DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claim 1-10 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claims 11-20 fall within category of process;
Regarding Claims 1-10
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of determining material properties of the specimen.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. An inspection system comprising:
one or more magnetic probes configured to acquire stress data characterizing a plurality of stress measurements at a plurality of points along a surface of a specimen, wherein the stress data is acquired at a plurality of angles for each of the plurality of points; and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the one or more magnetic probes, the computing system including at least one data processor and a memory storing material data characterizing a plurality of predetermined material calibration parameters and material properties for a plurality of materials and computer-readable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from the one or more magnetic probes, stress data characterizing a plurality of stress measurements along the surface of the specimen;
comparing the stress data to the material data;
determining material properties of the specimen based on the comparing; and
providing the material properties of the specimen to a user interface display communicatively coupled to the computing system..
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “comparing the stress data [..]; determining material properties[..]” a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment).
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “acquire stress data characterizing a plurality of stress measurements at a plurality of points along a surface of a specimen, wherein the stress data is acquired at a plurality of angles for each of the plurality of points; storing material data characterizing a plurality of predetermined material calibration parameters and material properties for a plurality of materials; receiving, from the one or more magnetic probes, stress data characterizing a plurality of stress measurements along the surface of the specimen” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or pre solution activity and /or field of use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “An inspection system, one or more magnetic probes; a computing system communicatively coupled to the one or more magnetic probes, the computing system including at least one data processor and a memory”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic sensor device with computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
For example,3rd additional first element is “providing the material properties of the specimen to a user interface display communicatively coupled to the computing system.” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add data gathering and / post solution activity and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892). Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic devices with computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. “processor, memory, magnetic probes”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-10
Dependent claims 2-10 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-10 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-5: to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or pre solution activity and /or field of use and or generic structure) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For example, the limitations of Claims 6-10 are a combination of a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) and mathematical concepts.
Claims 11-20
Claims 11-20 contains language similar to claims 1-10 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
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) 1-2 and 2-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell et al. (US 20230304873) in view of Goldfine et al. (US 2003/0173958).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11. Russell teaches an inspection system comprising(fig.6):
one or more magnetic probes configured (4: fig. 6) to acquire stress data characterizing a plurality of stress measurements at a plurality of points along a surface of a specimen(The detector 4 may be a coil or an array of coils: [0070]; detector means 4 may be proximal to the outside of a pipe or pipeline or other ferrous component: [0071]) (the ideal orientation of the exciter-detector array can be co-axial, radial, or circumferential relative to the cylinder:[0075]-[0077]); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the one or more magnetic probes(PC: fig.6), the computing system including at least one data processor and a memory storing material data characterizing a plurality of predetermined material calibration parameters and material properties for a plurality of materials and computer-readable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising([0030], the stress equation coefficient b=3.4×10−12 (A/m)−2 for A195 steel (low carbon steel, ASTM equivalent of A283A/B Gr. A) and 2.0×10−12 (A/m)−2 for silicon steel. Equation (10) is applicable to both residual and dynamic stress: [0123], [0127]):
receiving, from the one or more magnetic probes, stress data characterizing a plurality of stress measurements along the surface of the specimen(abstract: [0127]);
comparing the stress data to the material data(abstract: [0127]);
determining material properties of the specimen based on the comparing([0068], [0092]); and
providing the material properties of the specimen to a user interface display communicatively coupled to the computing system(PC: fig. 6; fig. 10).
Russell does not explicitly teach wherein the stress data is acquired at a plurality of angles for each of the plurality of points.
However, Goldfine teaches sensor array and wherein the stress data is acquired at a plurality of angles for each of the plurality of points(abstract; fig. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Russell, sensor array and wherein the stress data is acquired at a plurality of angles for each of the plurality of points, as taught by Goldfine, so as to promote accurate modeling of the response and provides enhanced capabilities for the creation of images of the properties of test material.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12. Russell further teaches the specimen is a pipeline made from a ferromagnetic material([0004], [0119]), the inspection system further comprising:
an in-line inspection unit configured to move along the pipeline, wherein the one or more magnetic probes are coupled to the in-line inspection unit([0004]).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell et al. (US 20230304873) in view of Goldfine et al. (US 2003/0173958), further in view of Purekar et al. (US 20130291657).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13. The modified Russell silent about the one or more magnetic probes include a plurality of probes configured to acquire stress measurements across a range of at least 90 degrees.
However, Purekar teaches the one or more magnetic probes include a plurality of probes configured to acquire stress measurements across a range of at least 90 degrees(sensor: fig. 11B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Russell, the one or more magnetic probes include a plurality of probes configured to acquire stress measurements across a range of at least 90 degrees, as taught by Purekar, so as to the value of stress can be used for health monitoring of shafts by comparing with the yield strength of the shaft material and can be used to calculate the remaining life of the shaft before which can fail due to fatigue.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14. the one or more magnetic probes include a singular probe configured to rotate at least 90 degrees and acquire stress measurements at a plurality of angles along the surface of the pipeline(sensor: fig. 11; [0042]).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell et al. (US 20230304873) in view of Goldfine et al. (US 2003/0173958), further in view of Wincheski et al. (US5648721)
Regarding Claims 5 and 15. The modified Russell silent about each of the one or more magnetic probes comprise a magnetic flux linkage sensor configured to measure magnetic flux and a magnetic leakage sensor configured to measure magnetic leakage.
However, Wincheski teaches each of the one or more magnetic probes comprise a magnetic flux linkage sensor configured to measure magnetic flux and a magnetic leakage sensor configured to measure magnetic leakage(abstract; col. 6, l. 65-col. 7, l. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Russell, each of the one or more magnetic probes comprise a magnetic flux linkage sensor configured to measure magnetic flux and a magnetic leakage sensor configured to measure magnetic leakage, as taught by Wincheski, so as to eliminate the shielding condition and generates a large output voltage and a clear unambiguous flaw signal..
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell et al. (US 20230304873) in view of Goldfine et al. (US 2003/0173958), further in view of Buttle (US 2005/0001612).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16. Modified Russell silent about the material data includes calibration data characterizing magnetic permeability and coercivity for each of the plurality of materials as a function of stress and a plurality of calibration stress measurements from the plurality of materials acquired across a known range of stresses, a known range of probe frequencies and a known range of probe distances.
However, Buttle teaches the material data includes calibration data characterizing magnetic permeability and coercivity for each of the plurality of materials as a function of stress and a plurality of calibration stress measurements from the plurality of materials acquired across a known range of stresses, a known range of probe frequencies and a known range of probe distances([0027], A, B: fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Russell, the material data includes calibration data characterizing magnetic permeability and coercivity for each of the plurality of materials as a function of stress and a plurality of calibration stress measurements from the plurality of materials acquired across a known range of stresses, a known range of probe frequencies and a known range of probe distances, as taught by Buttle, so as to distinguish from changes in material properties such as stress..
Regarding Claims 7 and 17. Buttle further teaches determining a plurality of stress calibration parameters for the stress data based on the material data and the determined material properties([0080]-[0081]);
generating one or more interactive bi-axial stress maps characterizing bi-axial stress along the surface specimen based on the plurality of stress calibration parameters and the stress data([0080]-[0081]); and
providing the one or more interactive bi-axial stress maps to the user interface display(20: fig. 1; [0080]-[0081]; fig. 3).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell et al. (US 20230304873) in views of Goldfine et al. (US 2003/0173958) and Buttle (US 2005/0001612), further in view of Buttle’339 (US 20100236339)
Regarding Claims 8 and 18. Modified Russell silent about the operations further comprise: determining a plurality of principal stress axes for a plurality of positions along the surface of the specimen based on the plurality of stress calibration parameters.
Buttle’339 teaches the operations further comprise: determining a plurality of principal stress axes for a plurality of positions along the surface of the specimen based on the plurality of stress calibration parameters ([0034])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Russell, the operations further comprise: determining a plurality of principal stress axes for a plurality of positions along the surface of the specimen based on the plurality of stress calibration parameters, as taught by Buttle’339, so as to biaxial stress within the specified region of ferromagnetic material object can be determined appropriately by the probe.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19. Buttle’339 further teaches the one or more interactive stress maps include data representative of the plurality of principal stress axes for a plurality of positions along the surface of the specimen based on the plurality of stress calibration parameters.([0034], figs. 4-5)
Examiner Notes
There is no prior art rejection over claims 10 and 20, specifically claims 8 and 18. However there is 101 rejection over the claims. Closest prior art fails to tech the limitation of “determining minimum, average and maximum biaxial stresses for a portion of the specimen being inspected; and providing a stress table to the user interface display, wherein the stress table comprises data characterizing the minimum, average and maximum biaxial stresses for the portion of the specimen and global principal stress axes characterizing a range of the plurality of principal stress axes for the plurality of positions along the surface of the specimen.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 20210325488: discloses method and system for identifying the location of an obstruction in a pipeline comprising: sensing the magnetic field generated by a pipeline at an initial pressure from a first location along the length of the pipeline to obtain a baseline reading; altering the pressure from a first end until a maximum pressure or minimum pressure is attained; sensing the magnetic field at the maximum or minimum pressure from the first location to obtain a stress reading; and identifying the location of the obstruction as a) being between a second end and the first location when there is a deviation between the stress reading and the baseline reading at the first location or as b) being between the first end and the first location when there is an absence of a deviation between the stress reading and the baseline reading at the first location.
b) US 7526964: Methods are described for the use of conformable eddy-current sensors and sensor arrays for characterizing residual stresses and applied loads in materials. In addition, for magnetizable materials such as steels, these methods can be used to determine carbide content and to inspect for grinding burn damage. The sensor arrays can be mounted inside or scanned across the inner surface of test articles and hollow fasteners to monitor stress distributions. A technique for placing eddy-current coils around magnetizable fasteners for load distribution monitoring is also disclosed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights