AUTOMATED LEAK DETECTION METHOD
USING A ROBOTIC SNIFFER LEAK DETECTOR
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment of July 16, 2026.
DRAWINGS
All drawing objections set forth in the previous Office Action of April 16, 2026 have been overcome in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the specification. The drawings have now been approved.
ABSTRACT
The objection to the abstract as set forth in said previous Office Action has been overcome in view of the Applicant’s amendment to the abstract.
SPECIFICATION
The specification remains objected to because the specification fails to set forth section headings as per 37 CFR 1.77(b).
The Examiner notes the Applicant’s amendment to the specification in relation to the Examiner’s objection that the specification makes reference to cancelled claim 1. In response, the Applicant has amended the phrase to read independent claim 16 instead of independent claim 1. However, the Examiner points out that if the application was allowed, an independent claim 16 would not be present, for independent claim 16 would be renumbered as claim 1. The Examiner advises no such references to specific claim numbers.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 16 - 18, 21 - 23, 27, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosse Bley et al. (2010/0253376) in view of Enquist (2010/0288020).
With respect to independent claim 16, Grosse Bley et al. set forth an automated leak detection method using a gas leak detector, characterized by the steps of:
a) moving the probe tip of a probe (12) to a test site to be examined;
b) recording a measurement signal from gas recorded by the probe tip by means of a gas
detector (10);
c) detecting a first measurement value of the measurement signal at a first measurement time (paragraph 24, tests are serially numbered, thus the measured value corresponds to the respective time of the test in relation to the other tests);
d) detecting the first measurement time and assigning the first measurement time to the
first measurement value (paragraphs 23-24, the tests are serially performed in a specific order and thus a test time is known with respect to the other test times);
e) detecting and assigning a first measurement position (test region T) of the probe corresponding to the first measurement time (paragraphs 23-24);
f) repeating steps a) - e) for a subsequent second measurement time (see test is performed for different test regions in paragraph 24);
g) correlating the measurement values with each of the measurement positions of the probe in order to be able to use the measurement values to assess at which measurement position an extreme value of the measurement signal, which could indicate a possible leak in the test object, was detected (paragraph 24).
Grosse Bley et al. set forth that the gas leak detector (10/12) is a hand held unit but fail to set forth a robotic gas leak detector as claimed.
However, Enquist teaches that robotic gas leak detectors may be used in place of hand held gas detectors (paragraph 25).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to use a robotic gas leak detector in place of the hand held gas leak detector.
The motivation being for safety reasons by eliminating the need for an operator to be placed in a potentially dangerous situation over a possible gas leak.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Grosse Bley et al. set forth moving the probe tip to another test location after the current test location is complete (paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 21, Grosse Bley et al. set forth moving the probe during the acquisition of the measurement signal and thereby continuously assuming different measurement positions (paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 22, Grosse Bley et al. set forth that the measurement values are acquired as a function of the measurement position of the probe (paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 23, Grosse Bley et al. set forth that evaluation of the measurement signal is performed in dependence on the measurement position of the probe tip (paragraph 23).
With respect to claim 27, Grosse Bley et al. fail to set forth that the probe is moved to a measurement position for which a leak was determined before, so as to perform a control measurement at the measurement position.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with said teachings to move the probe to a measurement position for which a leak was determined before, so as to perform a control measurement at the measurement position.
The motivation being to determine if a leak is still occurring at the position in which a leak was previously detected because when a leak is detected, one has motivation to stop the leak.
With respect to claim 28, Grosse Bley et al. fail to set forth that those measurement positions are marked for which leaks are assumed from previous measurements.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with said teachings to mark those measurement positions for which leaks are assumed from previous measurements. The motivation to designate the areas which need fixed because when a leak is detected one has motivation to stop the leak.
With respect to claim 30, Grosse Bley et al. set forth that using a sniffer leak detector for the gas leak detector, a sniffer probe for the probe, and a sniffer tip for the probe tip is known (see paragraph 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20, 24 - 26, and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 16, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of claim 16 and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the measurement position of the probe is detected using a 3D sensor.
With respect to claim 20, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the measurement position of the probe is inferred from the known position of the arm of the robot carrying the probe.
With respect to claim 24, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that two measurements are performed at the same measurement position and the acquired measurement values are compared with each other.
With respect to claim 25, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the evaluation of the measurement signal is performed with consideration to the speed at which the probe is moved during the measurement.
With respect to claim 26, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that a calibration of the probe by a zero adjustment is performed by acquiring a measurement signal by means of the gas detector and storing the same as a background signal.
With respect to claim 29, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the feed rate of the gas flow drawn in by the probe is adjusted in dependence on the movement speed of the probe.
Response To Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have been considered but have not been found to be persuasive. Specifically, the Applicant argues that the applied prior art of Grosse Bley et al. does not detect a measurement time and assign the measurement time to the measurement value. The Examiner disagrees, for the claim does not offer any specifics as to the measurement time. In fact, the claim introduces the measurement time as “the” measurement time since a time is inherent to an on-going measurement of a value. The lone independent claim is merely directed to measuring a value, detecting the time at which the value was measured, detecting the position at which the value was measured, and repeating.
Nonetheless, Grosse Bley et al. set forth that the test point locations are sequentially numbered (ie. assigned) and visited in a specific order so as to be certain that no test point location is missed. Thus, the time in which a specific test point location is visited is known in relation to the other test point locations. The time order in which each location is visited is thus assigned to each location. This time is interpreted as the measurement time as claimed because nothing in the claim prevents such an interpretation.
In addition, Grosse Bley et al. not only set forth a pattern of test point locations in which the probe will systematically move to, Grosse Bley et al. also set forth that the prob will be at each location for a given amount of time. When the probe moves to a test point location, a first sound will be emitted at the beginning of the measurement. At the completion of the measurement, a second sound is emitted. The probe then moves to the next test point location and repeats. The length of time between the first sound and second sound can also be interpreted
as the measurement time as claimed, for nothing as claimed prevents such an interpretation.
The Examiner also notes that Grosse Bley et al. set forth that the method is carried by a computer (paragraph 20) acting as the control unit (21). Thus, time stamping the measurement of a value by the probe is well within the known ability of the control unit.
CONTACT INFORMATION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. The 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 from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. 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 for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights