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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on or before 2024-10-15 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A subspecies II in the reply filed on 2026-05-22 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the non-elected claims ultimately depend from claim 6 and recite similar methods for detecting one or more changes of the inspection tool when encountering an obstruction and that there is no indication the non-elected claims would require a different field of search.
This is not found persuasive because the non-elected claims encompass different embodiments that are not obvious variants, based on the current record, and therefore a search for the features of one embodiment would not return the features of another embodiment. For example, claim 19 requires at least a hall effect sensor or an ultra-sound sensor, a search for elected species A, which requires a capacitance sensor would not return results of an ultra-sound or a hall effect sensor and as such a different search would be required for the mutually exclusive features of the non-elected species.
Upon further consideration, the requirement for restriction between Subspecies II-V is withdrawn as the subspecies V and IV is a further limitation of Subspecies III which is itself a further limitation of Subspecies II. The requirement for restriction between Subspecies I, II, VI and VII is maintained.
In light of the withdrawal of the requirement for restriction between Subspecies II-V, claims 15 and 16 will be fully examined.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Species C there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
This requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 6, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprung (US-20110214753-A1 – From applicant IDS) in view of Bryner et al. (US-20200254615-A1) in view of Ge et al. (CN-117169811-A – Refer to attached machine translation for references cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Sprung teaches an inspection toolset, comprising: a magnetically-coupled probe (Fig 8: first element, 12) sized to fit within, and slide along, a channel (Fig 8: tube, 20);
an inspection tool comprising a magnetically-coupled head disposed outside of the channel (Fig 8: second element, 32);
wherein the magnetically-coupled head and the magnetically-coupled probe are magnetically-coupled together to make a magnetically-coupled probe/head pair that have a magnetic strength sufficiently strong to drag the magnetically-coupled probe inside the channel when the magnetically-coupled head is moved outside of the channel (Para [0029]).
Sprung does not explicitly teach a sensor, attached to, or disposed within, the magnetically-coupled head. However, Bryner teaches a sensor, attached to, or disposed within, a magnetically-coupled head (Para [0348-0349] teaches a magnetic induction sensor attached to a robot arm that may detect when debris is encountered). Therefore, 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 magnetically coupled head of Sprung to contain the sensor of Bryner. A motivation for this modification is the induction sensor of Bryner allows for close proximity to the pipe and may determine thickness of debris, as taught in Bryner in Para [0349].
The combination of Sprung in view of Bryner does not teach wherein the sensor is configured to detect when the magnetically-coupled probe has encountered an obstruction located inside of the channel. However, Ge teaches wherein the sensor is configured to detect when the magnetically-coupled probe has encountered an obstruction located inside of the channel (Para [n0013] teaches the sensor detects a magnetic signal from the device within the pipe, and Para [n0071] teaches the sensor can determine whether there is a blockage). Therefore, 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 sensor of the combination, to be able to determine a blockage in the pipe as taught in Ge. A motivation for this modification is knowing the that there is a blockage and the location of the blockage greatly reduces labor costs, as taught by Ge in Para [n0071].
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches wherein the sensor senses: a change in an electrical inductance of an electromagnet disposed inside of the magnetically-coupled head; when the magnetically-coupled probe encounters the obstruction (Bryner - Para [0348-0349] teaches a magnetic induction sensor for a robot that may detect when debris is encountered). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 4, Sprung further teaches wherein the inspection tool is attached to, and manipulated by a robotic manipulator arm; or manipulated by a human operator (Para [0029] teaches a user moves the second element).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge does not explicitly teach wherein the channel is disposed within a battery vent gas manifold system of an electric vehicle. However, the size or type of the channel is not a property of the claimed toolset as it is not positively claimed as such and therefore no patentable weight is given to the type of channel. Sprung does teach in Para [0030] that members for insertion into the tube are sized for that tube. Additionally, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have sized the first element of the combination to fit within a battery vent gas manifold system. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the changing of size to fit within a different type of pipe/channel would not appreciably change the function of the combination and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the function would achieve the same, predictable result regardless of size.
Regarding Claim 6, Sprung teaches a method of inspecting a channel with an inspection toolset, the method comprising:
providing an inspection toolset comprising:
a magnetically-coupled probe (Fig 8: first element, 30) sized to fit within, and slide along, the channel (Fig 8: tube, 20);
an inspection tool comprising a magnetically-coupled head disposed outside of the channel (Fig 8: second element, 32);
wherein the magnetically-coupled head and the magnetically-coupled probe are magnetically-coupled together to make a magnetically-coupled probe/head pair that have a magnetic strength sufficiently strong to drag the magnetically-coupled probe inside the channel when the magnetically-coupled head is moved outside of the channel (Para [0029]);
inserting the magnetically-coupled probe into the channel (Fig 8 shows the first element, 30, in the tube, 20);
placing the magnetically-coupled head in close proximity to the channel and sliding the magnetically-coupled head along the channel, thereby dragging the magnetically-coupled probe along the channel (Para [0029]).
Sprung does not teach a sensor, attached to, or disposed within, the magnetically-coupled head. However, Bryner teaches a sensor, attached to, or disposed within, a magnetically-coupled head (Para [0348-0349] teaches a magnetic induction sensor attached to a robot arm that may detect when debris is encountered). Therefore, 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 magnetically coupled head of Sprung to contain the sensor of Bryner. A motivation for this modification is the induction sensor of Bryner allows for close proximity to the pipe and may determine thickness of debris, as taught in Bryner in Para [0349].
The combination of Sprung in view of Bryner does not teach wherein the sensor is configured to detect when the magnetically-coupled probe has encountered an obstruction located inside of the channel; detecting, with the sensor, one or more changes in a physical, electrical, and/or a magnetic property of the inspection tool when the magnetically-coupled probe encounters the obstruction; and alerting a computer or a human operator that the obstruction has been detected.
However, Ge teaches wherein the sensor is configured to detect when the magnetically-coupled probe has encountered an obstruction located inside of the channel (Para [n0013] teaches the sensor detects a magnetic signal from the device within the pipe, and Para [n0071] teaches the sensor can determine whether there is a blockage);
detecting, with the sensor, one or more changes in a physical, electrical, and/or a magnetic property of the inspection tool when the magnetically-coupled probe encounters the obstruction (Para [n0013] teaches the sensor detects a magnetic signal from the device within the pipe, and Para [n0071] teaches the sensor can determine whether there is a blockage); and
alerting a computer or a human operator that the obstruction has been detected (Para [n0129] teaches alerting a user via a computer when the blockage is detected).
Therefore, 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 sensor of the combination, to be able to determine a blockage in the pipe as taught in Ge. A motivation for this modification is knowing the that there is a blockage and the location of the blockage greatly reduces labor costs, as taught by Ge in Para [n0071].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge, as presented with respect to claim 6, teaches measuring with the sensor: a change in an electrical inductance of an electromagnet disposed within the magnetically-coupled head; when the obstruction is encountered (Bryner - Para [0348-0349] teaches a magnetic induction sensor for a robot that may detect when debris is encountered). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge, as presented with respect to claim 6, teaches moving the inspection tool and the magnetically-coupled probe along the channel (Sprung - Para [0029]) and wherein the inspection tool is attached to a robot manipulator arm (Bryner - Para [0363] teaches the sensor attached to robot arms and Para [0340] teaches the robot may operate autonomously). Therefore, the combination teaches a robot arm that moves the magnetically coupled probe along the channel. These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge, as presented with respect to claim 6, teaches removing the obstruction from the channel after the magnetically-coupled probe has located the obstruction (Ge - Para [n0002] of Ge teach that pipeline cleaning tools are used to remove dirt or blockages from pipes), and removing the magnetically-coupled probe from the channel after inspection has been completed (Sprung - Para [0031] teaches the removal of the device from the tube). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge, as presented with respect to claim 11, teaches wherein the magnetically-coupled head comprises a ferrous steel or a magnet (Sprung - Para [0029] teaches the first and second elements, 30 & 32, are magnetic). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge, as presented with respect to claim 11, teaches holding or trapping the magnetically-coupled probe at one end of the channel after inspection has been completed (Sprung - Para [0031] teaches the first element, 30, may enter a second inner lumen, Fig 8: 42, so that it doesn't need to be removed from the piping). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge in further view of Kasputin et al. (US-20080141474-A1).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge does not teach
wherein removing the obstruction in step comprises:
magnetically moving, with a magnetically-coupled head, a magnetically-coupled bucket disposed inside of the channel, wherein the magnetically-coupled bucket comprises upper and lower sharp leading edges;
cutting away and detaching the obstruction from a wall of the channel by pushing the magnetically-coupled bucket forward into and past the obstruction, thereby cutting off and creating a detached obstruction;
holding the detached obstruction in the magnetically-coupled bucket; and then
removing the magnetically-coupled bucket, with the detached obstruction held inside, from the channel.
However, Kasputin teaches wherein removing the obstruction in step comprises:
magnetically moving, with a magnetically-coupled head, a magnetically-coupled bucket (Para [0026] teaches a collection vessel, 110, that is "cupped shaped") disposed inside of the channel, wherein the magnetically-coupled bucket comprises upper and lower sharp leading edges (Para [0026] teaches the scraping of debris from the edges of the pipeline, therefore the edges must be sharp enough to perform the scraping);
cutting away and detaching the obstruction from a wall of the channel by pushing the magnetically-coupled bucket forward into and past the obstruction, thereby cutting off and creating a detached obstruction (Para [0026] teaches the scraping of debris from the edges of the pipeline);
holding the detached obstruction in the magnetically-coupled bucket (Para [0026] teaches holding the debris in the collection chamber); and then
removing the magnetically-coupled bucket, with the detached obstruction held inside, from the channel (Para [0027] teaches removing of the cleaning device).
Therefore, 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 magnetically coupled head of the combination to include the bucket of Kasputin. A motivation for this modification is a bucket may collect debris and remove from the channel as taught by Kasputin in Para [0027].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge in view of Kasputin in view of Nicholson (US-7597048-B2).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge in view of Kasputin teaches a magnetically coupled bucket (Kasputin - Para [0026] teaches a collection vessel, 110, that is "cupped shaped"). The combination does not teach vacuuming up the detached obstruction with a vacuum tube attached to a rear end of the magnetically-coupled bucket; thereby removing the detached obstruction from the channel. However, Nicholson teaches vacuuming up the detached obstruction with a vacuum tube attached to a rear end (Fig 1, vacuum pipe, 9) of the a cutting device (Fig 1: cutter blade, 34); thereby removing the detached obstruction from the channel (col 5 lines 30-33 teach removing debris with a vacuum tube). Therefore, 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 magnetically coupled bucket of the combination, to include the vacuum tube of Nicholson. A motivation for this modification is to remove debris as it accumulates as taught by Nicholson in col 5 lines 30-33.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge in view of Kasputin in view of Schiavon et al. (US-12005483-B2).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge in view of Kasputin does not teach using a plurality of fixed or rotating blades; or a pair of snipper jaws, or a plurality of rotating gears, that cut or grind the obstruction into a plurality of small, individual pieces. However, Schiavon teaches using a plurality of fixed or rotating blades (Fig 7: cutting inserts, 13); or a pair of snipper jaws, or a plurality of rotating gears, that cut or grind the obstruction into a plurality of small, individual pieces (col. 9 lines 1-3 teaches the cutting inserts break up deposits within the pipeline). Therefore, 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 magnetically coupled head of the combination to include the cutting inserts of Schiavon. A motivation for this modification is to increase effectiveness of removal of deposits within the pipeline, as taught by Schiavon in col. 4 lines 62-65.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 2, 7-8, and 17-18 are 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claims 2, 8 and 20, the inclusion of the limitation “a shaft attached to the head and the sensor, disposed in-between the head and the sensor; and wherein the sensor is configured to sense an increase in a lateral force, a torque, and/or a lateral deflection of the shaft when the magnetically-coupled probe encounters the obstruction located inside of the channel” found in the entirety of claims 2 and 8 and in lines 21-25 of claim 20. Specifically, it is the inclusion the sensor configured to sense the force, torque of lateral deflection of a shaft, in combination with the other elements in the claim that is not found in the prior art. The prior art of record relies upon magnetic/inductance sensing to determine whether there is an obstruction in the channel and not the displacement of a shaft. The closest prior art is Sprung in view of Bryner in view of Ge.
Regarding Claim 7, the inclusion of the limitation further “comprising applying a physical map, or projecting a video display, to an exterior surface of a battery pack, showing locations of internal channels disposed within a battery pack, and using the map or display to guide a human operator to move the magnetically-coupled probe along the channel” found in the entirety of the claim is not found in the prior art. Specifically the requirement that the internal channels be shown from the exterior of the battery pack.
Regarding Claim 17, the inclusion of “wherein the channel is disposed within a battery vent gas manifold system of an electric vehicle” found in the entirety of the claim, and in combination with the claims from which it depends is not found in the prior art. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method of inspecting battery vent gas manifold systems as taught in the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 18, the inclusion of “wherein holding the magnetically-coupled probe at an end of the channel after completing inspection comprises rotating a one-way turn-style post with a pair of arms that captures and traps the magnetically-coupled probe at the end of the channel” found in the entirety of the claim is not found in the prior art. The closest prior art is Sprung, however, Sprung does not teach the one way turn style post as required by the claim and only teaches a separate part of the tube which holds the magnetically coupled probe within the tubing.
It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights