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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings fail to show “a more central position on the bottom of the pipeline” (as recited in claim 19); “external locating device” (as recited in claims 19, 22, 24); “ground locating device” (as recited in claim 21) in a broadest sense. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a more central position on the bottom of the pipeline” (as recited in claim 19); “external locating device” (as recited in claims 19, 22, 24); “ground locating device” (as recited in claim 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Due to drawing objection, the instant specification is also objected because the instant specification does not consistently reflect what being claimed i.e. “a more central position on the bottom of the pipeline” (as recited in claim 19); “external locating device” (as recited in claims 19, 22, 24); “ground locating device” (as recited in claim 21) in the instant specification.
Note that the instant specification must consistently reflect claimed limitations.
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.
Claims 3-4, 7-10, 12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As per claims 8-10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
As per claim 3, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the sensor probe has a first outer diameter and each spring has a second outer diameter, the second outer diameter being smaller than the first diameter”, and claim 3 also recites “preferably between 50 and 90% of the first diameter, more preferably between 60 to 80% of the first diameter”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 4, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the first outer diameter is in a range of 25 to 40 mm”, and claim 4 also recites “preferably in a range of 30 to 35 mm”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 7, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “the flexible element has a tensile strength in a range between 0.3 kN and 1.5 kN”, and claim 7 also recites “more preferably between 0.4 kN and 1.3 kN, more preferably between 0.5 kN and 1.0 kN”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 8, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “a chain”, and claim 8 also recites “preferably with a chain grade of at least 30”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 9, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “the chain has at least three”, and claim 9 also recites “preferably at least four pivot points”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 10, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “the chain has at least two”, and claim 10 also recites “preferably at least three complete chain links”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 12, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “sensor probe”, and claim 12 also recites “preferably each of the modules, has an aerodynamic shape for reducing interference with a fluid in the pipeline”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 14, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a tether”, and claim 14 also recites “such as for example a fiber rod”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 14, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “pushing the sensor probe through the pipeline infrastructure”, and claim 14 also recites “preferably wherein the system further comprises an odometer in combination with the tether for recording a path travelled by the sensor probe as it is driven through the pipeline”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 14, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “recording a path travelled by the sensor probe as it is driven through the pipeline”, and claim 14 also recites “preferably wherein the odometer is provided to record the length of the tether that passes along the odometer”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 18, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “a tether of the driving mechanism”, and claim 18 also recites “such as for example a fiber rod”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 20, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “an odometer”, and claim 20 also recites “preferably wherein the odometer is external to the sensor probe and records the length of the tether that passes along the odometer”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
As per claim 19, claim 19 recites “a more central position on the bottom of the pipeline” render the claim indefinite because it is not clear about “a more central position”. 80% central position? 90% central position? The drawings fail to show “a more central position on the bottom of the pipeline”. Hence, it is unclear.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-11, 13, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsson – US 20200173602 in view of Robinson – US 2474690, and further in view of Kanehira – US 6416436.
As per claim 1, Olsson teaches a system for mapping and/or inspecting an underground pipeline infrastructure (abstract), comprising:
a sensor probe (fig.17A-17B) for collecting geospatial data while travelling through a pipeline of the pipeline infrastructure ([0155-0156] and fig.17A-17B), and
a driving mechanism for driving the sensor probe 1710 (fig.17A-17B, [0155-0156]: push cable 1725 corresponds to “driving mechanism”), wherein the sensor probe 1710 comprises a train of at least two modules of which a first module contains a sensor payload for collecting said geospatial data ([0155-0157] and fig.17A-17B and 18: camera head corresponds to “a sensor payload”; camera head includes inertial sensors and/or other camera head movement measuring sensor(s) 1813 generating inertial data 1814 relating to measured positions, orientations, and movements (or lack thereof) of the camera head 1810; thus “a train of at least two modules of which a first module contains a sensor payload for collecting said geospatial data”) and a second module is provided for connecting the sensor probe (fig.17A-17B) to the driving mechanism (or push cable), wherein each two successive modules of said train are connected to each other by means of a flexible connection which allows the sensor probe (fig.17A-17B) to travel through pipeline bends (fig.17A-17B and : spring (or flexible connection) 1720 connecting each two successive modules of said train; [0171] and figs.22A-22C: the assembly is made to move through bends and turns in a pipe; thus “each two successive modules of said train are connected to each other by means of a flexible connection which allows the sensor probe to travel through pipeline bends”).
PNG
media_image1.png
507
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Olsson does not explicitly teach each flexible connection comprises a spring configured for straightening the sensor probe after travelling through pipeline bends and a flexible element mounted on the inside of the spring configured for bearing a predefined tensile loads.
Robinson teaches a pair of coupling sleeves 1 and 2 are mounted on coil spring 3 (col.1, lines 30-36 and fig.1: straight flexible tubular member i.e. coil spring); a flexible element or chain 18 mounted on inside of the spring 3 configured for bearing a tension (col.3, lines 26-36); Robinson’s invention is to provide a normally straight flexible tubular member that would solve drawback of prior art’s problem in which coil spring would not return to their original straightness (i.e. buckle or stretch out of shape) after going around 90 degree bends (col.1, lines 13-47).
Robinson further teaches the chain has at least three, preferably at least four pivot points (fig.1); the chain has at least two, preferably at least three complete chain links (fig.4).
PNG
media_image2.png
375
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sensor probe of Olsson with teachings of Robinson to include each flexible connection comprises a spring configured for straightening the sensor probe after travelling through pipeline bends and a flexible element mounted on the inside of the spring configured for bearing a tension, to provide a strong and durable normally straight flexible tubular member, which will not break in use and the bending of which is positively limited so that it cannot buckle or stretch out of shape (col.1, lines 13-47).
Olsson and Robinson do not explicitly teach a predefined tensile loads.
Kanehira teaches a concept of: a predetermined tensile load is applied to a chain (col.1, line 20).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chain of sensor probe of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Kanehira to include a flexible element mounted on the inside of the spring configured for bearing a predefined tensile loads (as recited in claim 1); the flexible element is a chain, preferably with a chain grade of at least 30 (as recited in claim 8); the chain has at least three, preferably at least four pivot points (as recited in claim 9); the chain has at least two, preferably at least three complete chain links (as recited in claim 10), to produce a load tension which is less than an allowable maximum load tension of the chain and which is smaller than a load tension applied to the chain during normal use to ensure that the chain is acceptable in view of a predetermined product standard (col.1, lines 20-28).
As per claims 8-10, 13, 17, claims 8-10, 13, 17 are rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 21, Olsson further teaches determining at least one location coordinate, such as a start-point coordinate, an end- point coordinate and/or a guide-point coordinate of the sensor probe by means of an electromagnetic field generator provided in one of the modules of the sensor probe in combination with an above ground locating device ([0060] and fig.14: external locating device 1460 for determining at least one location coordinate determined by means of the sensor probe; thus “determining at least one location coordinate, such as a start-point coordinate, an end- point coordinate and/or a guide-point coordinate of the sensor probe by means of an electromagnetic field generator provided in one of the modules of the sensor probe in combination with an above ground locating device”).
As per claim 11, Olsson further teaches the train of modules comprises at least one of the following modules: a third module containing a communication and/or power interface for transferring the collected data to an external computer system and/or for charging a battery of the probe, a fourth module containing an electromagnetic field generator for locating the sensor probe in combination with an external locating device and thereby determining at least one location coordinate, a fifth module comprising a visual inspection device such as a camera, a sixth module comprising an odometer for recording a path travelled by the sensor probe as it is driven through the pipeline, a seventh module comprising at least one environment sensor for measuring for example pressure, temperature, humidity or another environment parameter (described fig.17B above; [0069, 0155]: first/front module includes a visual inspection device such as a camera; thus “the train of modules comprises at least one of the following modules: a third module containing a communication and/or power interface for transferring the collected data to an external computer system and/or for charging a battery of the probe, a fourth module containing an electromagnetic field generator for locating the sensor probe in combination with an external locating device and thereby determining at least one location coordinate, a fifth module comprising a visual inspection device such as a camera, a sixth module comprising an odometer for recording a path travelled by the sensor probe as it is driven through the pipeline, a seventh module comprising at least one environment sensor for measuring for example pressure, temperature, humidity or another environment parameter”).
As per claim 7, while modified Olsson teach the flexible element has a certain tensile strength, it does not explicitly teach the flexible element has a tensile strength in a range between 0.3 kN and 1.5 kN, more preferably between 0.4 kN and 1.3 kN, more preferably between 0.5 kN and 1.0 kN.
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible element or chain of modified Olsson to include the flexible element has any desired tensile strength which include i.e. a tensile strength in a range between 0.3 kN and 1.5 kN, more preferably between 0.4 kN and 1.3 kN, more preferably between 0.5 kN and 1.0 kN, while still ensure the chain is acceptable in view of a predetermined product standard, since where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. a certain tensile strength) are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 3-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsson, Robinson, and Kanehira, and further in view of Chapman – US 20140333753.
As per claim 5, modified Olsson does not explicitly teach each spring has, in its natural state, front and rear sections wherein coils of the spring are spaced apart and a middle section wherein the coils lie against each other.
Chapman teaches spring has, in its natural state, front and rear sections wherein coils of the spring are spaced apart and a middle section wherein the coils lie against each other (figs.11-13).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Chapman to include each spring has, in its natural state, front and rear sections wherein coils of the spring are spaced apart and a middle section wherein the coils lie against each other, for increasing ease in ability to bend and flex from the rear to the front of the spring assembly 1100 so as to provide variable flexibility ([0114]).
As per claim 3, Olsson teaches the sensor probe 19has a first outer diameter and each spring has a second outer diameter (fig.19A), it does not explicitly teach the second outer diameter being smaller than the first diameter, preferably between 50 and 90% of the first diameter, more preferably between 60 to 80% of the first diameter.
Chapman teaches outer diameter of spring 210 being smaller than outer diameter of camera guide 910 (fig.9).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Olsson to include the second outer diameter being smaller than the first diameter, preferably any desired ranges including i.e. between 50 and 90% of the first diameter, more preferably between 60 to 80% of the first diameter (as recited in claim 3); the first outer diameter is in a range of 25 to 40 mm, preferably in a range of 30 to 35 mm (as recited in claim 4); the first module is larger and/or heavier than the subsequent modules of the train (as recited in claim 15), while still ensure sensor probe and spring to bend and flex with the greatest degree of ease to readily allow camera head movement and ease deployment of the camera head through a pipe or cavity, since where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. a certain outer diameter of each spring being smaller than a certain outer diameter of sensor probe) are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As per claims 4 and 15, claims 4 and 15 are rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsson, Robinson, and Kanehira, and further in view of Heim – US 8074514.
As per claim 2, modified Olsson does not explicitly teach each spring is further configured for removing torsion from the sensor probe and/or maintaining the flexible element inside the spring at maximum length.
Heim teaches a concept of: sensor probes which rotate down into a container by means of torsion springs (abstract).
Since Olsson teaches sensor probe connected to spring (fig.17A-17B), it would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Heim to include each spring is further configured for removing torsion from the sensor probe and/or maintaining the flexible element inside the spring at maximum length, for eliminating failure to the springs due to bending (abstract). Note that once the failure to the springs are eliminated, torsion and/or failure to sensor probe is/are also eliminated.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsson, Robinson, and Kanehira, and further in view of Ethirajan – US 20170219157.
As per claim 12, modified Olsson does not explicitly teach sensor probe, preferably each of the modules, has an aerodynamic shape for reducing interference with a fluid in the pipeline.
Ethirajan teaches sensor device 150 moves through substance 102 within a pipe network ([0024]), wherein sensor device can be shaped and designed to be optimized for minimized drag, best buoyancy, efficient transport ([0019]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sensor probe of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Ethirajan to include sensor probe, preferably each of the modules, has an aerodynamic shape for reducing interference with a fluid in the pipeline, for minimized drag, best buoyancy, efficient transport ([0019]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsson, Robinson, and Kanehira, and further in view of Parlane – WO 2019008397 and Li – US 20200400419.
As per claim 14, Olsson teaches the driving mechanism comprises a tether/cable for pushing the sensor probe through the pipeline infrastructure (as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1), modified Olsson does not explicitly teach preferably wherein the system further comprises an odometer in combination with the tether for recording a path travelled by the sensor probe as it is driven through the pipeline, preferably wherein the odometer is provided to record the length of the tether that passes along the odometer.
Parlane teaches suite of sensors may comprise one or more odometers which are able to measure the distance travelled by the cable management apparatus 10; The monitoring of the distance travelled along the pipe 12 may allow the cable management system to determine its position within the pipe 12. The odometer may also be configured to determine the extent (i.e. the length of umbilical cable 14) to which the umbilical cable 14 has moved through the cable management apparatus 10 (page 13 and fig.10).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sensor probe of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Parlane to include preferably wherein the system further comprises an odometer in combination with the tether for recording a path travelled by the sensor probe as it is driven through the pipeline, preferably wherein the odometer is provided to record the length of the tether that passes along the odometer, to allow determination of sensor device/probe within the pipe (page 13).
Modified Olsson does not explicitly teach a fiber rod.
Li teaches a strong thin fiber cable coupled to a measuring robot for the pipeline ([0060]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify tether/cable of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Li to include a fiber rod, to provide a strong thing cable/rod ([0060]).
Claims 24 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsson, Robinson, and Kanehira, and further in view of Parlane – WO 2019008397.
As per claim 24, Olsson further teaches at least one location coordinate determined by means of the sensor probe in combination with an external locating device ([0060] and fig.14: external locating device 1460 for determining at least one location coordinate determined by means of the sensor probe). Olsson further teaches the location coordinate data is combined with images and/or video to generate combined position and mapping data, which may be associated, stored in a memory, transmitted to other electronic computing devices and systems and the like. As described subsequently herein, such mapping solution data may include data corresponding to location imagery as well as data collected through a pipe inspection by a camera head to reference a ground surface location via a utility locator device ([0107]).
Olsson does not explicitly teach a path travelled by the sensor probe recorded by means of an odometer.
Parlane teaches suite of sensors may comprise one or more odometers which are able to measure the distance travelled by the cable management apparatus 10; The monitoring of the distance travelled along the pipe 12 may allow the cable management system to determine its position within the pipe 12. The odometer may also be configured to determine the extent (i.e. the length of umbilical cable 14) to which the umbilical cable 14 has moved through the cable management apparatus 10 (page 13 and fig.10).
Since Olsson teaches a sensor probe (fig.17A-17B) for collecting geospatial data while travelling through a pipeline of the pipeline infrastructure ([0155-0156] and fig.17A-17B) and processing, storage, and display of the pipe inspection and mapping and associated data may occur partially or fully in the camera head 110; camera head may further include a processing element to receive video signals representing real time, inertial data, and other non-video data which may include instructions from one or more directly or indirectly wired or wirelessly coupled system devices and perform operations relating to received instructions as well as received video signals and other data and generate related output video and non-video data signals that include the inertial data as well as command signals for controlling aspects of the camera head and other system devices ([0010-0011,0092-0093]); and the system 100 may further include a processing element 145 for receiving at least inertial data generated at camera head 110 and cable counting data and generating control signals and output data from methods associated with corrected inertial data and pipe mapping. Storage 150 may include non-transitory computer-readable memory for storing video and non-video data as well as inertial data and associated output data generated by the processing element ([0091] and fig.1A), it would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Olsson with teachings of Parlane to include a non-transitory storage medium storing a real-time or post- processing software which is configured to, when executed on a computer system, merge geospatial data collected by means of the sensor probe, a path travelled by the sensor probe recorded by means of an odometer, and at least one location coordinate determined by means of the sensor probe in combination with an external locating device, for displaying real time, near real time, and/or post processed video or still images and other system and camera head data.
As per claim 22, claim 22 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 24.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsson, Robinson, and Kanehira, and further in view of Hudritsch – US 20120069172.
As per claim 16, modified Olsson does not explicitly teach the sensor payload in the first module is provided for recording a roll value as the sensor probe travels through the pipeline.
Hudritsch teaches camera head 120 includes an orientation sensor 180 configured to obtain and store roll angle of vehicle or pipeline inspection system 110 ([0036, 0050]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sensor payload in the first module of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Hudritsch to include the sensor payload in the first module is provided for recording a roll value as the sensor probe travels through the pipeline, such that a set of such data i.e. an inclination angle, roll angle and yaw angle of the vehicle/sensor probe/camera head corresponds to each captured and stored pipeline inspection image ([0050]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsson, Robinson, and Kanehira, and further in view of Hudritsch – US 20120069172 and Li – US 20200400419.
As per claim 18, Olsson teaches the sensor probe is pushed through the pipeline by means of a tether of the driving mechanism (as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1), it does not explicitly teach a fiber rod, wherein the tether causes the sensor probe to roll as it is pushed through the pipeline, and wherein a roll value of the sensor probe is recorded by means of the sensor payload in the first module.
Hudritsch teaches camera head 120 includes an orientation sensor 180 configured to obtain and store roll angle of vehicle or pipeline inspection system 110 ([0036, 0050]). Control cable 106 coupled to vehicle or pipeline inspection system 110 and cause it to roll (fig.9 and [0036, 0050]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sensor payload in the first module of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Hudritsch to include the tether causes the sensor probe to roll as it is pushed through the pipeline, and wherein a roll value of the sensor probe is recorded by means of the sensor payload in the first module, such that a set of such data i.e. an inclination angle, roll angle and yaw angle of the vehicle/sensor probe/camera head corresponds to each captured and stored pipeline inspection image ([0050]).
Modified Olsson does not explicitly teach fiber rod.
Li teaches a strong thin fiber cable coupled to a measuring robot for the pipeline ([0060]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify tether/cable of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Li to include a fiber rod, to provide a strong thing cable/rod ([0060]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsson, Robinson, and Kanehira, and further in view of Takagi – US 4770105.
As per claim 23, modified Olsson does not explicitly teach sensor probe is used to collect the geospatial data in at least one of a forwards travelling direction and a backwards travelling direction.
Takagi teaches it will be appreciated that the piping travelling apparatus comprising at least one vehicle for travelling back and forth in the piping (col.6, lines 6-9).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify tether/cable of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Takagi to include sensor probe is used to collect the geospatial data in at least one of a forwards travelling direction and a backwards travelling direction, for travelling back and forth in the piping (col.6, lines 6-9).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsson, Robinson, and Kanehira, and further in view of Parlane – WO 2019008397 and Tummapalli – US 20210332930.
As per claim 20, Olsson teaches the driving mechanism comprises a tether/cable for pushing the sensor probe through the pipeline infrastructure (as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1), modified Olsson does not explicitly teach recording a path travelled by the sensor probe as it is driven through the pipeline, by means of an odometer, preferably wherein the odometer is external to the sensor probe and records the length of the tether that passes along the odometer.
Parlane teaches suite of sensors may comprise one or more odometers which are able to measure the distance travelled by the cable management apparatus 10; The monitoring of the distance travelled along the pipe 12 may allow the cable management system to determine its position within the pipe 12. The odometer may also be configured to determine the extent (i.e. the length of umbilical cable 14) to which the umbilical cable 14 has moved through the cable management apparatus 10 (page 13 and fig.10).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sensor probe of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Parlane to include recording a path travelled by the sensor probe as it is driven through the pipeline, by means of an odometer, preferably wherein the odometer records the length of the tether that passes along the odometer, to allow determination of sensor device/probe within the pipe (page 13).
Modified Olsson does not explicitly teach preferably wherein the odometer is external to the sensor probe.
Tummapalli teaches odometer assembly 108 may be adapted to be mounted on the body 102 of the caliper pig 100 within pipeline ([0037-0038]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sensor probe of modified Olsson with concept teaching of Tummapalli to include preferably wherein the odometer is external to the sensor probe, to determine a distance travelled by caliper pig within pipeline ([0038]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 17, but would be allowable once objections and 112 rejection are corrected and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 includes each spring has bent front and rear ends which fit into notches provided in the respective modules in front of and behind the spring, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 6 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
Claim 19 includes the first module is larger and heavier than the subsequent modules of the train, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 9 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached 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.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights