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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed March 17, 2026. Claim 1-3, 5 and 9-15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments that Reiter (DE 102011119658) as modified by Braun et al. (DE 19901091) does not teach the new limitation “each belt is arranged at a different angle from a vertical line” (Applicant’s arguments pages 5-6), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to define the vertical line in the claim. The claim does not state what the vertical line is vertical to. The definition of vertical in Merriam-Webster is perpendicular to the plane of the horizon (horizontal plane) or a primary axis. The claim does have a primary axis, which is the point (321) surrounded by the optical sensors (310) along a longitudinal axis (X, fig. 3 and 2) in which the cylindrical/bar/tubular element (P) passes through (fig. 3). The V-shape conveyor (220/210) in the specification is rotated about the axis/point (321/X) (see fig. 2). Any vertical line from that point in the scanning plane (330/320) will be perpendicular to the axis. The Applicant needs to define the vertical line in the claim. For examining purposes the vertical line will be defined as any line from the point/central axis of the scanning device/optical sensor to the circumference of the scanning device/optical sensor in the scanning plane that is closer to one of the belts forming the V-shape. For example in Reiter (DE 102011119658), a vertical line extending from a point (M) to sensor (3) in the upper right side of scanning device (2) would be closer to surface of conveyor on right side of V-shape (6) (see figure 1a). In Braun (DE 19901091) the surface of conveyor (1) would be closer to a vertical line as defined in Reiter with the combination as set forth below. From the above arguments the rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 9-15 in view of Reiter (DE 102011119658) as modified by Sasaki et al. (US 20160107365), Nygaard (US 20130062262) and Braun et al. (DE 19901091) remains proper.
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) 1-3, 5, 9, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter (DE 102011119658) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 20160107365), Nygaard (US 20130062262) and Braun et al. (DE 19901091).
Re claim 1: Reiter teaches an apparatus for production control of tubular or shaped elements (paragraph 9-12, fig. 1-3), comprising: a scanning device (2) for scanning tubular or shaped elements (20) having any cross section that is open or closed and a mainly longitudinal extension, defined by a longitudinal axis (see fig. 2, paragraph 64, tube/pipe 20), the scanning device (2) having a plurality of optical sensors (3) disposed around a point (M) (see fig. 1, paragraph 64); a feeding system (6) oriented so as to cause the tubular or shaped elements (20) to advance along a feeding direction from a upstream region of the scanning device (2) to a downstream region of the scanning device (2), passing through the point (M) (see fig. 1-3), wherein the feeding direction is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tubular or shaped elements (20) (see fig. 2), wherein the plurality of optical sensors (3) are distributed on a circumference having the point (M) as a center through which the tubular or shaped elements (20) pass and defined on a plane that is a scanning plane (see fig. 1 and 3), wherein the feeding system (6) comprises a first portion upstream (the side of the feeding system 6 that is to the right of 11b of the scanning device 2, see fig. 2) of the scanning device (2) and a second portion downstream (Reiter, the side of the feeding system 6 that is to the left of 11a of the scanning device 2, see fig. 2) of the scanning device (2), wherein the upstream portion (the side of the feeding system 6 that is to the right of 11b of the scanning device 2, see fig. 2) and the downstream portion (the side of the feeding system 6 that is to the left of 11a of the scanning device 2, see fig. 2) are spaced from each other at a level of the scanning plane (see fig. 2, they are spaced apart by the distance between 11b and 11a), wherein the first portion (the side of the feeding system 6 that is to the right of 11b of the scanning device 2, see fig. 2) comprises a sliding plane (6, the plurality of rollers provide a V-shape sliding plane) having V-shaped cross section (see fig. 1, paragraph 67), so that each tubular or shaped element (20) is automatically positioned, by gravity, at a lowest point of the scanning plane (see fig. 1), thereby having the longitudinal axis parallel to the feeding direction (see fig. 1 and 2), wherein the sliding plane (6) having the V-shaped cross section consists of two separate inclined sliding planes (6 on the left and 6 on the right, see fig. 1) and wherein each inclined sliding plane is arranged at a different angle from a vertical line (a vertical line extending from a point M to sensor 3 in the upper right side of scanning device 2 would be closer to surface of conveyor on right side of V-shape 6, see figure 1a), but does not specifically teach a station upstream and a station downstream, and a database having one or more models stored therein, wherein data obtained from the scanning device are automatically compared with the one or more stored models and the sliding plane having the V-shaped cross section consisting of two separate inclined belts. Sasaki teaches a station upstream (10) and a station downstream (22/24) of a scanning device (16a/b) (fig. 1, paragraph 32-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a station upstream and another station downstream with the system of Reiter similar to Sasaki in order to ensure proper size and/or shape of the pipe/tube is formed while being able to remove defective pipes/tubes providing for a more efficient testing region. Reiter as modified by Sasaki does not specifically teach a database having one or more models stored therein, wherein data obtained from the scanning device are automatically compared with the one or more stored models and the sliding plane having the V-shaped cross section consisting of two separate inclined belts. Nygaard teaches a Page 8 database (paragraph 99) having one or more models stored therein (paragraph 32 and 73), wherein data obtained from a scanning device (paragraph 72, fig. 6) are automatically compared with the one or more stored models (paragraphs 32, 72, 73 and 99, fig. 6, claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to compare the data from the scanning device of Reiter as modified by Sasaki to stored models similar to Nygaard in order to ensure the tubular structures are properly designed/created providing for higher quality testing metrics. Reiter as modified by Sasaki and Nygaard does not specifically teach the sliding plane having the V-shaped cross section consisting of two separate inclined belts. Braun teaches a sliding plane having a V-shaped cross section consisting of two separate inclined belts (1 and 2) (see fig. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the V-shaped cross section consisting of two separate inclined belts similar to Braun with the V-shaped slide plane of Reiter as modified by Sasaki and Nygaard in order to more smoothly transfer the tubular/shaped element through the sensing device with less vibration providing for more accurate measurements of the element.
Re claim 2: Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun teaches the apparatus, wherein the plurality of optical sensors (3) in the scanning device (Reiter, 2) comprises at least three optical sensors (Reiter, 3) distributed disposed around the point (Reiter, M) and all oriented toward the point (Reiter, M, see fig. 1).
Re claim 3: Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun teaches the apparatus, wherein the feeding direction is orthogonal to the scanning plane through the point (Reiter, M, see fig. 1, 2 and 3).
Re claim 5: Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun teaches the apparatus, wherein the three or more optical sensors comprise five or more optical sensors (Reiter, see fig. 1, paragraph 64, 16 sensors).
Re claim 9: Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun teaches the apparatus, wherein the two sliding belts (Braun, 1 and 2) run parallel to the feeding direction and at a same speed (Braun, claim 1, paragraph 1, fig. 1 and 2).
Re claim 12: Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun teaches the apparatus, further comprising discharging devices of the scanned tubular or shaped elements (Reiter, 20, Nygaard, 102) when the data, obtained from the scanning device (Reiter, 2, Nygaard, see fig. 4 and 6) and automatically compared with the one or more stored models, do not conform to the one or more stored models (Nygaard, fig. 6, paragraphs 32, 47, 72, 73, 99 and 105, claim 10, sorting into accept and reject bins).
Re claim 13: Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun teaches a process for production control of tubular or shaped elements by scanning the tubular shaped elements (Reiter, paragraph 1, fig. 1-3, Nygaard, abstract, fig. 4 and 6, Sasaki, fig. 1), comprising: arranging a tubular or shaped element (Reiter, 20) on a feeding device (Reiter, 6, fig. 1, Nygaard, fig. 6, Sasaki, fig. 1), the tubular or shaped element (Reiter, 20) having a longitudinal axis parallel to a feeding direction (Reiter, fig. 1 and 2, Nygaard, fig. 6, Sasaki, fig. 1); causing the tubular or shaped element (Reiter, 20) to advance through a scanning device (Reiter, 2, fig. 1 and 2, Nygaard, fig. 4 and 6, Sasaki, fig. 1) according to claim 2, processing the data collected by the three or more optical sensors and related to all cross sections of the tubular or shaped element so as to determine one or more of the following characteristics: shape of ends of the shaped element, head-to-tail orientation, shape of one or more cross sections, presence and shape of windows or openings on side portions of the shaped element, position of the shaped element on the feeding device with respect to the longitudinal axis of the shaped element; and automatically comparing the collected data and the characteristics deduced from the data with the one or more models, so as to identify any dissimilarities between the scanned tubular or shaped element and a model of the one or more models (Nygaard, shape, fig. 6, paragraphs 32, 47, 72, 73, 99 and 105, claim 10, sorting into accept and reject bins, Reiter, shape, fig. 1 and 2, paragraph 8).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter (DE 102011119658) as modified by Sasaki et al. (US 20160107365), Nygaard (US 20130062262) and Braun et al. (DE 19901091) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hermary et al. (US 20040246473).
Re claim 10: Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun teaches the apparatus, wherein the scanning device (Reiter, 2) has at least three optical sensors (Reiter, 3) distributed disposed around the point (Reiter, M) and all oriented toward the point (Reiter, M, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach wherein the optical sensors operate in succession, and wherein each optical sensor is activated when a preceding sensor has completed its scan. Hermary teaches wherein a plurality of optical sensors operate in succession, and wherein each of the plurality of optical sensors is activated when a preceding optical sensor of the plurality of optical sensors has completed its scan (paragraph 124-126, fig. 5 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to successively activate the at least three optical sensors of the plurality of optical sensors in Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun similar to Hermary in order to scan the elongated element in a helical manner providing for faster scanning period for the entire length of the element.
Claim(s) 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter (DE 102011119658) as modified by Sasaki et al. (US 20160107365), Nygaard (US 20130062262) and Braun et al. (DE 19901091) as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Horowitz et al. (US 20230196188).
Re claim 11: Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun teaches the apparatus, wherein the feeding system (Reiter, 6) comprises a first portion upstream (Reiter, the side of the feeding system 6 that is to the right of 11b of the scanning device 2, see fig. 2) of the scanning device (Reiter, 2) and a second portion downstream (Reiter, the side of the feeding system 6 that is to the left of 11a of the scanning device 2, see fig. 2) of the scanning device (Reiter, 2), and wherein the upstream portion (Reiter, the side of the feeding system 6 that is to the right of 11b of the scanning device 2, see fig. 2) and the downstream portion (Reiter, the side of the feeding system 6 that is to the left of 11a of the scanning device 2, see fig. 2) are spaced from each other at a level of the scanning plane (Reiter, 2, see fig. 2, they are spaced apart by the distance between 11b and 11a) and the database (Nygaard, paragraph 99) having one or more models stored therein (Nygaard, paragraph 32 and 73), wherein the data obtained from the scanning device (Nygaard, paragraph 72, fig. 6) are automatically compared with the one or more stored models (Nygaard, paragraphs 32, 72, 73 and 99, fig. 6, claim 10), but does not specifically teach further comprising a handling robot for gripping/moving/handling. the tubular or shaped elements after the tubular or shaped elements have reached the second portion of the feeding device, downstream of the scanning device. Horowitz teaches further comprising a handling robot (508) for gripping, moving or handling shaped elements (518/520/522) after the shaped elements (518/520/522) have reached a second portion of the feeding system (516), downstream of a scanning device (504) (paragraphs 108-112, see fig. 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a handling robot similar to Horowitz on the downstream portion of the feeding system of Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun in order to sort the tubular/shaped elements into desired locations based on data from the scanning device providing for more efficient placement of the tubular/shaped elements.
Re claim 14: Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun teaches automatically comparing the collected data and the characteristics deduced from the data with the one or more models, so as to identify any dissimilarities between the scanned tubular or shaped element and a model of the one or more models (Nygaard, shape, fig. 6, paragraphs 32, 47, 72, 73, 99 and 105, claim 10, sorting into accept and reject bins, Reiter, shape, fig. 1 and 2, paragraph 8), but does not specifically teach further comprising using the data and the characteristics deduced from the data to provide instructions to handling robots that must grip, transport, and process the tubular or shaped element during a subsequent step or to discharge the tubular or shaped element. Horowitz teaches further comprising using data and characteristics deduced from the data to provide instructions to handling robots (508) that must grip, transport, and process shaped element (518/520/522) during a subsequent step or to discharge the shaped element (518/520/522) (paragraphs 86, 102-112, 121 and 125, see fig. 4, 5 and 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a handling robot similar to Horowitz on the downstream portion of the feeding device of Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun in order to sort the tubular/shaped elements into desired locations based on data from the scanning device providing for more efficient placement of the tubular/shaped elements.
Re claim 15: Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun teaches automatically comparing the collected data and the characteristics deduced from the data with the one or more models, SO as to identify any dissimilarities between the scanned tubular or shaped element and a model of the one or more models (Nygaard, shape, fig. 6, paragraphs 32, 47, 72, 73, 99 and 105, claim 10, sorting into accept and reject bins, Reiter, shape, fig. 1 and 2, paragraph 8), but does not specifically teach further comprising using the data and the characteristics deduced from the data to generate a comparison model for tubular or shaped elements to be subsequently scanned. Horowitz teaches further comprising using data and characteristics deduced from the data to generate a comparison model for tubular or shaped elements to be subsequently scanned (paragraph 123, fig. 4, 5 and 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include generate a comparison model from scanned data similar to Horowitz to update the model of Reiter as modified by Sasaki, Nygaard and Braun in order to sort the tubular/shaped elements into desired locations based on updated data from the scanning device providing for more efficient placement of the tubular/shaped elements.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights