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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-17 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 claims 1-17, what does "module" (line 3) mean? The specification uses terms such as "device" and "apparatus", so a module means something different. Neither the specification nor drawings distinguish define how a module is distinct from either a device or apparatus. What distinction does Applicant attribute to the term "module" in the claims?
(As to REMARKS of 7/13/26: The common meaning of the term “module” is standard, replaceable unit. All module are apparatuses/devices; not all devices and apparatuses are modules. Terms have different meanings. Claims 1,12 employ the term module. Figure 2 identifies the module 200 as the components within box 200, while the converter 228 is within a distinctly different box 220 that which extends outside of the module 200. As such, Figure 2 suggest that the that TDC 228 is not part of the module 200, but then the claim states that the module does comprise the TDC 228. Applicant has not disavowed the common meaning of the term “module”, and has not provided a new definition. The record is left with a common meaning of the term module and Figure 2. It’s not clear if the electronic module 200 is a module per its normal meaning, or something else. The drawn boundary box for module 200 not including all of the unit 220 is important.)
As to claims 1,12, what determines ("determine", line 9 of claim 1; line 7; line 7 of claim 12) a "time" (line 9)? Para 40 suggests controller unit 2021, while Para 42 suggests TTC 2282. The claim by itself is indeterminate. What is Applicant's intent?
(As to REMARKS of 7/13/26: The difficulty here is that claims 1,12 states that the “module” (line 3, claim 1; line 1, claim 12) comprises the TDC 228 and unit 202, and the specification expressly states that the unit 202 converts the signals to a time. While the specification does state that the TDC 228 determines, the problematic claimed “module” and Paragraph 40 suggests otherwise. The claim remains unclear.)
35 USC 102 REJECTION
Claim(s) 1,12,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by Albu et al 5866819.
As to claims 1,12,18 Alb teaches (Figures 1-3) a system for monitoring a condition of an object 10, the system comprising: an ultrasound transducer 36 configured to be in contact with a surface of the tank 10 wall (Figure 5); and an electronics module 30 electrically coupled to the ultrasound transducer, the electronics module comprising: a control unit 40 configured to transmit a control signal to generate a transmit pulse to the ultrasound transducer 36 that generates a transmit acoustic signal; and a A/D time-to-digital converter 38 coupled to the control unit and configured to receive, from the ultrasound transducer, a representation of a return acoustic signal ("to digitize the data from the reflected pulses") from the object and determine a time between the transmit acoustic signal and the return acoustic signal (Figure 4 shows plots of received pulses as a function of time received"), wherein the control unit is configured to determine a thickness of the object ("determine a thickness of individual layers", ABSTRACT) based on the determined time.
As to claim 1,12,18, the data received by the converter is from the reflected pulses, indicative of time.
(As to REMARKS: The digital output of the A/D is as much “time” as claimed. The input is shown in Figure 4, while a digital output provides sharp standard signals providing equally sharp interval(s) there between, the intervals between being indictive of time. Such is as much a determination as claimed.)
35 USC 103 REJECTIONS
Claim(s) 2,16,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Albu et al 5866819 as applied against claims 1, 12 and 20 above, and further in view of Krautkramer 2128330.
As to claims 2,16,19, Krau '330 teaches automatic calibration of a UT thickness measuring device for temperature, suggestive of employing such in to take environment temperature into account.
Claim(s) 4,17,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Albu et al 5866819.
Albu's device is for testing multiples tanks (objects), suggestive of a need to relocate the testing device to different locations where depending upon where any tank may be located.
As to claims 4,17,20, it would have been obvious to employ a solar panel to ensure that such instrument will have power wherever it is necessary to carry the unit for testing fuel tanks.
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 ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Friday 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
1 “control unit 202 can convert the signals to a time value” (Para 40).
2 “TDC of FIG. 3, which converts those signals to time” (Para 42).
Prosecution Insights