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 .
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) and the corresponding structure in the specification is/are: signal processing unit (claim 10) – part of or connected to signal controller having electronics for controlling the ultrasonic transducers (¶ [0039]) which includes a memory and processor (¶ [0070]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harper et al. (US 6,474,165 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Harper et al. discloses a pipeline inspection device (fig. 2) for being inserted into a pipeline (3), comprising a first ultrasonic transducer (rings 35-38 are ultrasonic transducers; c. 6, ll. 46-49); a signal controller being operatively coupled with the first ultrasonic transducer (12; fig. 5) and configured to control the first ultrasonic transducer (12) to emit a first ultrasonic signal (the inspection vehicle includes some control means to cause transducer 12 to emit an ultrasonic signal; c. 3, ll. 8-16); and a support structure (33a, 33, 39, 40; fig. 2) comprising a mounting means (33) and at least one spacer (39); wherein the first ultrasonic transducer (part of rings 35-38) is mounted to the mounting means (33) such that, in operation of the pipeline inspection device (fig. 2), the first ultrasonic signal encloses a finite angle with a normal of the pipeline wall (transducer 12 is mounted on module 33 such that the emitted ultrasonic signal encloses an angle with a normal of pipe wall 3; fig. 5), and wherein the mounting means (33) and the at least one spacer (29) are arranged and/or adjusted such that, in operation of the pipeline inspection device, the first ultrasonic transducer (12) has a pre-determined finite stand-off distance to a pipeline wall of the pipeline (module 33 and spacer 29 are arranged such that transducer 12 has a predetermined distance from pipe wall 3; fig. 5 and c. 6, ll. 56-59).
Regarding claim 12, Harper et al. discloses wherein the first ultrasonic transducer (12; fig. 5) is configured to receive a second ultrasonic signal (transducer 12 receives a reflected ultrasonic signal; c. 7, ll. 60-63).
Regarding claim 14, Harper et al. discloses a second ultrasonic transducer (13; fig. 5), wherein the second ultrasonic transducer is configured to receive a third ultrasonic signal (transducer 13 receives ultrasonic wave 15; fig. 5); wherein the first ultrasonic transducer (12) and the second ultrasonic transducer (13) are arranged such that, in operation of the pipeline inspection device, the first ultrasonic transducer and the second ultrasonic transducer are arranged at a second distance from each other (transducers 12 and 13 are arranged at a distance from each other along pipe wall 3; fig. 5); wherein the mounting means (33; fig. 2) and the at least one spacer (29) are arranged and/or adjusted such that, in operation of the pipeline inspection device, the second ultrasonic transducer (12) has the pre-determined finite stand-off distance to the pipeline wall of the pipeline (module 33 and spacer 29 are arranged such that transducer 12 has a predetermined distance from pipe wall 3; fig. 5 and c. 6, ll. 56-59).
Regarding claim 16, Harper et al. discloses further comprising a third ultrasonic transducer (a third transducer in rings 35-38; c. 6, ll. 46-49) and/or a fourth ultrasonic transducer (a fourth transducer in rings 35-38) being operatively coupled with the signal controller, wherein the signal controller is configured to control each ultrasonic transducer (35-38) to emit and/or receive ultrasonic signals (control means on the inspection vehicle are coupled with the transducers in rings 35-38 and control each to emit and/or receive ultrasonic signals; c. 3, ll. 15-24).
Regarding claim 18, Harper et al. discloses further comprising a signal processing unit that is operatively coupled to the first ultrasonic transducer (12) and that is adapted to further process an ultrasonic signal from the first ultrasonic transducer (processing means must be coupled to transducer 12 to process received signals; c. 3, ll. 3-15 and 37-39).
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(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. (US 6,474,165 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Harper et al. discloses wherein the signal controller (control means on the inspection vehicle; c. 3, ll. 15-16) is further coupled with the second ultrasonic transducer (13).
Although Harper et al. is silent on the second ultrasonic transducer emitting a signal, Harper et al. teaches other ultrasonic transducers that are capable of emitting and receiving (transducers 12 both emit and receive ultrasonic signals; c. 3, ll. 8-14 and c. 7, ll. 60-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ring of receiving transducers (13, 38) of Harper et al. to be capable of both emitting and receiving to provide a more compact design by reducing the number of transducers needed to achieve a desired defect detection resolution. In modifying the second transducers of Harper et al. to both emit and receive signals, the second ultrasonic transducer (13) would be controlled to emit a fourth ultrasonic signal, wherein the second ultrasonic transducer (13) is mounted to the mounting means (33) such that, in operation of the pipeline inspection device, the fourth ultrasonic signal (from transducer 13) encloses a negative finite angle with a normal of the pipeline wall (3), the negative finite angle having the same absolute value as the finite angle but the reverse direction (second ultrasonic transducer 13 encloses a negative angle with a normal of pipe wall 3 which has the same angle as the angle of first transducer 12 but in an opposite direction; fig. 5).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. (US 6,474,165 B1) in view of Norli (WO 2020/159385).
Regarding claim 13, Harper et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 11, and further, wherein the finite angle (critical angle 16; fig. 5), the stand-off distance (distance of transducer 12 and pipe wall 3) and the first ultrasonic signal (14) are chosen such that, in operation of the pipeline inspection device, at least one mode is excited in the pipeline wall (3) by the first ultrasonic signal (critical angle 16, distance between transducer 12 and pipe wall 3, and ultrasonic signal 14 are chosen such that ultrasonic signal 14 is refracted into pipe wall 3, travels inside pipe wall 3, and refracts out again; fig. 5 and c. 7, ll. 42-50).
Harper et al. is silent on the ultrasonic signal exciting a Lamb mode in the pipeline wall.
Norli teaches emitting, an ultrasonic signal excites at least one fundamental Lamb mode in the pipeline wall (angle and frequency of the ultrasonic signal are chosen to excite a fundamental Lamb mode; page 8, ll. 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Harper et al. with the Lamb mode excitation of Norli to improve the detection of small flaws, such as pits or holes, in a pipeline wall (Norli, page 2, ll. 29-32).
Claim(s) 1-10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norli (WO 2020/159385 A1) in view of Harper et al. (US 6,474,165 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Norli discloses a method for detecting a defect (3; page 5, ll. 16-17) in a pipeline wall (plate material 1 may be the interior wall of a pipeline; page 1, ll. 7-9), comprising the steps of arranging a first ultrasonic transducer (2) inside a pipeline at a finite stand-off distance from the pipeline wall (acoustic transducer 2 is arranged inside a pipeline at a distance from plate material 1 and may be ultrasonic; page 1, ll. 13-15 and page 5, ll. 19-22); emitting, by the first ultrasonic transducer (2), a first ultrasonic signal towards the pipeline wall (1) at a finite angle (φ) relative to a normal of the pipeline wall (transducer 2 emits an ultrasonic signal toward plate material 1 at an angle φ relative to or aligned with a normal direction of plate material 1; page 3, ll. 7-9), wherein the first ultrasonic signal excites at least one fundamental Lamb mode in the pipeline wall (angle and frequency of the ultrasonic signal are chosen to excite a fundamental Lamb mode; page 8, ll. 8-10); and receiving, by a second ultrasonic transducer (4), a second ultrasonic signal from the surface of the pipeline wall (1), wherein the second ultrasonic signal is an echo signal generated by the at least one fundamental Lamb mode excited by the first ultrasonic signal and reflected from a defect (3) in the pipeline wall (transducer 4 receives an echo signal generated by the fundamental Lamb mode excited b by transducer 2; page 9, ll. 11-13).
Regarding claim 2, Norli discloses wherein the first ultrasonic signal is an ultrasonic pulse of length Δt1 in the time-domain having a single frequency f1 (the ultrasonic signal is a burst or pulse having a length and a frequency; page 5, ll. 19-22).
Regarding claim 3, Norli discloses wherein the stand-off distance is measured along the direction of the normal of the pipeline wall (a distance between transducer 2 and plate material 1 is measured along a normal direction to plate material 1; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Norli discloses arranging a second ultrasonic transducer (4; fig. 1) inside the pipeline at a finite stand-off distance from the pipeline wall (transducer 4 is arranged at a distance from plate material 1; fig. 1), wherein the first ultrasonic transducer (2) and the second ultrasonic transducer (4) are arranged at a second distance from each other (transducers 2 and 4 are arranged at a distance from each other; fig. 1); receiving, by the second ultrasonic transducer (4), a third ultrasonic signal from the surface of the pipeline wall (1), wherein the third ultrasonic signal is generated by the at least one fundamental Lamb mode excited by the first ultrasonic signal (emitted by transducer 1) and having propagated within the pipeline wall (1) over a finite third distance (transducer 4 receives an ultrasonic signal from plate material 1 that is generated by the fundamental Lamb mode excited by the ultrasonic signal emitted by transducer 1 and having propagated within plate material 1 over a distance; fig. 1 and page 6, ll. 9-16).
Regarding claim 5, Norli discloses wherein the second distance is measured in a plane defined by a normal of the pipeline wall (transducers 2 and 4 are arranged at a distance from each other measured in a plane normal to plate material 1; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Norli discloses wherein the ultrasonic signal received by the transducer is further processed with a signal processing unit (13-16; fig. 1), wherein the signal processing unit (13) decides whether or not a defect is present in the pipeline wall (1) depending on the received ultrasonic signal (processor 13 controls signal generator 10 and processes the received signal to determine a defect; page 2, ll. 29-32 and page 5, l. 26 – page 6, l. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Norli discloses a pipeline inspection device (fig. 1) adapted to carry out the method (the pipeline inspective device carries out the inspection method; Abstract).
Although Norli discloses separating emitting and receiving transducers, providing a transducer capable of both emitting and receiving is well known in the art of measuring and testing devices.
Harper et al. teaches ultrasonic transducers capable of emitting and receiving (c. 3, ll. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Norli with the emitter/receiver transducers of Harper et al. to reduce the number of transducers needed to achieve a desired defect detection resolution.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Norli discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 4 and further, wherein the ultrasonic signal excites at least one fundamental Lamb mode in the pipeline wall (angle and frequency of the ultrasonic signal are chosen to excite a fundamental Lamb mode; page 8, ll. 8-10).
Although Norli discloses separating emitting and receiving transducers, providing a transducer capable of both emitting and receiving is well known in the art of measuring and testing devices.
Harper et al. teaches a method using ultrasonic transducers capable of both emitting and receiving (c. 3, ll. 5-7) including the steps of emitting, by a second ultrasonic transducer (13; fig. 5), a fourth ultrasonic signal towards a pipeline wall (3) at a negative finite angle relative to a normal of the pipeline wall (as transducers 12 and 13 both emit and receive, transducer 13 may emit a second ultrasonic signal toward pipe wall 3 at a negative angle relative to a normal direction of pipe wall 3; fig. 5), the negative finite angle having the same absolute value as finite angle but the reverse direction (the angle of transducer 13 has the same value as the angle of transducer 12 but in an opposite direction; fig. 5), and at least one of: (i) receiving, by a first ultrasonic transducer (12), a fifth ultrasonic signal from the surface of the pipeline wall (3), wherein the fifth ultrasonic signal is generated by the mode excited by the fourth ultrasonic signal and having propagated within the pipeline wall over a finite third distance (an ultrasonic signal is received by transducer 12 generated by an ultrasonic signal emitted by transducer 13 and propagated within pipe wall 3; fig. 5) or (ii) receiving, by the second ultrasonic transducer (13), a sixth ultrasonic signal from the surface of the pipeline wall (3), wherein the sixth ultrasonic signal is an echo signal generated by the mode excited by the fourth ultrasonic signal and reflected from a defect (18) in the pipeline wall (defect 18 in pipe wall 3 causes transducer 13 to receive an ultrasonic signal that is a reflected wave, or echo, generated by the signal emitted from transducer 13; c. 7, ll. 60-64); wherein a third distance at which an ultrasonic signal is propagated through the pipeline wall (3) is equated by the equation: d1 – 2d2 * tan(φ), with d1 being the stand-off distance of the first transducer, d2 being a second distance between first and second transducers, and φ being the finite angle (given d1 as the vertical height of a right triangle formed by a line of wave 14 and a direction normal to pipe wall 3, and d2 as the distance between transducers 12 and 13, the tan(φ) = d1 / (d2 – d3) /2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Norli with the emitter/receiver transducers of Harper et al. to reduce the number of transducers needed to achieve a desired defect detection resolution.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Norli discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 4.
Norli is silent on a third and fourth ultrasonic transducer.
Harper et al. teaches further comprising the steps of arranging a third ultrasonic transducer (one of transducers 12 in transducer ring 35; fig. 2 and c. 6, ll. 46-52) inside the pipeline (3); emitting, by the third ultrasonic transducer (12; fig. 5), a further ultrasonic signal at a second finite angle relative to a normal of the pipeline wall (second transducer 12 emits a signal at an angle relative to a normal of pipe wall 3; fig. 5), wherein the emitted further ultrasonic signal excites a mode in the pipeline wall (3); and receiving, with the first ultrasonic transducer (first transducer 12) and/or if applicable the second ultrasonic transducer (first transducer 13), a response ultrasonic signal from the surface of the pipeline wall (3), wherein the response ultrasonic signal is generated by the mode excited by the further ultrasonic signal and having propagated within the pipeline wall (3) over a finite distance (an ultrasonic response signal is received by first transducer 12 or first transducer 13 generated by an ultrasonic signal emitted by second transducer 12 and propagated within pipe wall 3; fig. 5); further comprising the steps of arranging a third ultrasonic transducer (second transducer 12) and a fourth ultrasonic transducer (second transducer 13) inside the pipeline (3), each at a finite further stand-off distance from the pipeline wall (transducers 12 and 13 in rings 35 and 38 respectively are arranged at a distance from pipe wall 3; figs. 2 and 5), wherein the third and fourth transducers (12, 13) are arranged at a finite fifth distance from each other (transducers 12 and 13 in rings 35 and 38 respectively are arranged a distance from each other; fig. 2); emitting, by the third ultrasonic transducer (second transducer 12), a seventh ultrasonic signal towards the pipeline wall (3) at a second finite angle relative to a normal of the pipeline wall (second transducer 12 emits a signal at an angle relative to a normal of pipe wall 3; fig. 5), wherein the seventh ultrasonic signal excites at least one mode in the pipeline wall (3); and receiving, by the fourth ultrasonic transducer (second transducer 13), an eighth ultrasonic signal from the surface of the pipeline wall (3), wherein the eighth ultrasonic signal is generated by the at least one mode excited by the seventh ultrasonic signal and having propagated within the pipeline wall (3) over a finite sixth distance or by the at least one mode excited by the first ultrasonic signal (second transducer 12 excites a wave in pipe wall 3 and second transducer 13 receives an ultrasonic signal from pipe wall 3 generated by the mode excited by the second transducer 12 and propagated within pipe wall 3; c. 7, ll. 42-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Norli with the third and fourth transducers of Harper et al. to improve the circumferential resolution of the detection (Harper et al., c. 5, ll. 48-55).
Although Norli in view of Harper et al. are silent on the second finite angle of the third and fourth transducers is different from the first finite angle of the first and second transducers, Harper et al. further teaches that the critical angle between the transducer and pipe wall may be adjusted to achieve desired refracted waves in the pipe wall (c. 8, l. 66 – c. 9, l. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Norli in view of Harper et al. to provide transducers with differing critical angles to ensure more accurate detection of defects (Harper et al., c. 9, ll. 5-7 and 19-22).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852