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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 and 10 - 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lakhan et al. (US 2013/0009634).
Regarding Claim 1, Lakhan discloses a system, in at least Figures 1 – 3, comprising: a sensor including: a body (Figures 1 – 3) sized and configured to be received in a tube [0001, 0058], the body supporting at least one sensor (in 20) configured to obtain data representing a fouling of an inner surface of the tube [0016 - 0019].
Regarding Claim 2, Lakhan discloses the at least one sensor includes at least one of a capacitive sensor, a contact displacement sensor, a conductivity sensor, and an optical distance sensor [0047].
Regarding Claim 3, Lakhan discloses the tube is part of a heat exchanger [0001, 0058]
Regarding Claim 4, Lakhan discloses a processor (inherently in computer) in communication with the at least one sensor [0054], the processor configured to: receive the data representing a fouling of the inner surface of the tube from the at least one sensor [0054]; and determine a fouling level of the inner surface of the tube based on the data [0065].
Regarding Claim 5, Lakhan discloses the processor is configured to determine the fouling level without being influenced by the presence of fouling on an exterior surface of the tube [0065].
Regarding Claim 6, Lakhan discloses a system for detecting fouling, in at least Figures 1 – 3, the system comprising: a probe, the probe including: a body (Figure 1 – 3) sized and configured to be received in a tube to be inspected [0001, 0058], a plurality of sensors (in 20, 60) supported by the body (Figures 1 – 3), each sensor of the plurality of sensors configured to obtain data representing a fouling of an inner surface of the tube [0053, 0059, 0065]; and a cable configured to be coupled to the probe [0054].
Regarding Claim 10, Lakhan discloses the body of the probe has a cylindrical shape (Figures 1 – 3) and includes a front face (left face of 24) (Figure 2a) having an outer diameter that is less than a maximum outer diameter of the body of the probe (occurring in belly of 20) (Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 11, Lakhan discloses the body includes a front edge disposed between the front face and the maximum outer diameter of the body (edge between 24 and 20) (Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 12, Lakhan discloses the cable is configured to be coupled to the probe at an end that is opposite the front face (via 80) (Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 13, Lakhan discloses the cable is sufficiently rigid to advance the probe at least partially along a length of the tube to be inspected [0054, 0058].
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Storksen et al. (US 2011/0235057).
Regarding Claim 17, Storksen discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a processor of a controller, first data from at least one sensor supported by a body of a probe, the first data acquired by the at least one sensor when the probe is disposed within a tube and located at a first location along a length of the tube [0041 – 0043]; quantifying, by the processor based on the first data received from the at least one sensor, an amount of fouling present at the first location along the length of the tube [0042]; and storing data indicative of the amount of fouling present at the first location along the length of the tube in a memory [0045].
Regarding Claim 19, Storksen discloses generating, by the processor based at least in part on the first data, at least one fouling image [0041, 0042]; and causing the at least one fouling image to be displayed [0045] (Figure 4).
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) 7 - 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakhan et al. (US 2013/0009634), in view of Hawkins et al. (US 2013/0335111).
Regarding Claim 7, Lakhan fails to expressly disclose the probe includes at least one centering mechanism configured to contact an inner surface of the tube to be inspected.
Hawkins teaches the probe includes at least one centering mechanism configured to contact an inner surface of the tube to be inspected [0017, 0033].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Lakhan to include at least one centering mechanism configured to contact an inner surface of the tube to be inspected for the benefit of more accurate sensor signals and avoiding of contact between the probe and tube, as taught by Hawkins [0033].
Regarding Claim 8, Hawkins teaches the at least one centering mechanism includes a plurality of wheels that are biased to extend outwardly from the body of the probe [0040].
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 9, Lakhan teaches at least one contact-type displacement sensor extending outwardly from the body of the probe [0047], wherein the centering mechanism has been rendered obvious according to the rejection of Claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 14 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakhan et al. (US 2013/0009634), in view of Storksen et al. (US 2011/0235057).
Regarding Claim 14, Lakhan fails to expressly disclose the plurality of sensors includes at least one optical sensor, the at least one optical distance sensor supported by the body of the probe such that the a least one optical distance sensor is configured to measure a distance from the optical distance sensor to at least one of an inner surface of the tube to be inspected or a fouling disposed on a surface of the tube to be inspected.
Storksen teaches at least one optical sensor, the at least one optical distance sensor supported by the body of a probe such that the a least one optical distance sensor is configured to measure a distance from the optical distance sensor to at least one of an inner surface of the tube to be inspected or a fouling disposed on a surface of the tube to be inspected [0033 – 0035, 0040].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Lakhan to include in the plurality of sensors, at least one optical sensor, the at least one optical distance sensor supported by the body of the probe such that the a least one optical distance sensor is configured to measure a distance from the optical distance sensor to at least one of an inner surface of the tube to be inspected or a fouling disposed on a surface of the tube to be inspected for the benefit of additional sensors which are known to be accurate that can measure deposits in the tube, as taught by Storksen [0009].
Regarding Claim 15, Lakhan discloses a controller (inherently in computer) disposed in signal communication with the plurality of sensors [0054, 0061], the controller including a processor (also inherently in computer) configured to receive signals from the plurality of sensors [0054] and determine an amount of fouling present on the inner surface of the tube to be inspected [0065].
Regarding Claim 16, Storksen teaches a processor is configured to: generate at least one fouling image [0041, 0042]; and cause the at least one fouling image to be displayed [0045] (Figure 4).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 14 above.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storksen et al. (US 2011/0235057).
Regarding Claim 18, Storksen discloses comparing, by the processor, the first data indicative of the amount of fouling present at the first location along the length of the tube [0042].
Storksen fails to expressly disclose the comparing is to a threshold and determining whether the tube needs to be cleaned based on the comparing.
Storksen does teach determination of thickness of the fouling [0042] and that fouling is a severe problem [0002].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Storksen to select the largest amount of acceptable fouling i.e. thickness, a form of threshold, before it becomes a severe problem and compare that to measured thickness to determine if cleaning is required for the benefit of addressing the fouling before it becomes a severe problem.
Regarding Claim 20, Storksen discloses receiving, by the processor, second data from the at least one sensor supported by the body of the probe, the second data acquired by the at least one sensor when the probe is disposed within the tube and located at a second location along the length of the tube, the second location different from the first location [0041 – 0043, 0045, 0046]; quantifying, by the processor based on the second data received from the at least one sensor, an amount of fouling present at the second location along the length of the tube [0042, 0045, 0046]; and comparing, by the processor, the second data indicative of the amount of fouling present at the second location along the length of the tube [0042, 0045, 0046]
Storksen fails to expressly disclose the comparing is to a threshold and determining whether the tube needs to be cleaned based on the comparing of the second data to the at least one threshold.
Storksen does teach determination of thickness of the fouling [0042] and that fouling is a severe problem [0002].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Storksen to select the largest amount of acceptable fouling i.e. thickness, a form of threshold, before it becomes a severe problem and compare that to measured thickness to determine if cleaning is required for the benefit of addressing the fouling before it becomes a severe problem.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights