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 .
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 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.
Priority
US National Stage of PCT
Acknowledgment is made that this application is the US national phase of international application PCT/GB2022/053360 filed 12/22/2022 which designated the U.S. and claims the benefit of GB2118780.2 filed 12/22/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2024, 04/17/2025, and 02/20/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
The Examiner notes with respect to Applicant cited “A phased array ultrasound roller probe for automation in-process/interpass inspection of multipass welds” by Vinthanage et al dated “2021”, a publication date (08DEC2020) has been located and verified by two separate sources:
PNG
media_image1.png
186
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
<www.researchgate.net/publication/347475988_A_Phased_Array_Ultrasound_Roller_Probe_for_Automated_in-ProcessInterpass_Inspection_of_Multipass_Welds>; and
PNG
media_image2.png
55
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
<ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9286909>.
Applicant clarification as to the (proper) date of the publication is respectfully requested.
Drawings
Unshown Claimed Features:
The drawing(s) is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a), and correspondingly PCT Chapter I Article 7 (see also 37 CFR 1.437 & MPEP 1825). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, and the Examiner asserts that these drawings are necessary for the understanding of the invention. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“wherein at least a part of the coolant inlet and the coolant outlet are coaxial with one another” (at least claim 4).
No new matter should be entered. The Examiner notes that conventional features may be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a conventional graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a rectangular box with a descriptive text label and a reference numeral).
Unlabeled Non-Descriptive Representations:
The drawings are objected to because unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible under 37 CFR 1.83(a) which states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
The drawings are correspondingly objected to for failing to comply with PCT Rule 11 as catchwords are indispensable to the understanding of the unlabeled non-descriptive representations, wherein PCT Rule 11.11 Words in Drawings states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawings shall not contain text matter, except a single word or words, when absolutely indispensable, such as "water," "steam," "open," "closed," "section on AB," and, in the case of electric circuits and block schematic or flow sheet diagrams, a few short catchwords indispensable for understanding.
(b) Any words used shall be so placed that, if translated, they may be pasted over without interfering with any lines of the drawings.
Non-descriptive representation(s)
100 (reservoir), 104 (pump), 13 (probe), 42 (volume), 110 (heat exchanger) in fig(s). 7
need (an) appropriate legend(s) in the form of descriptive text label(s) (alternatively, conventional graphical drawing symbols may be substituted as appropriate) in addition to any reference character(s) already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. The Examiner emphasizes that the requested text label is indispensable for proper understanding. The descriptive text labels should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(n) (conventional symbols), 1.84(o) (required descriptive legends), & 1.84(p) (standards pertinent for the text labels), MPEP 608.02(b)(II)(¶ 6.22) (“descriptive text label”), and MPEP Appendix T Rule 11.11. Appropriate Correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
MPEP § 606 states:
The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless it is provided in the application data sheet (see 37 CFR 1.76). The title should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive and should contain fewer than 500 characters. Inasmuch as the words “new,” “improved,” “improvement of,” and “improvement in” are not considered as part of the title of an invention, these words should not be included at the beginning of the title of the invention and will be deleted when the Office enters the title into the Office’s computer records, and when any patent issues. Similarly, the articles “a,” “an,” and “the” should not be included as the first words of the title of the invention and will be deleted when the Office enters the title into the Office’s computer records, and when any patent issues.
The title of the invention includes (a) prohibited word(s),
see MPEP § 606. Please delete the following word(s) from the title: “IMPROVEMENTS”.
The title of the invention is not descriptive nor sufficiently precise.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a) and PCT Rule 4.3.
The following title is suggested: “ROTATABLE ULTRASOUND PROBE[[S]] WITH FLOWING COOLANT”.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Additionally the Examiner notes from 37 CFR 1.438 that the following should not be contained in the Abstract:
(A) Superfluous language.
(B) Legal phraseology such as “said” and “means.”
(C) Statements of alleged merit or speculative application.
(D) Prohibited items as defined in PCT Rule 9.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
superfluous language that can be implied (“are provided”); and
grammatically improper phrasing (“used to probing” and “has occurred results”).
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to
because of the following informalities:
multiple instances of “Mhz", the Examiner suggesting “MHz” (capital H for proper name Hertz)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7-13 and 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 19,
“the coolant liquid” lacks explicit antecedent basis, yet is trivially understood to be “the coolant
As to claims 7-13,
the Examiner objects to the use of wherein statements referencing “an ultrasound conveying block” without first explicitly stating that the probe so further comprises. The Examiner further notes that these claims seems reasonably interpretable as requiring said ultrasound conveying block. See MPEP § 2111.04(I). However, in contrast, claims 5 and 15 the question as to the limiting effect of the language in those claims rises to the level of indefiniteness; see 112 rejections and claim interpretations thereof.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
MPEP § 2173.02(I) states in part: “if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate”.
Claim(s) 5 and 15-16 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5,
a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art could read the limitation “wherein at least a part of the coolant inlet is directed toward an interface between the transducer and an ultrasound conveying block” with more than one reasonable interpretation including that the ultrasound conveying block is part of the probe or not. The Examiner has looked to the disclosure for guidance and found that the ultrasound conveying block appears to be a part of the probe itself. As best understood by the Examiner and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the aforementioned limitation as “further comprising an ultrasound conveying block, wherein at least a part of the coolant inlet is directed toward an interface between the transducer and [[an]] the ultrasound conveying block”.
Regarding claim 15 (and dependent claim 16),
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the ultrasound conveying block" in the claim. To the best understanding of the Examiner and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets that the probe further comprises an ultrasound conveying block, and the limitation in question references thereto.
Dependent claim(s) of rejected claim(s) is/are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant cited Havira et al (US 20130220019 A1; hereafter “Havira”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Havira teaches an ultrasound probe (figs. 3-6, rolling search unit 100) (Title “System And Method For Non-Destructive Testing Of Railroad Rails Using Ultrasonic Apparatuses Mounted Within Fluid-Filled Tires Maintained At Constant Temperatures”; Abstract “rolling search unit including an ultrasonic device and a heat exchanger mounted within a fluid-filled tire may be utilized to perform ultrasonic testing”) comprising:
an axial element (axial element of rolling search unit 100);
an ultrasound emitting transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) mounted on the axial element (axial element of rolling search unit 100);
two or more support elements (support elements of rolling search unit 100) rotatable mounted relative to the axial element (axial element of rolling search unit 100);
a compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120), the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120) being mounted on the two or more support elements (support elements of rolling search unit 100) and providing a continuous surface in at least one direction;
wherein the two or more support elements (support elements of rolling search unit 100) and the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120) at least partially define an internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100) for the probe (figs. 3-6, rolling search unit 100), the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) being provided within the internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100);
the probe (figs. 3-6, rolling search unit 100) further comprising an inlet (supply inlet for liquid, see inlet connected to hose 132 & connector 130) for coolant (liquid, e.g., pure water) to the internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100) and an outlet (return outlet for liquid, see outlet connected to hose 132 & connector 130) for coolant (liquid) from the internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100) (details of heat transfer system including supply and return is shown in fig. 8; see also fig. 7 showing details of heat exchanger) ([0035] “The rolling search unit 100 is shown as having an ultrasonic transducer 160 and a heat exchanger 170 supported within the tire 120, which is filled with fluid G”; [0042] “fluid, i.e., a mixture of approximately fifty percent water and fifty percent ethylene glycol by weight. However, any suitable heat transfer medium may be utilized within a heat exchanger mounted inside a tire”).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Havira teaches wherein at least a part of the coolant (liquid) inlet (supply inlet for liquid) is aligned along or parallel with an axis of rotation for the probe (figs. 3-6, rolling search unit 100) (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1,
Havira teaches wherein at least a part of the coolant (liquid) outlet (return outlet for liquid) is aligned along or parallel with an axis of rotation for the probe (figs. 3-6, rolling search unit 100) (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 1,
Havira teaches wherein the internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100) is at least partially filled with coolant (liquid) and wherein the coolant (liquid) is a liquid ([0042] “fluid, i.e., a mixture of approximately fifty percent water and fifty percent ethylene glycol by weight. However, any suitable heat transfer medium may be utilized within a heat exchanger mounted inside a tire”).
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 17,
Havira teaches wherein the coolant (liquid) surrounds the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) ([0035] “rolling search unit 100 is shown as having an ultrasonic transducer 160 and a heat exchanger 170 supported within the tire 120, which is filled with fluid G”).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Havira et al (US 20130220019 A1; hereafter “Havira”) in view of newly cited Holmes et al (US 3228852 A; hereafter “Holmes”).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1,
Havira does not teach wherein at least a part of the coolant inlet and the coolant outlet are coaxial with one another.
However:
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to re/arrange a coolant inlet coaxial with a coolant outlet.
It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B), Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893), and In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to integrate an outlet and an inlet into a singular coaxial arrangement.
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Holmes teaches wherein at least a part of a coolant inlet and a coolant outlet are coaxial with one another (col. 2, ll. 31-56 “a coolant outlet conduit 41 from the hot 55box passes out of the reactor sphere 11 coaxially with a coolant inlet conduit 42”).
The Examiner additionally notes that in Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006): “Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.” See also MPEP § 2144(II).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange Havira’s coolant inlet and outlet into an integrally formed coaxial arrangement—as factually supported by Holmes—for the expected purpose of simplifying the plumbing layout, making the singular arrangement smaller including minimizing the port and required physical space, enhancing efficient heat transfer, and/or making it faster/easier for a user to dis/connect a singular coaxial line.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Havira et al (US 20130220019 A1; hereafter “Havira”) in view of Applicant cited Ishihara* et al (JP S60242364 A; hereafter “Ishihara”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 1,
Havira is silent to wherein the coolant liquid is oil.
However:
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that oil is both a conventional acoustic couplant and coolant.
Ishihara teaches an ultrasound probe (figs. 1-3, tire type probe 20) (Title “TIRE TYPE PROBE”; Abstract “PURPOSE: To simplify a device and reduce its size by supplying acoustic emission sensor cooling oil between the tire part of the probe and a test body, and obtaining couplant which propagates an ultrasonic wave. CONSTITUTION: The rotator of the tire type probe 20 is provided with plural oil outlets 18 and a wick 19 made of an annular porous material, e.g. sintered metal is provided on the internal surface of the rotator. Then, the oil for cooling the acoustic emission sensor 11 and propagating ultrasonic waves is supplied from the oil support port 16 of the support shaft 16 of the probe 20 to the hollow part 15 of the probe 20 to fill the hollow part 15 all the time and this oil is flowed out through said oil outlets 18 to fill the gap between a welding base metal and the probe 20 and operates as the couplant”) comprising:
an axial element (axial element of tire type probe 20);
an ultrasound transducer (figs. 1 & 3, AE sensor 11) mounted on the axial element (axial element of tire type probe 20);
two or more support elements (support elements of tire type probe 20) rotatable mounted relative to the axial element (axial element of tire type probe 20);
a compliant element (figs. 1-3, tire 1), the compliant element (figs. 1-3, tire 1) being mounted on the two or more support elements (support elements of tire type probe 20) and providing a continuous surface in at least one direction;
wherein the two or more support elements (support elements of tire type probe 20) and the compliant element (figs. 1-3, tire 1) at least partially define an internal volume for the probe, the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, AE sensor 11) being provided within the internal volume;
the probe (figs. 1-3, tire type probe 20) further comprising an inlet (fig. 1, oil supply port 16) for coolant (cooling oil) to the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20) and an outlet (figs. 1-3, oil outlet 18) for coolant (cooling oil) from the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20),
wherein the end of the coolant (cooling oil) inlet (fig. 1, oil supply port 16) reaches the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20) closer to the middle of the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20) than the start of the coolant (cooling oil) outlet (figs. 1-3, oil outlet 18) leading away from the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20),
wherein at least a part of the coolant (cooling oil) inlet (fig. 1, oil supply port 16) is aligned along or parallel with an axis of rotation for the probe (figs. 1-3, tire type probe 20) (see in fig. 1, portion of 16 parallel with axis 8),
wherein the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20) is at least partially filled with coolant (cooling oil) and wherein the coolant (cooling oil) is a liquid, wherein the coolant (cooling oil) surrounds the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, AE sensor 11), and
wherein the coolant (cooling oil) liquid is oil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a cooling oil for Havira’s liquid coolant—as factually supported by Ishihara—for expected purposes such as improving the propagation of the waves and/or for acoustic characteristics of low absorption of ultrasonic waves, the Examiner further emphasizing that cooling oil is particularly useful for cooling during high-heat measurements. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Havira’s transceiving transducer with Ishihara’s receiving transducer, thereby providing active inspection even in the absence of acoustic emissions from the inspected object. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1,
Havira does not teach wherein the end of the coolant inlet reaches the internal volume closer to the middle of the internal volume than the start of the coolant outlet leading away from the internal volume.
Ishihara teaches an ultrasound probe (figs. 1-3, tire type probe 20) (Title “TIRE TYPE PROBE”; Abstract”; see additional details about Ishihara previously provided in claim 19 which are part of the thrust), wherein the end of the coolant (cooling oil) inlet (fig. 1, oil supply port 16) reaches the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20) closer to the middle of the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20) than the start of the coolant (cooling oil) outlet (figs. 1-3, oil outlet 18) leading away from the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Ishihara’s expendable coolant design for Havira’s closed coolant design for expected purposes of decreasing complexity, increasing internal/exteranl cooling, and/or for providing better acoustic coupling to the surface of the inspected object. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Havira’s transceiving transducer with Ishihara’s receiving transducer, thereby providing active inspection even in the absence of acoustic emissions from the inspected object.
Claim(s) 7-16, 20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Havira et al (US 20130220019 A1; hereafter “Havira”) in view of Applicant cited De Miguel Giraldo et al (US 20140150557 A1; hereafter “Giraldo”).
Regarding claim 7 and claim 8 and claim 9 and claim 10 and claim 11 and claim 12 and claim 13 and claim 15 and claim 16, where each of claims 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 15 depend on claim 1 and where claim 16 depends on claim 15,
Havira teaches (relevant to at least claim 7) the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) and the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120),
the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120) being rotatable relative to the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160),
wherein a surface (surface of ultrasonic transducer 160) of the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) faces the surface (surface of tire 120) of the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120),
a fluid flow route being provided between at least a part (part of ultrasonic transducer 160) of the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) and at least a part (part of tire 120) of an opposing section (section of tire 120) of the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120).
Havira does not teach an ultrasound conveying block (and the numerous limitations of the claims associated therewith).
Giraldo teaches in figs. 1-3 an ultrasound probe (ultrasound inspection roller) (Title “ULTRASOUND INSPECTION SYSTEM AND ULTRASONIC QUALITY CONTROL METHOD”; Abstract “An ultrasound inspection roller provided with a wheel, a sensing system and a support for holding the sensing system inside the wheel, a wedge connected to the ultrasound sensing system at one end and provided with a curved profile at its other end facing the wheel, adapted to the curvilinear shape of the wheel, and a liquid” and “sensory system, the wheel and the wedge are acoustically coupled”) comprising: an axial element (axial element of ultrasound inspection roller; best shown in fig. 1); an ultrasound emitting transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3), mounted on the axial element (axial element of ultrasound inspection roller; best shown in fig. 1); two or more support elements (support elements of ultrasound inspection roller) rotatable mounted relative to the axial element (axial element of ultrasound inspection roller; best shown in fig. 1); a compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1), the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) being mounted on the two or more support elements (support elements of ultrasound inspection roller) and providing a continuous surface in at least one direction ([0030] “inspection wheel (1) which comprises, at least at its cover, an elastomer material filled with a high density liquid (5)”; [0039] “allow the rotation of the wheel about the axis containing the ultrasonic array, bearings were arranged coupled to parts that maintain the leak-tightness of the inside of the roller”); wherein the internal volume (internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller) is at least partially filled with a fluid (figs. 1 & 3, liquid 5) and wherein the fluid (figs. 1 & 3, liquid 5) is a liquid ([0030] “inspection wheel (1) which comprises, at least at its cover, an elastomer material filled with a high density liquid (5), thus allowing acoustic coupling”), wherein the liquid (figs. 1 & 3, liquid 5) surrounds the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) ([0030] “inspection wheel (1) which comprises, at least at its cover, an elastomer material filled with a high density liquid (5), thus allowing acoustic coupling”), wherein the two or more support elements (support elements of ultrasound inspection roller) and the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) at least partially define an internal volume (internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller) for the probe (ultrasound inspection roller), the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) being provided within the internal volume (internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller), (pertinent to claim 7 limitation) further comprising an ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) provided between the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) and the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1), (pertinent to claim 7 limitation) the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) being rotatable relative to the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) ([0030] “The ultrasound sensing system (3) is attached to a support structure (2). This system rests on a wedge (4) with curved profile at its external face which is adapted to the curvilinear shape of the elastomer wheel (1). Lastly the system (3) is acoustically coupled to the wedge, and the latter to the wheel, by a high density liquid (5)”) and “this liquid (5) does not have to be a pressurized liquid because it is the wedge (4) itself that exerts the necessary pressure, which significantly improves the mechanical coupling and favorably affects the resolution and dynamic range obtained with the system”), (pertinent to at least claim 8 limitation) wherein the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) extends between the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) and the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1), (pertinent to claim 8 limitation) a fluid flow route (gap) being provided between at least a part (part of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) and at least a part (part of section of ultrasound sensing system 3) of an opposing section (section of ultrasound sensing system 3) of the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) ([0020] “a liquid of a density higher than 9.9*102 kg/m3 enables the sensory system, the wheel and the wedge to be acoustically coupled”; [0030] “the system (3) is acoustically coupled to the wedge, and the latter to the wheel, by a high density liquid (5)”; Examiner emphasizes the fluid able to flow to between the wedge and transducer to so assist in the acoustic coupling thereof) (see figs. 1 & 3), (pertinent to claim 9 limitation) wherein a surface (surface of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) faces the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) and a surface (surface of ultrasound sensing system 3) of the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) faces the surface (surface of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4), (pertinent to claim 9 limitation) wherein the separation of the two surfaces (surface of ultrasound sensing system 3 and surface of wedge 4) is greater at one or more peripheral parts (peripheral part/s of faces of surface of ultrasound sensing system 3 and surface of wedge 4) of those faces (faces of surface of ultrasound sensing system 3 and surface of wedge 4) than at one or more central parts (central part/s of ultrasound sensing system 3 and wedge 4) of those faces (faces of surface of ultrasound sensing system 3 and surface of wedge 4) (see fig. 1), (pertinent to claim 10) wherein at least a part of the perimeter (perimeter of face of surface of wedge 4) of the face (face of surface of wedge 4) is spaced further from a surface (surface of ultrasound sensing system 3) of the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) than one or more non-perimeter parts (non-perimeter part/s of face of surface of ultrasound sensing system 3) (see fig. 1), (pertinent to claim 11 limitation) a fluid flow route (gap) being provided between at least a part of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) and at least a part of an opposing section (opposing section of inspection wheel 1) of the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) ([0030] “the system (3) is acoustically coupled to the wedge, and the latter to the wheel, by a high density liquid (5)”) (see figs. 1 & 3), (pertinent to claim 12 limitation) wherein a surface (surface of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) faces the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) and a surface (surface of inspection wheel 1) of the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) faces the surface (surface of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4), (pertinent to claim 12 limitation) wherein the separation of the two surfaces (surface of wedge 4 and surface of inspection wheel 1) is greater at one or more peripheral parts (peripheral part/s of faces of surface of wedge 4 and surface of inspection wheel 1) those faces (faces of surface of wedge 4 and surface of inspection wheel 1) than at one or more central parts (central part/s of wedge 4 and inspection wheel 1) of those faces (faces of surface of wedge 4 and surface of inspection wheel 1) (see fig. 1), (pertinent to claim 13 limitation) wherein a surface (surface of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) faces the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) and (pertinent to claim 13 limitation) wherein at least a part of the perimeter (perimeter of face of surface of wedge 4) of the face (face of surface of wedge 4) is spaced further from a surface (surface of inspection wheel 1) of the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) than one or more non-perimeter parts (non-perimeter part/s of face of surface of inspection wheel 1) (see fig. 1), (pertinent to claim 15 limitation) wherein one or more sections (section/s of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) apply a force (pressure to area) to one or more opposing sections (section/s of inspection wheel 1) of the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) ([0030] “it is the wedge (4) itself that exerts the necessary pressure, which significantly improves the mechanical coupling and favorably affects the resolution and dynamic range obtained with the system”), and (pertinent to claim 16 limitation) wherein the force is at least in part transmitted by a fluid (figs. 1 & 3, liquid 5) from one or more sections (section/s of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) to one or more opposing sections (section/s of inspection wheel 1) of the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Geraldo’s wedge with Havira’s rolling search probe for the expected advantage of significantly improving the mechanical coupling and favorably affecting the resolution and dynamic range obtained. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Havira’s circulating liquid cooling design with Giraldo’s liquid containing design for the expected purpose of better maintaining the temperature of the fluid within the tire at or near a predetermined set point, and thus enabling Giraldo’s inspection to be applicable with higher temperature objects and/or for longer periods of time therewith. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.” With further respect to the rotatability with respect to the compliant element, the Examiner additionally notes the advantage of retaining the conveying block for consistent conveyance with the transducer; with further respect to the liquid being between the transducer, the conveying block, and the compliant element, the liquid improves the acoustic coupling therebetween, the Examiner further noting that the liquid further compensates for rough surfaces/gaps and possible unwanted air interfaces including from worn surfaces; with further respect to the conveying block being spaced apart from the compliant element, the Examiner additionally notes that the spacing reduces friction, heat, and/or wearing; and with further respect to the force, the Examiner additionally notes that said mechanical force reduces the need for additional fluid pressurization thereby assisting the coupling without exerting additional pressure on other portions of the apparatus and the associated complexity/wear thereof.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1,
Havira teaches the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) and the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120),
the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120) being rotatable relative to the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160),
wherein a surface (surface of ultrasonic transducer 160) of the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) faces the surface (surface of tire 120) of the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120),
a fluid flow route being provided between at least a part (part of ultrasonic transducer 160) of the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) and at least a part (part of tire 120) of an opposing section (section of tire 120) of the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120).
Havira does not teach an ultrasound conveying block, including not teaching wherein a distance is defined between the transducer and a section of the compliant element opposing the transducer, and wherein less than 5% of that distance is occupied by fluid.
Giraldo reasonably teaches in figs. 1-3 an ultrasound probe (ultrasound inspection roller) (Title; Abstract; see additional details about Giraldo previously provided for claims 7 & 9 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 15 & 16 which are part of the thrust) comprising:
wherein a distance is defined between the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) and a section of the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120) opposing the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160), and wherein less than 5% of that distance is occupied by fluid (shown in figs. 1 and especially fig. 3; additional obviousness analysis provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Geraldo’s wedge with Havira’s rolling search probe for the expected advantage of significantly improving the mechanical coupling and favorably affecting the resolution and dynamic range obtained. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Havira’s circulating liquid cooling design with Giraldo’s liquid containing design for the expected purpose of better maintaining the temperature of the fluid within the tire at or near a predetermined set point, and thus enabling Giraldo’s inspection to be applicable with higher temperature objects and/or for longer periods of time therewith.
With further respect to the 5%:
It does not matter that the feature shown (in this case couplant fluid being only 5% of distance) is unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2125 and In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). In the present case, the shown less than 5% distance reasonably suggest to an ordinary artisan that the ultrasound conveying block is the vast majority, whereas the fluid couplant occupies merely a thin gap layer between the block and the compliant element.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05(I), In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the present case, the feature is shown as being less than 5%.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that it is known in the art to utilize a substantially larger distance for the solid couplant than for the fluid couplant thereon.
Moreover, it has been held that a mere change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCP A 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), and Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to further increase the size of the ultrasound conveying block for reasons such as for increasing the standoff distance for delay and/or ringing reduction, whereas the amount of liquid couplant can be minimized to merely being a gap filler for surface irregularities and/or to provide cooling and/or to reduce friction between the solid components.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the suggested distance between the transducer and a section of the compliant element opposing the transducer would have less than 5% of that distance is occupied by fluid, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so further optimize the combination to so have said distance be less than 5% for the aforementioned known advantages.
Regarding independent claim 20,
Havira teaches a method of performing an ultrasound based investigation of a structure ([0054] “systems and methods disclosed herein may be used in a variety of applications and are not limited to use in inspecting railroad rails. For instance, the systems and methods may be used to conduct ultrasonic inspections of any surface, such as roadways, foundations or other structures, or for any desired reason”), the method including:
providing an ultrasound probe (figs. 3-6, rolling search unit 100) comprising:
an axial element (axial element of rolling search unit 100);
an ultrasound emitting transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) mounted on the axial element (axial element of rolling search unit 100);
two or more support elements (support elements of rolling search unit 100) rotatable mounted relative to the axial element (axial element of rolling search unit 100);
a compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120), the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120) being mounted on the two or more support elements (support elements of rolling search unit 100) and providing a continuous surface in at least one direction;
wherein the two or more support elements (support elements of rolling search unit 100) and the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120) at least partially define an internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100) for the probe (figs. 3-6, rolling search unit 100), the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) being provided within the internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100);
the probe (figs. 3-6, rolling search unit 100) further comprising an inlet (supply inlet for liquid) for coolant (liquid) to the internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100) and an outlet (return outlet for liquid) for coolant (liquid) from the internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100);
the method further providing:
placing at least a section of the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120) in contact with the substrate;
passing ultrasound from the transducer (figs. 5-6, ultrasonic transducer 160) into the structure and detecting ultrasound returns from the structure;
wherein coolant (liquid) is fed into the internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100) via the coolant (liquid) inlet (supply inlet for liquid) and coolant (liquid) is removed from the internal volume (internal volume of rolling search unit 100) during the passing of ultrasound.
Havira is silent to wherein the structure is a substrate.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that performing ultrasound based investigation of a substrate structure is conventional in the art.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Giraldo teaches a method of performing an ultrasound based investigation of a substrate (substrate of material inspected; see fig. 2) (Title “ULTRASOUND INSPECTION SYSTEM AND ULTRASONIC QUALITY CONTROL METHOD”; Abstract “An ultrasound inspection roller provided with a wheel, a sensing system and a support for holding the sensing system inside the wheel, a wedge connected to the ultrasound sensing system at one end and provided with a curved profile at its other end facing the wheel, adapted to the curvilinear shape of the wheel, and a liquid” and “sensory system, the wheel and the wedge are acoustically coupled” and “The roller allows the early detection of problems during manufacturing of composites and the performance of corrective measures in real time, and assures a good coupling between the transducers and the material to be inspected”; [0028] “FIG. 2 shows a system for manufacturing CFRP laminate materials”; [0042] “The method allows obtaining composite material information layer by layer”) the method including: providing an ultrasound probe (ultrasound inspection roller) comprising: an axial element (axial element of ultrasound inspection roller; best shown in fig. 1); an ultrasound emitting transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) mounted on the axial element (axial element of ultrasound inspection roller; best shown in fig. 1); two or more support elements (support elements of ultrasound inspection roller) rotatable mounted relative to the axial element (axial element of ultrasound inspection roller; best shown in fig. 1); a compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1), the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) being mounted on the two or more support elements (support elements of ultrasound inspection roller) and providing a continuous surface in at least one direction; wherein the two or more support elements (support elements of ultrasound inspection roller) and the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) at least partially define an internal volume (internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller) for the probe (ultrasound inspection roller), the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) being provided within the internal volume (internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller) ( [0039] “allow the rotation of the wheel about the axis containing the ultrasonic array, bearings were arranged coupled to parts that maintain the leak-tightness of the inside of the roller”); the probe (ultrasound inspection roller) further comprising a fluid (figs. 1 & 3, liquid 5) in the internal volume (internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller) ([0030] “inspection wheel (1) which comprises, at least at its cover, an elastomer material filled with a high density liquid (5)”); the method further providing: placing at least a section (section of inspection wheel 1) of the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) in contact with the substrate (substrate of material inspected; see fig. 2); and passing ultrasound from the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) into the substrate (substrate of material inspected; see fig. 2) and detecting ultrasound returns from the substrate (substrate of material inspected; see fig. 2) ([0031] “pulse-echo” and “rolling over the component”), wherein the probe (ultrasound inspection roller) is rolled across the substrate (substrate of material inspected; see fig. 2) such that different sections of the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) contact the substrate (substrate of material inspected; see fig. 2) at different locations on the substrate (substrate of material inspected; see fig. 2) ([0031] “rolling over the component”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a conventional substrate inspection—as factually supported by Geraldo’s substrate inspection—with Havira’s rolling search probe inspection of any structure/surface thereby increasing the utility and marketability thereof by inclusion of a common structural objection oft in need of inspection. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Havira’s circulating liquid cooling design with Giraldo’s liquid containing design for the expected purpose of better maintaining the temperature of the fluid within the tire at or near a predetermined set point, and thus enabling Giraldo’s inspection to be applicable with higher temperature substrates and/or for longer periods of time therewith.
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 20,
the combination of Havira and Giraldo suggests (see analysis of independent claim) wherein the probe (figs. 3-6, rolling search unit 100) is rolled across the substrate (Giraldo substrate of material inspected) such that different sections of the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120) contact the substrate (Giraldo substrate of material inspected) at different locations on the substrate (Giraldo substrate of material inspected).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Havira in view of Applicant cited Giraldo and in further view of Applicant cited Mohseni et al (NPL A HIGH TEMPERATURE PHASED ARRAY ULTRASONIC ROLLER PROBE DESIGNED FOR DRY-COUPLED IN-PROCESS INSPECTION OF WIRE ARC ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING; hereafter “Mohseni”).
Regarding claim 21 and claim 22, where claim 21 depends on claim 20 and where claim 22 depends on claim 20,
Havira is silent to wherein the temperature of the substrate at the location contacted by the section of the compliant element (figs. 3-6, tire 120) has a temperature of: (claim 21) at least 250°C; and (claim 22) at least 300°C.
However:
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the work is required to inspect surface temperatures exceeding 300°C, including by commonsense measures such as thickening the compliant surface and/or increasing the circulation rate of the coolant.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to select materials for components based on desired thermal properties such as being able to inspect surface temperatures exceeding 300°C.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence for the aforementioned assertion, Mohseni teaches a method of performing an ultrasound based investigation of a substrate (substrate layer of WAAM) (Title “A HIGH TEMPERATURE PHASED ARRAY ULTRASONIC ROLLER PROBE DESIGNED FOR DRY-COUPLED IN-PROCESS INSPECTION OF WIRE ARC ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING”; Abstract “roller probe is devised, and material selection for different components of the roller probe is carried out considering the required mechanical, thermal and acoustic properties” and “inspection of a defective Ti-6Al-4V WAAM sample” and “inspection at a temperature of 350°C”; Introduction page 2 “layer-by-layer inspection”), the method including: providing an ultrasound probe (roller probe) comprising: an axial element (shaft); an ultrasound emitting transducer (UT array) (UT array); two or more support elements (support elements comprising end caps) rotatable mounted relative to the axial element (shaft); a compliant element (tire), the compliant element (tire) being mounted on the two or more support elements (support elements comprising end caps) and providing a continuous surface in at least one direction; an ultrasound conveying block (HT delay line) between the transducer (UT array) and the compliant element (tire), wherein the two or more support elements (support elements comprising end caps) and the compliant element (tire) at least partially define an internal volume (internal volume of roller probe) for the probe (roller probe), the transducer (UT array) being provided within the internal volume (internal volume of roller probe); wherein a surface (surface of HT delay line) of an ultrasound conveying block (HT delay line) faces the transducer (UT array) and a surface of the transducer (UT array) faces the surface (surface of HT delay line) of the ultrasound conveying block (HT delay line), wherein a surface (surface of HT delay line) of an ultrasound conveying block (HT delay line) faces the compliant element (tire) and a surface (surface of tire) of the compliant element (tire) faces the surface (surface of HT delay line) of the ultrasound conveying block (HT delay line), wherein a surface (surface of HT delay line) of the ultrasound conveying block (HT delay line) faces the compliant element (tire), and the probe (roller probe) further comprising a fluid (lubricant) in the internal volume (internal volume of roller probe); the method further providing: placing at least a section (section of tire) of the compliant element (tire) in contact with the substrate (substrate layer of WAAM); and passing ultrasound from the transducer (UT array) into the substrate (substrate layer of WAAM) and detecting ultrasound returns (echoes) from the substrate (substrate layer of WAAM), wherein the temperature of the substrate (substrate layer of WAAM) at the location contacted by the section (section of tire) of the compliant element (tire) has a temperature of at least 300°C (Abstract “inspection at a temperature of 350°C”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Havara’s rolling probe for temperatures exceeding 350°C and use for the same—as factually supported by Mohseni—for the expected purpose of increasing versatility and utility including for high(er) temperature inspections. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Havira’s circulating liquid cooling design with Mohseni’s liquid containing design for the expected purpose of better maintaining the temperature of the fluid within the tire at or near a predetermined set point, and thus enabling Mohseni’s inspection to be applicable with higher temperature objects and/or for longer periods of time therewith; the Examiner notes that the combination is synergistic for better handling heat. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Giraldo in view of Applicant cited Ishihara.
Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 5, where claim 5 depends on claim 1, and where claim 5 is as best understood,
Giraldo teaches in figs. 1-3 an ultrasound probe (ultrasound inspection roller) (Title “ULTRASOUND INSPECTION SYSTEM AND ULTRASONIC QUALITY CONTROL METHOD”; Abstract “An ultrasound inspection roller provided with a wheel, a sensing system and a support for holding the sensing system inside the wheel, a wedge connected to the ultrasound sensing system at one end and provided with a curved profile at its other end facing the wheel, adapted to the curvilinear shape of the wheel, and a liquid” and “sensory system, the wheel and the wedge are acoustically coupled”; additional details about Giraldo previously provided for other claims) comprising:
an axial element (axial element of ultrasound inspection roller; best shown in fig. 1);
an ultrasound emitting transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3), mounted on the axial element (axial element of ultrasound inspection roller; best shown in fig. 1);
two or more support elements (support elements of ultrasound inspection roller) rotatable mounted relative to the axial element (axial element of ultrasound inspection roller; best shown in fig. 1);
a compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1), the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) being mounted on the two or more support elements (support elements of ultrasound inspection roller) and providing a continuous surface in at least one direction ([0030] “inspection wheel (1) which comprises, at least at its cover, an elastomer material filled with a high density liquid (5)”; [0039] “allow the rotation of the wheel about the axis containing the ultrasonic array, bearings were arranged coupled to parts that maintain the leak-tightness of the inside of the roller”);
wherein the internal volume (internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller) is at least partially filled with a fluid (figs. 1 & 3, liquid 5) and wherein the fluid (figs. 1 & 3, liquid 5) is a liquid ([0030] “inspection wheel (1) which comprises, at least at its cover, an elastomer material filled with a high density liquid (5), thus allowing acoustic coupling”),
wherein the liquid (figs. 1 & 3, liquid 5) surrounds the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) ([0030] “inspection wheel (1) which comprises, at least at its cover, an elastomer material filled with a high density liquid (5), thus allowing acoustic coupling”).
wherein the two or more support elements (support elements of ultrasound inspection roller) and the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) at least partially define an internal volume (internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller) for the probe (ultrasound inspection roller), the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) being provided within the internal volume (internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller),
further comprising an ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) provided between the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) and the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1),
the compliant element (fig. 1, inspection wheel 1) being rotatable relative to the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) ([0030] “The ultrasound sensing system (3) is attached to a support structure (2). This system rests on a wedge (4) with curved profile at its external face which is adapted to the curvilinear shape of the elastomer wheel (1). Lastly the system (3) is acoustically coupled to the wedge, and the latter to the wheel, by a high density liquid (5)”) and “this liquid (5) does not have to be a pressurized liquid because it is the wedge (4) itself that exerts the necessary pressure, which significantly improves the mechanical coupling and favorably affects the resolution and dynamic range obtained with the system”),
wherein a surface (surface of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) faces the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) and a surface (surface of ultrasound sensing system 3) of the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) faces the surface (surface of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) forming an interface,
a fluid flow route (gap) being provided between at least a part (part of wedge 4) of the ultrasound conveying block (figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4) and at least a part (part of section of ultrasound sensing system 3) of an opposing section (section of ultrasound sensing system 3) of the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) ([0020] “a liquid of a density higher than 9.9*102 kg/m3 enables the sensory system, the wheel and the wedge to be acoustically coupled”; [0030] “the system (3) is acoustically coupled to the wedge, and the latter to the wheel, by a high density liquid (5)”; Examiner emphasizes the fluid able to flow to between the wedge and transducer to so assist in the acoustic coupling thereof) (see figs. 1 & 3).
Giraldo does not teach (limitation of claim 1) the probe further comprising an inlet for coolant to the internal volume and an outlet for coolant from the internal volume, nor (limitation of claim 5) wherein at least a part of the coolant inlet is directed toward an interface between the transducer and an ultrasound conveying block.
Ishihara teaches an ultrasound probe (figs. 1-3, tire type probe 20) (Title “TIRE TYPE PROBE”; Abstract “PURPOSE: To simplify a device and reduce its size by supplying acoustic emission sensor cooling oil between the tire part of the probe and a test body, and obtaining couplant which propagates an ultrasonic wave. CONSTITUTION: The rotator of the tire type probe 20 is provided with plural oil outlets 18 and a wick 19 made of an annular porous material, e.g. sintered metal is provided on the internal surface of the rotator. Then, the oil for cooling the acoustic emission sensor 11 and propagating ultrasonic waves is supplied from the oil support port 16 of the support shaft 16 of the probe 20 to the hollow part 15 of the probe 20 to fill the hollow part 15 all the time and this oil is flowed out through said oil outlets 18 to fill the gap between a welding base metal and the probe 20 and operates as the couplant”) comprising:
an axial element (axial element of tire type probe 20);
an ultrasound transducer (figs. 1 & 3, AE sensor 11) mounted on the axial element (axial element of tire type probe 20);
two or more support elements (support elements of tire type probe 20) rotatable mounted relative to the axial element (axial element of tire type probe 20);
a compliant element (figs. 1-3, tire 1), the compliant element (figs. 1-3, tire 1) being mounted on the two or more support elements (support elements of tire type probe 20) and providing a continuous surface in at least one direction;
wherein the two or more support elements (support elements of tire type probe 20) and the compliant element (figs. 1-3, tire 1) at least partially define an internal volume for the probe, the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, AE sensor 11) being provided within the internal volume;
the probe (figs. 1-3, tire type probe 20) further comprising an inlet (fig. 1, oil supply port 16) for coolant (cooling oil) to the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20) and an outlet (figs. 1-3, oil outlet 18) for coolant (cooling oil) from the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20),
wherein at least a part of the coolant (cooling oil) inlet (fig. 1, oil supply port 16) is aligned along or parallel with an axis of rotation for the probe (figs. 1-3, tire type probe 20) (see in fig. 1, portion of 16 parallel with axis 8),
wherein the internal volume (internal volume of tire type probe 20) is at least partially filled with coolant (cooling oil) and wherein the coolant (cooling oil) is a liquid, wherein the coolant (cooling oil) surrounds the transducer (figs. 1 & 3, AE sensor 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ishihara’s expendable coolant design with Giraldo’s liquid containing design for expected purposes of increasing internal/external cooling, and/or for providing better acoustic coupling to the surface of the inspected object. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Giraldo’s transceiving transducer with Ishihara’s receiving transducer, thereby providing active inspection even in the absence of acoustic emissions from the inspected object, as well as combining Giraldo’s ultrasound conveying block with Ishihara’s probe for the expected advantage of significantly improving the mechanical coupling and favorably affecting the resolution and dynamic range obtained. The Examiner further notes that the liquid further compensates for rough surfaces/gaps and possible unwanted air interfaces including from worn surfaces of the transducer and conveying wedge. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Therefore, Giraldo as modified by Ishihara suggests wherein the probe (Giraldo ultrasound inspection roller) further comprising an inlet (Ishihara fig. 1, oil supply port 16) for coolant (Ishihara cooling liquid oil) to the internal volume (Giraldo internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller) and an outlet (Ishihara figs. 1-3, oil outlet 18) for coolant (Ishihara cooling liquid oil) from the internal volume (Giraldo internal volume of ultrasound inspection roller), wherein at least a part of the coolant inlet (Ishihara fig. 1, oil supply port 16)is directed toward an interface between the transducer (Giraldo figs. 1 & 3, ultrasound sensing system 3) and an ultrasound conveying block (Giraldo figs. 1 & 3, wedge 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 15JUL2026
Prosecution Insights