pipe (see e.g. Fig. 3, sensor 15 comprising cable 2 compressed against pipe 14; Col. 4, lines 26-30 and 35-40), the sensors being compressed between the pipe and a sleeve which may have grooves formed therein that help keep the piezocable in place during operation (see e.g. Fig. 3, grooves 62 in sleeve 16; Abstract and Col. 4, lines 28-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamp of Engel to comprise grooves in which the wire is accommodated on its inner surface compressing wire against the pipe as taught by Engel2 to help keep the wire in place during operation.
The unit being a “cathodic protection” unit is a statement of intended use. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…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.”.
Modified Engel teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed unit as stated above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Engel teaches the signal booster being disposed between the wire and an outgoing cable (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0061, lines 5-10, and Paragraph 0075, lines 5-11, sensor cable connected to charge amplifier, i.e. signal booster, which then connects to processing unit via flexible cable), wherein the signal booster is disposed within a mini pod (see e.g. Engel Fig. 16, amplifier housed in compartment 308, equivalent to mini pod, integral to housing 300 surrounding pipe 14 and sensors 15; Paragraphs 0083 and 0085).
Regarding claim 8, modified Engel teaches a housing that attaches to the mini pod (see e.g. Engel Fig. 16, housing 300 to which compartment 308 is formed integral to; Paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 9, modified Engel teaches the wire being wrapped around the pipe at least twice (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0050, lines 1-5, cable wrapped two to six, sixteen, twenty four or N number of turns around pipe).
Regarding claim 10, modified Engel teaches the wire being wrapped around the pipe three times (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0050, lines 1-4, three turns).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Engel2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lajoie et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,979,814) and Tipton (U.S. Patent No. 2,846,968).
Regarding claim 2, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Engel does not teach a draw latch attached to a first clamp section, the draw latch having a spring lever that mates with a catch attached to a last clamp section, the catch having a partially closed position and a fully closed position, wherein the spring lever engaged in the partially closed position facilitates threading the wire into the clamp assembly upon installation, and wherein the fully closed position secures the first and last clamp sections together and presses the wire onto the pipe. Engel does however teach opposite ends, i.e. first and last sections, of the clamp being secured together, i.e. in a fully closed position, to press the wire onto the pipe (see e.g. Engel Fig. 11, ends of band 3 comprising hose clamp connected and tightened to compress cable 2 against pipe 14; Paragraph 0072, lines 1-9).
Lajoie teaches a clamp for providing locking engagement to a pipe casing (see e.g. Abstract and Col. 2, lines 7-10), the clamp comprising two connected half rings (see e.g. Fig. 1, clamp 12 with first half ring 24 and second half ring 28; Col. 2, lines 5-7), wherein one half ring comprises a latch that has a lever that mates with a catch attached to the other half ring for firm engagement to the casing (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, locking assembly 30 with cross bar 56 and lever 50 attached to second half ring 28 which engage with angled recesses 36,38 on first half ring 24 to clamp around casing 60; Col. 2, lines 31-50), wherein the lever may be in disengaged, i.e. partially closed, position in the catch that enables adjustment to achieve the best engagement when in the engaged, i.e. fully closed position (see e.g. Fig. 2, disengaged position with crossbar 56 not fully in recess 38; Fig. 3, engaged position with crossbar 56 snugly fit into recess 38; Col. 2, lines 39-55).
Paragraph 0039 of the instant specification similarly describes the “partially closed position” resulting in reduced pressure between the clamp sections and pipe that facilitates threading the wire into the clamp assembly, which would similarly be achieved with the disengaged locking arrangement of Lajoie.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamp of modified Engel to comprise a latch with a lever on the first section that mates with a catch on the last section, wherein the latch/lever can be mated in a disengaged, i.e. partially closed, position in addition to the engaged, i.e. fully closed, clamp position as taught by Lajoie as an particular suitable arrangement for locking a clamp that provides firm engagement around a pipe that further enables adjustment of components to achieve the best engagement. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Engel does not explicitly teach the lever being a spring lever, but does teach that the clamp may be spring loaded to ensure good contact with the compressed wire (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0072, lines 10-13).
Tipton teaches a pipe clamp (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 14-15) comprising a lever hook which is spring advanced by a spring to be thrown into position to engage a catch (see e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4, hook 22 on lever 13 advanced by spring 22A toward catch 23; Col. 2, lines 49-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lever of modified Engel to comprise a portion advanced by a spring toward the catch to be engaged, i.e. forming a spring lever, as taught by Tipton as a suitable mechanism to make the clamp spring loaded and thereby ensure good contact with the compressed wire. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Engel2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guillaume (WO 2019219622 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 4, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Engel further teaches the unit comprising a mini pod (see e.g. Engel Fig. 16, compartment 308, equivalent to mini pod, integral to housing 300 surrounding pipe 14 and sensors 15; Paragraphs 0083 and 0085). Modified Engel does not explicitly teach the mini pod encasing a wireless signal transmitter, a GPS, a camera, or combinations thereof, but does teach that the mini pod may generally house electronics associated with the unit (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0085) as well as that a wireless connection may be utilized to connect the unit to a signal processor (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0061, lines 5-8).
Guillaume teaches a piezoelectric flow meter (see e.g. Paragraph 0001) comprising a piezoelectric sensor which may comprise a wire wound around a cylindrical conduit (see e.g. Fig. 1, piezoelectric sensor 6 around conduit 4; Paragraph 0025 and Paragraph 0026, lines 1-5), wherein an adapter module, i.e. mini pod, may be provided on or near the conduit (see e.g. Figs. 1-4, adapter module 8; Paragraph 0033), the adaptor module containing electronic components including a signal amplification module (see e.g. Fig. 4 amplification module 100; Paragraph 0039) and transmission module that can wirelessly transmit information from the sensor to one or more external controllers (see e.g. Fig. 4, transmission module 108; Paragraphs 0041 and 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mini pod of modified Engel to further encase a wireless signal transmission module as taught by Guillaume as a suitable electronic component for making a wireless connection to provide data from the piezoelectric wire to a controller/processing unit. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Engel2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reiz et al. (U.S. 2019/0309887).
Regarding claim 5, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Engel further teaches the unit comprising a mini pod (see e.g. Engel Fig. 16, compartment 308, equivalent to mini pod, integral to housing 300 surrounding pipe 14 and sensors 15; Paragraphs 0083 and 0085). Modified Engel does not teach the mini pod snapping onto a first clamp section of the clamp assembly, but does teach that it may generally house electronics associated with the unit (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0085).
Reiz teaches a device for fastening a measuring apparatus on a pipe (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a housing accommodating measuring, control and drive units and other components for carrying out the measurement (see e.g. Paragraph 0008, lines 1-11), wherein the housing may snap onto a portion of a clamp which is secured around the pipe (see e.g. Paragraph 0008, lines 11-13, and Paragraph 0012), allowing the housing to be fastened onto different pipe diameters and corresponding clamps (see e.g. Paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mini pod of modified Engel to snap directly onto a portion, i.e. first section, of the clamp as taught by Reiz as an alternate suitable arrangement for providing a housing for sensor electronics adjacent a pipe subject to monitoring that allows it to be fastened onto different pipe diameters and corresponding clamps. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Engel2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cobb et al. (U.S. 2022/0268302) and Reiz.
Regarding claim 6, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Engel does not teach the clamp assembly being composed of a first clamp section, a last clamp section, and two middle sections, each clamp section having a quarter circle profile with the groove disposed complimentarily along the quarter circle profile such that the wire can be threaded therethrough along the quarter circle profile to encircle the pipe upon installation, each of the first and last clamp sections having a hinge disposed at the end of their quarter circle profiles opposite a latch and a catch respectively, each of the two middle clamp sections having hinges disposed at both of the ends of their quarter circle profiles, wherein the hinges of each clamp section hingedly attaches to corresponding hinges of its adjacent clamp sections forming the complete envelope about the encircled pipe.
Engel as modified by Engel2 does however teach the groove being disposed complementarily along an internal circular profile of the clamp assembly such that the wire can be threaded therethrough to encircle the pipe upon installation (see e.g. Engel Fig. 1, encircling cable 2 compressed against pipe 14 by inner surface of band 3, Paragraph 0048, lines 3-6; see e.g. Engel2 Fig. 3, grooves 62 on surface of sleeve 16 compressing cable 2 against pipe 14, Abstract and Col. 4, lines 26-40).
Cobb teaches a band clamp comprising equal arcuate sections that form a closed band around a cylindrical component (see e.g. Paragraph 0017, lines 1-7), such as with four arcuate, i.e. quarter circular, sections including a first clamp section and last section linked together and ends of intermediate clamp sections being movably joined by a hinge to permit conversion between open and closed positions and facilitate installation in and removal from the cylindrical component (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 9 and Paragraphs 0026 and 0045), wherein the linked ends of the first and last clamp section may being releasably connected by a closure comprising a clasp, i.e. latch, on the first section that engages with a pin or catch on the last section for tight securing of the clamp around the cylindrical component (see e.g. Figs. 9-10, closure 200 with clasp 202 on third clamp section 130 and pins 208 or catch on first clamp section 110; Paragraph 0046, lines 5-6, and Paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamp assembly of modified Engel to comprise have the complete envelope around the pipe formed with four hingedly attached quarter circle profile sections, which would each have complimentary grooves forming the groove along the internal circular profile in which the wire is threaded, with two middle sections having hinges on both ends and a first and last section with a respective latch and catch at one end and hinges at their other ends as taught by Cobb as a suitable particular clamp structure for tight securing around the cylindrical pipe that permits conversion between open and closed positions and facilitated installation in and removal from said pipe. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Engel as modified above does not explicitly teach the first clamp section having a mini pod, or a housing disposed on a mini pod, with an opening therethrough to assist guiding the wire into place along the complementary grooves. Engel does however teach the unit comprising a mini pod which may contain a signal booster to which the wire exiting an opening in the clamp, and its respective complementary grooves, is connected, necessarily via a respective opening in the mini pod (see e.g. Engel Figs. 12 and 16, compartment 308, equivalent to mini pod, housing amplifier associated with sensor 15 by connection to cable 2; Paragraphs 0074 and 0085).
Reiz teaches a device for fastening a measuring apparatus on a pipe (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a housing accommodating measuring, control and drive units and other components for carrying out the measurement (see e.g. Paragraph 0008, lines 1-11), wherein the housing may snap onto a portion, i.e. section, of a clamp which is secured around the pipe (see e.g. Paragraph 0008, lines 11-13, and Paragraph 0012), allowing the housing to be fastened onto different pipe diameters and corresponding clamps (see e.g. Paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mini pod of modified Engel to be provided on one of the four finite sections of the clamp, such as the first section, as taught by Reiz as an alternate suitable arrangement for providing a housing for sensor electronics adjacent a pipe subject to monitoring that allows it to be fastened onto different pipe diameters and corresponding clamps. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2143(I)(E) states that it may be obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Engel2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reiz and Foreman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,373,838).
Regarding claim 7, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Engel further teaches the unit comprising a mini pod (see e.g. Engel Fig. 16, compartment 308, equivalent to mini pod, integral to housing 300 surrounding pipe 14 and sensors 15; Paragraphs 0083 and 0085), and a cover on the mini pod (see e.g. Engel Fig. 16, removable panel 314 on compartment 308; Paragraph 0085, lines 5-7). Modified Engel does not teach the mini pod snapping onto a first clamp section of the clamp assembly, but does teach that it may generally house electronics associated with the unit (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0085).
Reiz teaches a device for fastening a measuring apparatus on a pipe (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a housing accommodating measuring, control and drive units and other components for carrying out the measurement (see e.g. Paragraph 0008, lines 1-11), wherein the housing may snap onto a portion of a clamp which is secured around the pipe (see e.g. Paragraph 0008, lines 11-13, and Paragraph 0012), allowing the housing to be fastened onto different pipe diameters and corresponding clamps (see e.g. Paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mini pod of modified Engel to snap directly onto a portion, i.e. first section, of the clamp as taught by Reiz as an alternate suitable arrangement for providing a housing for sensor electronics adjacent a pipe subject to monitoring that allows it to be fastened onto different pipe diameters and corresponding clamps. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Engel as modified above does not explicitly teach the cover snapping into place on the mini pod, but does teach it being removable for easy access to the housed electronics (see e.g. Engel Fig. 16, removable panel 314; Paragraph 0085, lines 5-7).
Foreman teaches a system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising an assembly enclosed in a housing that can be opened by a snapped on lid for easy access to the enclosed components of the assembly (see e.g. Fig. 2, lid 201 of housing 198, Col. 6, lines 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of modified Engel to be snapped onto to the mini pod as taught by Foreman as a particular suitable means for fastening a lid/cover to a housing that enables the desired easy access to electronics in the mini pod. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Engel2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramsey (U.S. Patent No. 4,819,136).
Regarding claim 11, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Engel does not teach the opening having a wet-location snap-in sealing grommet, but does teach it being sealed (see e.g. Engel Fig. 12, sealed sides of band 3 through which cable 2 exits; Paragraph 0074) as well as the unit being potentially at risk of exposure to damaging contact from water spray and other precipitation (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0083).
Ramsey teaches an assembly which incorporates features to render it impervious to weather conditions (see e.g. Abstract), including holes in a body of the assembly through which wires pass being protected from moisture infiltration by snap in rubber grommets which form a watertight seal around the wires (see e.g. Figs. 1-3, grommets 15 in holes of body 6 through which wires 16 and 17 pass; Col. 2, lines 23-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the opening of modified Engel through which the wire exits to have a snap in rubber grommet as taught by Ramsey to protect the opening from moisture infiltration and form a watertight seal around the wire.
Though Ramsey does not relate to cathodic protection, clamp assemblies or pipe monitoring, it is analogous art as it addresses the same problem of providing an assembly including wires that is impervious, i.e. robust, to its environment (see e.g. Ramsey Abstract), as similarly described in paragraph 0006 of the instant specification. MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I) states “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).”
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel in view of Engel2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wallsten (WO 9218924 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Engel further teaches an I/O controller connected to the wire through a cable, or through a wireless interface (see e.g. Engel Fig. 4, processing unit 20 including I/O device, thereby forming an I/O controller, connected to cable 2 of sensor 15 via a flexible cable or wireless connection; Paragraph 0061, lines 5-8, and Paragraph 0075, lines 5-11), wherein the I/O controller has a brain base assembly comprising a processor and a data connection (see e.g. Engel Figs. 4, housed assembly comprising signal processor 19 and I/O device for accepting or outputting parameter data; Paragraph 0061, lines 1-8), as well as a voltage measurement (see e.g. Engel Figs. 4, 20 and 23, data acquisition unit, e.g. 126 or 138, of signal processor 19 with voltage as signal received; Paragraph 0050, lines 8-10, and Paragraph 0099, lines 1-4 and Paragraph 0114, lines 1-5).
Modified Engel does not explicitly teach the brain base assembly of the I/O controller further comprising a power supply and a carrier board, but does teach that the controller may be a personal computer or other general purpose computer provided with a signal processing device for executing programmed instructions such as a microprocessor or application specific integrated circuit which may include a memory for storing instructions and/or data (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0058).
Wallsten teaches a computer incorporating components for data processing (see e.g. Abstract) including a main board, i.e. carrier board, with a central processing unit, control program unit and primary storages (see e.g. Fig. 2, main board 15 of computer 1 carrying respective units; Page 5, lines 20-24), as well as a power supply unit for supplying power to electronic units necessary for function of the computer (see e.g. Fig. 2, power supply unit 23; Page 6, lines 21-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brain base assembly of modified Engel to further comprise at least a main board, i.e. carrier board, and a power supply as taught by Wallsten as suitable components to be incorporated in a computer for data processing that can respectively carry other components such as the processor, a program unit and storage memory and supply power to electronic units necessary for function of the controller. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel, Engel2 and Wallsten, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Fourie et al. (WO 03031686 A2).
Regarding claim 13, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 12 as stated above. Modified Engel does not explicitly teach the base assembly further comprising a camera, a cellular data connection, one or more charge amplifiers, or combinations thereof.
Fourie teaches a monitoring unit for a pipeline under cathodic protection (see e.g. Abstract), the monitoring unit comprising a control unit with an integrated communication module including an antenna that can communicate with cellular phones, i.e. cellular data connection, thereby allowing collected data to be relayed to a central location amd making it unnecessary to visit the monitoring unit (see e.g. Fig. 7, communication module 64 with antenna 89; Page 19, lines 15-17, and Page 30, lines 18-20 and 24-34)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base assembly of modified Engel to further comprise a cellular data connection as taught by Fourie to enable collected data to be relayed to central location and make it unnecessary to visit the unit.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel, Engel2, Wallsten and Fourie, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113584492 A, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 14, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 13 as stated above. Modified Engel further teaches the I/O controller base assembly being located in a housing (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0061, lines 5-7). Modified Engel does not explicitly teach the housing being explosive resistant.
Zhang teaches a pipeline monitoring device (see e.g. Paragraph n0006, lines 5-8) which is installed in an explosion-proof box that prevents safety hazards to the normal operation of the installed hardware or the surrounding environment (see e.g. Paragraph 0043, lines 5-7, and Paragraph n0045, lines 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of modified Engel to be explosion-proof as taught by Zhang to prevent safety hazards to the normal operation of the enclosed components or the surrounding environment.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel, Engel2 and Wallsten, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Carroll (U.S. Patent No. 3,725,746) and Sieron (U.S. Patent No. 4,786,862).
Regarding claim 15, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 12 as stated above. Modified Engel further teaches an enclosure assembly having the I/O controller base assembly disposed therein (see e.g. Engel Paragraph 0061, lines 5-7). Modified Engel does not explicitly teach the enclosure assembly being an enclosure pan assembly.
Carroll teaches an enclosing and supporting arrangement for electrical circuit controlling elements (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 5-8) comprising control pan units, i.e. assemblies, housed in control unit compartments, i.e. enclosures, of a control center (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 6, control center 22 with control unit compartments 31A and 31B accommodating control pan units 40; Col. 2, lines 45-48 and 58-62, and Col. 6, line 67-Col. 7, line 17), this arrangement being flexible in installation, easily expandable and modular (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 33-36, and Col. 7, lines 17-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure assembly of modified Engel to have the I/O controller base assembly disposed therein as a pan unit, thereby forming an enclosure pan assembly, as taught by Carroll as a suitable arrangement for enclosing and supporting electrical circuit controlling elements that is flexible in installation, easily expandable and modular.
Modified Engel does not teach a Zener barrier, a DC surge protector, and a DC-DC converter being disposed along with the I/O controller base assembly in the enclosure pan assembly. Wallsten does however teach the power supply receiving current from a mains voltage and transforming said current to levels suited for the computer and its electronics (see e.g. Wallsten Page 4, lines 21-22, and Page 6, liens 22-26).
Sieron teaches a sensor module (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a power supply logic circuit including MOV devices providing surge protection, as well as a Zener diode, i.e. barrier, and a DC-DC convertor which together enable delivery of regulated voltage to the sensor modules analog circuits (see e.g. Col. 6, lines 18-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure pan assembly of modified Engel to further have a power supply logic circuit disposed therein including devices for surge protection as well as a Zener diode and DC-DC converter as taught by Sieron as a suitable circuit arrangement for providing regulated and surge-protected power to the electronics of a sensor module. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel, Engel2, Wallsten, Carroll and Sieron, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 16, modified Engel teaches all the elements of the unit of claim 15 as stated above. Modified Engel does not explicitly teach the enclosure pan assembly being an explosion proof enclosure pan assembly.
Zhang teaches a pipeline monitoring device (see e.g. Paragraph n0006, lines 5-8) which is installed in an explosion-proof box that prevents safety hazards to the normal operation of the installed hardware or the surrounding environment (see e.g. Paragraph 0043, lines 5-7, and Paragraph n0045, lines 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure pan assembly of modified Engel to be explosion-proof as taught by Zhang to prevent safety hazards to the normal operation of the enclosed components or the surrounding environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights