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 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 11, 12 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 11-12 and 16, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. (US20210105405A1, 2021-04-08) herein referred to as Robinson.
Regarding Claim 1, Robinson teaches an ultrasonic imaging system for imaging a tubular (Abstract; [0069]) comprising: an imaging tool having a circumferentially-distributed phased array of ultrasound elements (Fig.8, [0073; 0079; 0080], Claim 10); an electronic circuit connected to the phased array (Fig. 5; [0079; 0089]) and arranged to: transmit ultrasound waves radially outwards towards the tubular, which waves are defocused with a coherent wavefront and steered at one of plural different steering angles [0087; 0093; 0101]; and receive ultrasound reflections from the tubular for each of the steering angles, as digital reflection signals; and a processor (fig. 4-5) arranged to: perform receive-beamforming on the digital reflection signals to create plural steered ultrasound images ([0110]; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Robinson further teaches the imaging system of claim 1 , wherein the processor further combines the plural steered ultrasound images to create a compounded image of the tubular [0071; 0082].
Regarding Claim 3, Robinson further teaches The imaging system of claim 1 , wherein the processor further analyzes at least one of the plural steered ultrasound images to detect defects in the tubular [0008; 0011; 0067; 0071].
Regarding Claim 4, Robinson further teaches the imaging system of claim 1 , wherein the waves are planar waves or diverging curved waves ([0101]: defocused wave).
Regarding Claim 5, Robinson further teaches the imaging system of claim 1 , wherein the electronic circuit is arranged to transmit plural waves using different apertures of the ultrasound elements [0080; 0087-88] at the same time, without insonifying overlapping areas of an inner surface of the tubular [0102-0103].
Regarding Claim 6, Robinson further teaches the imaging system of claim 1, wherein the electronic circuit is arranged to transmit the ultrasound waves to insonify overlapping areas of an inner surface of the tubular from at least two of the different steering angles [0080; 0087-88; 0102-0103; 0110].
Regarding Claim 7, Robinson further teaches the imaging system of claim 1, wherein the electronic circuit is arranged to transmit the ultrasound waves as a continuous wavefront using substantially all of the ultrasound elements [0087; 0091].
Regarding Claim 11, Robinson further teaches the imaging system of claim 1 , wherein the circumferentially-distributed phased array is divided into plural segments of subarrays, preferably separated circumferentially by a gap or distributed as a helix or other pattern around the imaging tool (Fig. 2, 3b, 8).
Regarding Claim 12, Robinson further teaches the imaging system of claim 1 , wherein the circumferentially-distributed phased array is divided into two or more bands of segments of subarrays, preferably which bands are offset from each other axially with respect to the imaging tool (Fig. 2, 3b, 8).
Regarding Claim 13, Robinson further teaches the imaging system of claim 1 , wherein the circumferentially-distributed phased array is divided into plural segments of subarrays, some of which segments are angled partially in an axial direction of the imaging tool (Fig. 2, 3b, 8).
Regarding Claim 14, Robinson further teaches the imaging system of claim 1 , wherein the processor performs receive- beamforming on the digital reflection signals in parallel [0116].
Regarding Claim 15, Robinson teaches a method of imaging a tubular (Abstract; [0069]) using an imaging tool having a circumferentially-distributed phased array of ultrasound elements (Fig.8, [0073; 0079; 0080], Claim 10) comprising the steps of: deploying the imaging tool through the tubular (Abstract; [0069]); transmitting ultrasound waves radially outwards towards the tubular steered at plural steering angles [0087; 0101]; receiving ultrasound reflections from tubular for each of the plural steering angles as digital reflection signals (fig. 4-5); performing receive beamforming on the digital reflection signals to create plural steered ultrasound images ([0110]; Fig. 5); and combining the plural steered ultrasound images to create a compounded image of the tubular [0071; 0082].
Regarding Claim 16, Robinson teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising storing digital signals from the ultrasound elements of the received ultrasound reflections in a memory of the imaging tool and processing the digital signals on a remote computer, preferably storing the digitals signals as raw Rf signals ([0118; fig. 4 (remote computer (19))).
Regarding Claim 19, Robinson further teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the transmitted ultrasound waves are diverging curved waves (Examiner’s Note: the emitter is an ultrasonic sensor. Ultrasonic sensors emit sound waves which are diverging curved waves).
Regarding Claim 20, Robinson further teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising performing parallel receive- beamforming on the digital reflection signals to synthesize plural scanlines. (Fig. 2, 3b, 8).
Regarding Claim 21, Robinson further teaches the method of claim 15, wherein at least one of the steering angles is selected based on geometry of the tubular to induce a shear wave in the tubular [0024; 0077-0079].
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.
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.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, in view of Chang et al. (US20170020487A1, 2017-01-26), herein referred to as Chang.
Regarding Claim 8, Robinson further teaches the imaging system of claim 1. Robinson fail to teach wherein the plural steering angles comprise at least one perpendicular wavefront and two opposing, non-perpendicular wavefronts. However, in a related field, Chang teaches one perpendicular wavefront and two opposing, non-perpendicular wavefronts [Fig. 3b; 0006]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robinson to incorporate the teachings of Chang by including: the limitations above in order to improve the quality of images.
Regarding Claim 18, Robinson teaches the method of claim 15. Robinson fails to specifically teach wherein the transmitted ultrasound waves are planar waves. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an ultrasonic sensor emits plane waves being that the waves are sound waves. To ensure continuous prosecution, the examiner submits another reference, in a related field. Chang teaches wherein the transmitted ultrasound waves are planar waves [0037, 0072, Claim 11]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robinson to incorporate the teachings of Chang by including: the limitations above in order to in order to improve the quality of images.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, in view of Manders et al. (US20200249203A1, 2020-08-06), herein referred to as Manders.
Regarding Claim 9, Robinson teaches the imaging system of claim 1. Robinson fails to specifically teach wherein the electronic circuit is arranged to steer a given wave towards an inner surface of the tubular at a substantially consistent angle of incidence along the inner surface. However, in a related filed, Manders teaches wherein the electronic circuit is arranged to steer a given wave towards an inner surface of the tubular at a substantially consistent angle of incidence along the inner surface [0024; 0077-0079]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robinson to incorporate the teachings of Manders by including: the limitations above in order to in order to improve the quality of images.
Regarding Claim 10, Robinson teaches the imaging system of claim 1. Robinson fails to specifically teach wherein the electronic circuit is arranged to steer the waves to contact an inner surface of the tubular at angles of incidence of between 16 and 250, offset azimuthally with respect to a surface normal of the tubular. However, in a related filed, Manders teaches wherein the electronic circuit is arranged to steer the waves to contact an inner surface of the tubular at angles of incidence of between 16 and 250, offset azimuthally with respect to a surface normal of the tubular [0024; 0077-0079]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Robinson to incorporate the teachings of Manders by including: the limitations above in order to in order to improve the quality of images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 17, no reference, either alone or in combination teaches further comparing the plural steered ultrasound images to determining eccentricity of the tubular.
It is for this reason, Claim 17 would be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Yu et al. (A Distance Measuring Mechanism And Method, 2023-03-28) teaches a distance measuring mechanism and method, belonging to the pipe measuring technology field. which is provided with a first distance measuring component and a second distance measuring component which are vertical to each other, it overcomes the problem that the existing measuring device has higher parallelism requirement, using the measuring device to rotate itself, for different measuring of the pipe, the standard is uniform, in general, the purpose of improving the detection precision is realized; the middle part of the rotating machine frame is provided with a through hole structure through the hollow structure; it is convenient for the installation and debugging of the device production.
Ekramp et al. (PASSIVE AND ACTIVE SENSORS FOR ULTRASOUND TRACKING, 2020-09-09).
Son et al. (ULTRASONIC IMAGING APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME, 2020-09-09) teaches An ultrasonic imaging apparatus and a method of controlling the ultrasonic imaging apparatus for obtaining an image of an object by efficiently removing noise from an ultrasonic image obtained using a contrast agent are provided. The ultrasonic imaging apparatus includes a display; and a controller configured to derive a difference between ultrasonic image signals including contrast agent signals obtained in a frame before and after at least one viewpoint, and to form an image of an object based on the difference between the ultrasonic image signals over time corresponding to the frame before and after at least one viewpoint and output the image of the object to the display.
Nottingham et al. (POSITIONING ASSEMBLY FOR A TRANSDUCER IN A BORESONIC INSPECTION SYSTEM,. 1992-06-16) teaches n immersion base ultrasonic inspection system for interrogating the bore and near bore material of turbine and generator rotors by passing ultrasonic search units through the rotor bore. This system utilizes variable focus array inspection transducers in a shear mode inspection of the near bore material. The system includes a positioning assembly for a transducer which
includes carriage means for supporting the transducer and a first positioning means for tilting one end of the carriage means in a radial axial plane whereby the transducer may be positioned at an angle to a longitudinal axis of the system. A second positioning means is provided for circumferentially rotating the transducer to a known and repeatable angular position. Position resolver means are coupled to the first and
second positioning means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights