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 .
Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, 13 and 15 are amended.
Claims 19-20 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn per applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn per applicant’s timely filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-18 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Girell et al US10444194.
Claim Objections
Claim 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, the claim appears to depend from itself instead of from claim 10. Examiner will treat claim as properly depending from claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, the claim appears to depend from itself instead of from claim 10. Examiner will treat claim as properly depending from claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, the claim was amended to depend from claim 1, however the apparatus claim is introduced in claim 10. Examiner will treat claim as properly depending from claim 10 and not claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom et al US20170254782 (hereinafter “Sjoblom”) in view of Girell et al US10444194 (hereinafter “Girell”).
Regarding claim 1, Sjoblom discloses Sjoblom discloses a nondestructive evaluation method (abstract) for determining a material used in a below ground service line (Service line 220, abstract) comprising:
inserting a probe (probes-200 ) with a wave measurement device therein into an area corresponding to a location of a service line (service line-220);
generating a wave in the service line through an exposed portion of the service line using a vibratory shaker (vibratory shaker-230) or other wave generation device;
detecting, by the wave measurement device, at least two substrate waves (substrate waves-235, abstract) created by the service line wave passing through the service line and into a substrate;
identifying, by a data acquisition system (DAQ-260), a velocity and an attenuation of the service line wave using the detected at least two substrate waves (paragraphs 0035-0040 discloses detecting and identifying energy lost by the wave);
comparing the velocity and attenuation of the service line wave to a known set of wave velocities and attenuations corresponding to different service line materials (Paragraph 0038-0039); and
identifying a service line material in the service line by comparing the velocity and attenuation of the service line wave with the known set of wave velocities and attenuations corresponding to different service line materials (Paragraphs 0004, 0013, 0015, 0038-0040 ). (See Figs 1-3).
However, Sjoblom fails to disclose the attenuation distinguishes between two of the different service line materials having a substantially similar wave velocity. Girell discloses the attenuation distinguishes between two of the different service line materials having a substantially similar wave velocity. (Col 3 line 32-52, Col 4 line 61-Col 5 line 45, Col 7 line 54-67, Col 8 line 13-Col 9 line 13, See Fig 4-6 discloses using attenuation to distinguish between two different materials having similar wave velocities.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Girell into Sjoblom for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for differentiating between two materials having very similar velocities.
Regarding claim 2, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the method according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses the detecting is done using more than one probe (probes-200). (Paragraph 0025 and 0028)
Regarding claim 3, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the method according to claim 2.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses at least two probes (probes-200) are spaced at a distance (See Fig 2) from one another. (Paragraphs 0028-0029)
Regarding claim 4, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the method according to claim 3.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses a first probe and a second probe of the probes detect the substrate wave at different times (Claim 4)
Regarding claim 5, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the method according to claim 2.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses the wave measurement devices (probes-200) comprise accelerometers (accelerometers-216). (Paragraph 0025 and 0028)
Regarding claim 6, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the method according to claim 5.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses the accelerometers (accelerometers-216) are located within a protective sheath (Sheath-210). (Paragraph 0030)
Regarding claim 7, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the method according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses the generation of a service line wave (service line waves-232) is done using a vibratory shaker (shaker-230) attached to the service line. (Paragraph 0025, Fig 2)
Regarding claim 8, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the method according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses the service line wave (waves-232) has a frequency of between 0.01 kHz to 1,000 kHz and above. (Paragraph 0035)
Regarding claim 9, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the method according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses an amplitude of the service line is adjusted. (Claim 10)
Regarding claim 10, Sjoblom discloses a nondestructive evaluation apparatus (Abstract, Fig 2, claim 11) for determining a material used in a below ground service line (service line -220) comprising:
one or more probes (probes-200 includes accelerometers-216), each probe having a wave measurement device therein, wherein each of the one or more probes is configured for insertion into an area corresponding to a location of a service line (service line-220);
a vibratory shaker (vibratory shaker-230) or impact hammer that generates a service line wave (waves-232) through an exposed portion of the service line;
wherein the wave measurement device (probes-200 includes accelerometers-216) detects at least two substrate waves (substrate waves-235, abstract) created by the service line wave passing through the service line and into a substrate (substrate-250); and
a data acquisition system (DAQ-260) that identifies a velocity and attenuation of the service line wave using the detected at least two substrate waves (Paragraphs 0004, 0013, 0015, 0038-0040) (See Figs 1-3).
However, Sjobolm fails to disclose a processor that compares the velocity and the attenuation of the service line wave to a known set of wave velocities and attenuations corresponding to different service line materials and identifies a service line material in the service line by comparing the velocity and the attenuation of the service line wave with the known set of wave velocities and attenuations corresponding to different service line materials., wherein the attenuation distinguishes between two of the different service line materials having a substantially similar wave velocity. Girell discloses a processor (data processor shown in figs 4-6) that compares the velocity and the attenuation of the service line wave to a known set of wave velocities and attenuations corresponding to different service line materials and identifies a service line material in the service line by comparing the velocity and the attenuation of the service line wave with the known set of wave velocities and attenuations corresponding to different service line materials., wherein the attenuation distinguishes between two of the different service line materials having a substantially similar wave velocity. (Col 3 line 32-52, Col 4 line 61-Col 5 line 45, Col 7 line 54-67, Col 8 line 13-Col 9 line 13, See Fig 4-6 discloses using velocity and attenuation data in comparison algorithms to distinguish between two different materials having similar wave velocities.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Girell into Sjoblom for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for differentiating between two materials having very similar velocities.
Regarding claim 11, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the apparatus according to claim 10.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses more than one probe (probes-200). (Paragraph 0025 and 0028)
Regarding claim 12, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the apparatus according to claim 10.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses at least two probes (probes-200) are spaced at a distance (Fig 2) from one another. (Paragraphs 0028-0029)
Regarding claim 13, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the apparatus according to claim 10.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses a first probe and a second probe of the probes detect the substrate wave at different times. (Claim 4)
Regarding claim 14, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the apparatus according to claim 11.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses the wave measurement device is an accelerometer (accelerometers-216) (Paragraph 0025 and 0028).
Regarding claim 15, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the apparatus according to claim 14.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses the probe (probes-200) comprises a cavity (cavity-212) in which the accelerometer (accelerometer-216) is located. (Paragraph 0030-0031, Fig 3)
Regarding claim 16, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the apparatus according to claim 11.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses the probe (probes-200) comprises a hardened tip (tip-214) (Paragraph 0030-0031, Fig 3).
Regarding claim 17, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the apparatus according to claim 11.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses the service line wave (waves-232) has a frequency of between 0.01 kHz to 1,000 kHz and higher. (Paragraph 0035)
Regarding claim 18, Sjoblom in view of Girell disclose the apparatus according to claim 11.
Furthermore, Sjoblom discloses the vibratory shaker (shaker-230) adjusts an amplitude of the service line wave. (Claim 10)
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom et al US20170254782 (hereinafter “Sjoblom”) in view of Girell et al US10444194 (hereinafter “Girell”) in further view of Alan R Selfridge “Approximate material properties in Isotropic Materials” published May 1985 (Selfridge)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sjoblom and Girell discloses the method according to claim 1. (See Fig 1 of Sjoblom which discloses a bar graph comparing different materials and their wave velocities including lead.)
However, the combination fails to disclose the two different service line materials having a substantially similar wave velocity are lead and plastic. Selfridge discloses the two different service line materials having a substantially similar wave velocity are lead and plastic. (See table 1 page 386-387 which discloses determining the wave velocity and attenuation for lead and plastic.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Selfridge into Sjoblom for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for differentiating between two materials having very similar velocities.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sjoblom and Girell discloses the apparatus according to claim 10. (See Fig 1 of Sjoblom which discloses a bar graph comparing different materials and their wave velocities including lead.)
However, the combination fails to disclose the two different service line materials having a substantially similar wave velocity are lead and plastic. Selfridge discloses the two different service line materials having a substantially similar wave velocity are lead and plastic. (See table 1 page 386-387 which discloses determining the wave velocity and attenuation for lead and plastic.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Selfridge into Sjoblom for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for differentiating between two materials having very similar velocities.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Georgeson US20160011152 discloses a method and apparatus for inspecting an object. The apparatus comprises a vibration generator and an acousto-optical sensor. The vibration generator is positioned relative to a surface of an object. The vibration generator excites the object at a location on the object such that the portion of the object vibrates. The acousto-optical sensor is coupled to the surface of the portion of the object. The acousto-optical sensor detects a vibratory response generated by the portion of the object in response to excitation of the portion of the object and generates an image of the portion of the object based on the vibratory response.
Savic US5675506 discloses an apparatus and process for determining the existence and location of a leak in a vessel such as a container or an above ground or underground pipe, comprises a plurality of remote acoustic transmission sensor units distributed along the pipe and each containing equipment for analyzing acoustic signals from the pipe. The equipment includes a mechanism for identifying acoustic features of the acoustic signals which distinguish the acoustic signals of a leak from ambient acoustic signals. A control unit is connected to each of the remote units and includes additional equipment for further analyzing the signals to determine the proximity of the signal to a particular remote unit and, using the amplitude of the signal and the transmission characteristics of the pipe, determining the location of the leak.
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 NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/
Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights