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 .
112(b) Rejection
Claims 55-71,73 are 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.
As to claim 55, this claim calls for “a flexible material layer” (lines 5-6) and “a flexible material layer” (lines 7-8). Is the same disclosed layer claimed twice, or are there actually 2 different layers?
As to claim 55, this claim calls for “a couplant fluid chamber” 112 (lines 2-3) and “an applicator” 104 (line 5). Yet, Figure 1C suggests that the chamber 112 includes the applicator 120. In effect, the applicator 120 is twice claimed (once as a portion of “a couplant fluid chamber” 112 (Figure 1C), and a second time as “an applicator” (line 5). How many applicator’s are in this apparatus?
As to claim 55, this claim calls for “a couplant fluid chamber” 112 and “a flexible material layer” 104. However, the layer 104 appears to partially define the fluid chamber 112. How is the chamber 104 a chamber without a bottom wall 104? When one removes the layer 104, how is the remainder portion 112 still a chamber?
PNG
media_image1.png
182
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 67, the claim states that “the chassis includes a first portion 470 sized and shaped to be removably couplable to a second portion 472”. However, that first portion 470 is the “an applicator” (line 5, claim 55), and that applicator is separate from the “chassis” (line 2, claim 55). Claim 67 is not consistent with claim 55.
As to claim 68, the claim states that “the chassis includes a lubricating port”. However, that lubricating port 316 (Figure 3D) is a part of the “applicator” (line 5, claim 55), and that applicator is separate from the “chassis” (line 2, claim 55). Claim 68 is not consistent with claim 55.
As to claim 69, this claim states that the “chassis 110 comprising a couplant fluid chamber 112” (lines 3-4) but Figure 1 shows that it is the applicator 120 includes the chamber 112, and that same applicator 120 is separate (i.e. is not claimed being a part of the chassis) from the chassis 110. In effect, the applicator 120 is twice claimed, once as a portion of “a couplant fluid chamber” 112 (Figure 1C), and a second time as “an applicator” (line 5) that is separate from the chassis. How many applicators are in this claim? The claim is internally inconsistent.
As to claim 69, this claim separately calls for “a couplant fluid chamber” 112 and “a flexible material layer” 104. However, the layer 104 appears to partially define the fluid chamber 112. How is the chamber 104 a chamber without a bottom wall 104? When one removes the layer 104, how is the remainder portion 112 still a chamber?
PNG
media_image1.png
182
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 73, line 3 is confusingly drafted. There seems to be something (words, a phrase, maybe a comma) between “inspection head” and “coupled”. Material is missing.
112(d) Rejection
Claims 67,68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 67’s stating that the “chassis includes a first portion” removes claim 55 having separately claimed “a chassis” (line 2, claim 55) and “an applicator” (line 5, claim 55). Claim 68’s stating that the “chassis includes a lubricating port” removes claim 55 having separately claimed “a chassis” (line 2, claim 55) and “an applicator” (line 5, claim 55). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
103 Rejection
Claim(s) 55,56,57,58,59,60,66,67,69,70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Naegele DE 12008030688 in view of Gloscock EP 633451.
As to claims 55,56,58,59,69, Naeg teaches an acoustic inspection apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a chassis 7,1 configured to support an acoustic transducer 5, the chassis comprising a couplant fluid chamber for pressurization (“the liquid column is in operation in the chamber under higher than the ambient pressure”) relative to an external ambient environment of the chassis and the chamber arranged for acoustic excitation by the acoustic transducer; and an applicator 2,4 configured to apply couplant fluid at an interface where a flexible material layer 3 is placed in contact with a test specimen; wherein the couplant fluid chamber comprises or defines an aperture coupling a flexible material layer 3 to the couplant fluid chamber and isolating the couplant fluid chamber from the external ambient environment.
It’s not clear if the probe is a transducer.
As to claims 55,69, it would have been obvious to employ a transducer to perform the testing because Glascock teaches that a transducer the sends/receives will effectively test nondestructive material, suggestive so employing Nae’s probe. Naeg’s membrane is flexible, but Glascock illustrates (Figure 3) what membranes do in UT testing.
As to claim 57, note O-rings in drawings.
As to claims 59, 60, note the check valve 4 that fluid flows through, and which has inlet and outlet.
As to claim 66, note the transducer 5.
As to claim 67, the frame 3 (first portion) holds the membrane 8 against/along the edge of the fluid chamber.
As to claim 70, note the O-rings adjacent element 2.
103 Rejection
Claim(s) 71,72,73,74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Naegele DE 12008030688 in view of Glascock EP 633451.
As to claims 71,72,73, it would have been obvious to employ a transducer to perform the testing because Glascock teaches that a transducer the sends/receives will effectively test nondestructive material, suggestive so employing Nae’s probe. Naeg’s membrane is flexible, but Glascock illustrates (Figure 3) what membranes do in UT testing.
Also, it would have been obvious to affix such to a manipulator because it is well known that UT sensors are effectively employed to reduce manual positioning.
As to claim 74, filling the device with fluid would reduce gushing as compared with a filling at an otherwise greater rate.
Prior Art (not applied)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wolf DE 102006025213 teach employing coupling fluid 32 with transducer 20 and porous membrane 24. There is a fluid source in a container, with associated pump 44.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights