DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/15/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vogt US 3640123.
As to claim 1, Vogt teaches “A suspension arrangement for suspending ultrasonic testing probes (Figure 1), comprising: a holding frame comprising a feed-through opening for passing a test piece along a guide direction (Figure 1, 3); a support frame adjoining the holding frame in the guide direction (Figure 1, 10 aids in holding ultrasonic elements 8 in place. This is connected to 6 via 9 which is connected to the holding frame)) for supporting at least one ultrasonic testing probe for testing the test piece (Figure 1, 10); a plurality of connecting means, wherein the connecting means movably connect the holding frame and the support frame to one another (Figure 1, 4); and at least one guiding means arranged on the support frame for guiding the test piece in a mechanical contacting manner along the guide direction through a support frame opening (Figure 1, 6), wherein the at least one guiding means and the connecting means cooperate in order to move the support frame with respect to the holding frame and to align it with respect to the test piece via the guidance of the guiding means in a mechanically contacting manner, when the test piece is inserted into the suspension arrangement (Figure 1, 1 is inserted into the suspension arrangement via 5 by 2a and 2b, and it moves towards 5b and 5a. The transducers, 8, inspect element 1 as it passes through to roller 2c).”
As to claim 2, Vogt teaches “The suspension arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the connecting means movably connect the holding frame and the support frame to each other with a mobility transverse to the guide direction (Figure 1, 4 connect the holding frame and the support frame and allow for mobility; Abstract).”
As to claim 3, Vogt teaches “The suspension arrangement according to claim 1 wherein the connecting means are designed to connect the support frame to the holding frame with a constant support frame orientation independent of a support frame movement with respect to the holding frame (Figures 1 and 2).”
As to claim 7, Vogt teaches “a compliant mounting (Figure 2, 7a) arranged on the support frame, wherein the compliant mounting is designed to elastically absorb the forces of the support frame acting perpendicular to the guide direction, which act on the support frame when the test piece is inserted into the suspension arrangement and guiding means and connecting means cooperate in order to move the support frame with respect to the holding frame via the guidance of the guiding means in a mechanically contacting manner, when the test piece is inserted (Figure 2).”
As to claim 8, Vogt teaches “wherein the guiding means and the connecting means are arranged in an intermediate space formed between the holding frame and the support frame and extend along the guide direction away from the support frame in the direction of the holding frame (Figures 1 and 2).”
As to claim 11, Vogt teaches “A testing system, comprising a suspension arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the testing system comprises at least one sensor attached to the support frame, wherein the sensor is in particular an ultrasonic testing probe (Figure 2, 8; Abstract).”
As to claim 13, Vogt teaches “A method, in particular at least partially computer-implemented, carried out by use of the testing system according to claim 11 wherein the method comprises at least the following method steps: inserting a test piece along a guide direction into a holding frame comprising a feed-through opening for passing the test piece along the guide direction; inserting the test piece along the guide direction, into a support frame adjoining the holding frame in the guide direction for supporting at least one ultrasonic testing probe (100) for testing the test piece, wherein, when the test piece is inserted into the support frame: guiding means which are arranged on the support frame, wherein the guiding means are provided for guiding the test piece in a mechanically contacting manner along the guide direction through a support frame opening, and connecting means, wherein a plurality of the connecting means are provided, wherein the connecting means movably connect the holding frame and the support frame to one another, cooperate to move the support frame with respect to the holding frame and to align it with respect to the test piece, when the test piece is inserted in steps S100 and S200, via the guidance of the guiding means in a mechanically contacting manner; controlling the at least one sensor attached to the support frame for examining the test piece by use of the sensor (Figures 1 and 2 show the insertion of a test piece into a holding frame which a suspended funnel, 5, containing an ultrasonic sensor for examining a test piece).”
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt US 3640123 in view of Sheets US 4246794.
As to claim 4, Vogt teaches “The suspension arrangement according to at least one of claims 1, wherein two, in particular four, connecting means are provided (Figure 1, 4).” Vogt does not teach that the connecting means are articulating rods
Sheets teaches “wherein each of the connecting means is designed as an articulated rod, wherein all articulated rods are of equal length (Figures 5 and 6 show probe holders that pivot about a specific point; Column 6, lines 47-50).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Sheets with Vogt. Utilizing articulating rods allows for more movement of the sensing means.
Claim(s) 6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt US 3640123.
As to claim 6, Vogt teaches “wherein a plurality of guiding means (5) is provided, wherein the guiding means comprise: at least two guide rollers arranged at a circumference of the support frame opening and/or at least two rollers arranged at the circumference of the support frame opening, of which at least one roller is a support roller; and/or at least two ramps arranged at a circumference of the support frame opening (Figure 1 shows rollers 2a, 2b and 2c which aid in moving the test specimen through the holding frame).”
Vogt does not teach “lateral guide rollers”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at lateral roller since rollers are taught by Vogt. The rearrangement of known elements is known to be obvious and only requires routine skill in the art.
As to claim 12, Vogt teaches “The testing system (10) according to claim 11, wherein the sensors, in the case of a guiding means designed as a guide roller or roller, are arranged on the support frame along the guide direction at a shorter distance or without distance from the support frame and, in the case of a guiding means designed as a ramp, are arranged on the support frame along the guide direction at a greater distance from the support frame (Figure 1 shows rollers 2a, 2b and 2c which aid in moving the test specimen through the holding frame).”
Vogt does not teach “lateral guide roller”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at lateral roller since rollers are taught by Vogt. The rearrangement of known elements is known to be obvious and only requires routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt US 3640123 in view of Merkel US 7679375.
As to claim 14, Vogt does not teach “A computer program, comprising instructions that cause the testing system (10) of claim 11 to perform the method steps according to claim 13.”
Merkel teaches “A computer program, comprising instructions that cause the testing system (10) of claim 11 to perform the method steps according to claim 13 (Column 2, lines 58-61).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Merkel with Vogt. Using a computer system and a program to evaluate a test piece is commonly known since automating a system involve routine skill in the art. This enhances accuracy.
As to claim 14, Merkel teaches “A computer-readable medium, on which the computer program according to claim 14 is stored (Column 2, lines 58-61).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Merkel with Vogt. Using a computer system and a program to evaluate a test piece is commonly known since automating a system involve routine skill in the art. This enhances accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9, 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As to claim 5, the specific arrangement and movement of the articulating rods relative to the holding frame and support frame is not taught. Claim 9 teaches “a plurality of anchors (3b), wherein the anchors (3b) are configured to be releasably connected to the connecting means (4) of the suspension arrangement”. This not taught by the prior arts. Claim 10 depend from claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/TARUN SINHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights