Device For Performing Non-Destructive Control of a Rail
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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s reply filed 07/27/2026 which has amendments to the claims and Applicant's arguments related to the previous rejection. The above have been entered and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Fetzer fails to disclose each of the features of claim 1. Specifically, applicant argues the rail that the instant invention is directed to “control” is fundamentally different than Fetzer’s blade stiffener.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument. First, the instant rail seems to be the intended target of the non-destructive “control”. The only limitations the rail seems to impart is that the device support frame must be capable of being positioned “in the vicinity” of the rail and the robot should move the detection unit relative to the rail. These limitations are fulfilled by Fetzer’s tracks, robot and inspection tool head (see fig. 12). Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of rail includes a long, continuous structural bar. Fetzer is directed to an apparatus for ultrasonic inspection of elongated composite members (¶ 0008), therefore, a target of Fetzer’s inspection device includes rails.
Further, applicant argues Fetzer’s guide structures are fixed, do not support a rail, are not adjacent to a railroad rail and are not deployed in the field.
The examiner respectfully points out that this configuration is not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Fetzer fails to explicitly disclose the robot moves the detection unit relative to the rail in a first, second and third direction.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertion that Fetzer must explicitly disclose the exact claim language of applicant in order to fully anticipate the limitation. The limitation “said robot begin designed to move said detection unit relative to said rail in a first direction…, in a second direction… and in a third direction…” is a functional language type limitation (see MPEP 2114). As described in the outstanding rejection, Fetzer’s robot moves the ultrasonic inspection tool along the length of the elongated member depicted in fig. 12, as the curved member rises and falls. Thus, Fetzer explicitly discloses the robot moves the detection unit in these first and second directions. Fetzer is inherently capable of moving the ultrasonic inspection tool relative to a rail in a third direction closer or further away from the tracks since the robot possesses pivots 110, 118 and 120 and positional sensors that provide positional data in three-dimensional space.
The applicant further believes the examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of Fetzer’s composite blade stiffener as a rail is unreasonable in light of the specification.
The examiner acknowledges the differences between the disclosed invention and that of the applied prior art. However, those differences are not expressed and set forth in the claims, for the claims merely set forth general language describing a non-destructive inspection apparatus to inspect a rail. The claim language is what will distinguish the Applicant’s invention over that of the prior art and not the intended use of the Applicant’s invention versus that of the prior art.
Applicant has not traversed the examiner’s 04/28/2026 assertion of official notice, therefore the examiner’s statement regarding a laser profilometer being well-known in the art is taken to be admitted prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fetzer (US 20170059531; “Fetzer”).
Regarding claim 1, Fetzer discloses, in figures 1-12, a device (not enumerated, see fig. 12) for performing non-destructive control of a rail (2) that develops along an axis (¶ 0086, see fig. 12, Fetzer’s tool head follows a blade stiffener, the examiner construes Fetzer’s blade stiffener to follow a non-cartesian curved axis), said device (see previous comment) comprising a support frame (140, 142) designed to be positioned in the vicinity (see fig. 12) of said rail (2), and an ultrasound detection unit (14) movable relative to said frame (140, 142), characterised in that it comprises an anthropomorphic robot (100) having a base (102) connected to said frame (140, 142) and an end portion (112) connected to said detection unit (10), said robot (100) being designed to move said detection unit (10) relative to said rail (2) in a first direction substantially parallel in use to said axis, in a second direction substantially perpendicular to said first direction and in a third direction substantially perpendicular to said first direction and second direction (see figs. 3 and 13, ¶ 0059, examiner notes Fetzer’s robot has six pivot joints and is capable of linear movement in three-dimensional space, ¶ 0086, Fetzer’s robot is capable of moving the ultrasonic inspection tool head down the length of a curved blade stiffener that varies in 3 dimensions).
Regarding claim 2, Fetzer discloses, in figures 1-12, characterised in that said detection unit (10) comprises a support (12) carried in a respective median point (16) by said end portion (112), said support (12) being rotatable relative to said end portion (112) around a central rotation axis (see fig. 3, examiner notes Fetzer’s end effector assembly rotates by a pivot at the rotatable hand) substantially perpendicular to said first direction and passing through said median point (16), a first ultrasound probe (50) and a second ultrasound probe (52) being carried by said support (12) on opposite sides with respect to said median point (16).
Regarding claim 8, Fetzer discloses, in figures 1-12, said frame (140, 142) comprises coupling means (not enumerated, see fig. 3, examiner notes Fetzer depicts coupling means below the robot base) that can be reversibly fixed in use to said rail (examiner notes Fetzer’s base includes a pivot below the carousel, therefore the base may be rotated 180 degrees or reversed without affecting robot positioning).
Regarding claim 9, Fetzer discloses, in figures 1-12, said detection unit (10) comprises identification means designed to identify a given position along said rail (2) in which to perform said control (¶ 0086, “As the ultrasonic inspection tool head 10 approaches each holding fixture 144 in turn, one or more optical detectors send a first signal to the computer, which is programmed to actuate retraction of that holding fixture, causing it to move out of the way. This allows the ultrasonic inspection tool head 10 to inspect the unsupported span without interference with the retracted holding fixture.”).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetzer (US 20170059531; “Fetzer”) as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 10, Fetzer fails to disclose a laser profilometer.
The Examiner takes official notice that a laser profilometer is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known a laser profilometer to locate a central region of a weld as part of Fetzer’s inspection device. Doing so provide provides a precise mechanism for non-contact locating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, although Fetzer discloses an automated ultrasonic inspection of elongated composite members using a single pass robotic system with tracks positioned adjacent to a elongated composite member, an inspection probe assembly movable relative to the tracks, a robot with a base connected to and movable along the tracks and a pivot connected to the inspection probe assembly, the robot designed to move the inspection probe along an elongated composite member as the member varies in height and distance from the track; Fetzer does not disclose a device with a detection unit that has first and second beams supporting first and second probes on opposite sides on a median point of a support, the first and second beams rotate relative to the support around rotation axes parallel to a central rotation axis. Furthermore, no other prior art can be found to motivate or teach applicant’s device including wherein said detection unit comprises a first post and a second post carried by said support on opposite sides with respect to said median point, said first post and second post being rotatable relative to said support respectively around a first rotation axis and a second rotation axis substantially parallel to said central rotation axis said first probe and second probe being carried respectively by said first post and second post, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The dependent claims are allowed for at least the same reasons as above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights