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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
1. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
2. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“ … the measuring instrument configured to receive an electrical signal …” (claim-1);
The claim term “instrument” in the above claim(s) is a generic place holder because is not preceded by any structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
3. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
4. The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “means for adjusting a position of the guide”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, “features” or “generic placeholder”
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation:
“measuring instrument … configured to receive an electrical signal …
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Title Objection
5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
I. 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.
6. Claims 1-14 is 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. Specifically:
6.1. Claims 1 recites the element “measuring instrument”, which is indefinite because the specifications, claims and/or drawings fail to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform the functions relative to the performing “measuring” and “receiving a signal”. Furthermore, the paragraphs 0024-0025 and 0027-0029 of the specification simply recites said measuring instrument in the same way as they are in the claim(s). Additionally, Figs. 3 simply depict boxes without labels of said measuring instrument 1200 that does not depict any structure capable of measuring and receiving a signal. In addition, Figs 1-3 depicts a measuring instrument housing 1300 that does not contain either any structure capable of measuring and receiving a signal. Therefore, there is insufficient structure to perform said functions measuring and receiving a signal.
6.2. Furthermore, claims 2-14 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim-1.
6.3. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the multiple measuring instruments” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
6.4. Claim 9 recites the limitation “the electrode end” (line 9), and it is unclear to determine which electrode said limitation referring to.
6.5. Claim 11 recites the limitation “the test object” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
6.6. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the test object” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
6.7. Claim 13 recites the limitations “hardened stainless steel electrodes” in line 1 and “the test object” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
6.8. Claim 14 recites the limitations “the attachment mechanism” in line 1-2 and “the test object” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
II. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
7. Claim(s) 1-14 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor. The aforesaid claim implements a new subject matter that is not described in the specifications. Specifically:
7.1. Claims 1 recites the element “measuring instrument” where no structure and/or insufficient structure for this specific limitation is disclosed in the applicant’s specification, therefore, claims 1 is rejected for no written description in the specification.
7.2. Furthermore, such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function(s) and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention pursuant to MPEP 2163.03 Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issue Arises, VI. INDEFINITENESS REJECTION OF A MEANS- (OR STEP-) PLUS-FUNCTION LIMITATION.
7.3. Furthermore, claims 2-14 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim-1.
Examiner’s Note
8. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
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.
9. Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LUKACS et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0102362 hereinafter mentioned “Lukacs”).
As per claim 1, the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Lukacs discloses:
A system for non-destructive resistance monitoring (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, Fig. 2 and abstract), comprising:
one or more pairs of electrodes (Figs. 1-2, see the one or more pairs formed by the counter-electrode 7 and the reference-electrode 9. Also see [0057] and [0050]-[0051]), wherein each pair of electrodes include a first electrode for application of electrical current (Fig. 2, see each of the counter-electrode 7. Also see [0067]-[0068] and [0022]) and a second electrode for measurement of potential in close proximity to the first electrode (Figs. 1-2, see each of the reference-electrode 9. Also see [0068], [0066] and [0022]);
a measuring instrument coupled to the one or more pairs of electrodes (Fig. 2, see the measuring-unit 5 connected to the electrodes. Also see [0063]-[0065] and claim-1), the measuring instrument configured to receive an electrical signal via the electrodes and collect material resistance data (Fig. 2, see the potential-measuring-input 3 of the measuring-unit 5 that receive signals from reference electrodes 9. Also see [0066]-[0068], [0022] and claim-1).
As per claim 2, Lukacs discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 1 as described above.
Lukacs further discloses:
wherein a resistance of a test object (Fig. 2, see the pipeline 1. Also see [0057]-[0058], [0022] and claim-1) is determined by using two pairs of electrodes (Figs. 1-2, see the one or more pairs formed by the counter-electrode 7 and the reference-electrode 9. Also see [0057] and [0050]-[0051]), wherein a current is applied between a pair of the first electrodes (Fig. 2, see the counter-electrodes 7 of any of the probes 15. Also see [0068] and [0022]) and measuring the voltage drop between a pair of the second electrodes (Fig. 2, see the reference-electrodes 9 of any of the probes 15. Furthermore, when a third electrode is used as another reference-electrode, as it is used in any of the outer probes 15, the potential/voltage drop of another electrode is measured against said reference-electrode. Also see [0068] and [0022]).
As per claim 7, Lukacs discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 1 as described above.
Lukacs further discloses:
wherein each electrode is attached to the measuring instrument via a durable, low resistance cable (Fig. 2, see the electrodes connected to the measuring-unit 5 via a cable with low resistance so the electrical signal could be transmitted. Also see [0066], [0068] and claim-1).
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 of this title, 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.
10. Claim(s) 8 and 10 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukacs.
As per claim 8, Lukacs discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 7 as described above.
Lukacs further discloses:
wherein the cable is attached to the electrodes on one end (electrode end) and has a standardized connector to the measuring instrument at the other end (Fig. 2, see the electrodes connected to the potential-measuring-input/connector of the measuring-unit 5. Also see [0066], [0068] and claim-1) but does not explicitly disclose that said cable is permanently attached to said electrodes.
However, a permanent attachments of cables/wires is not new, therefore, it has no patentable weight. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find an obvious choice to try implementing the feature relative to said cable being “permanently attached” to said electrodes with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the attachment by preventing the cable to be detached from the electrodes.
As per claim 10, Lukacs discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 8 as described above.
Lukacs further discloses the measuring instrument is installed within a housing (Fig. 2, see the measuring-unit 5 connected to the electrodes. Also see [0063]-[0065] and claim-1) and the cables from the electrodes are attached within the housing (Fig. 2, see the electrodes connected to the measuring-unit 5 via a cable with low resistance so the electrical signal could be transmitted. Also see [0066], [0068] and claim-1) but does not explicitly disclose that said housing is waterproof.
However, a waterproof housing is not new, therefore, it has no patentable weight. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find an obvious choice to try implementing the feature relative to the “waterproof housing” with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the housing of devices by preventing water to cause damage to the device, circuits, ports, terminals and cable.
11. Claim(s) 3-5 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukacs in view of Cullin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0003634 hereinafter mentioned as “Cullin”).
As per claim 3, Lukacs discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 1 as described above.
Lukacs further discloses:
wherein the material resistance data is sent for storage (Fig. 2, see the data storage unit 6. Also see [0063]-[0065], [0060], [0067], and claim-1).
Lukacs does not explicitly disclose:
a network connecting the multiple measuring instruments to a central data collection point; wherein said material resistance data is uploaded to a database for storage.
However, Cullin further discloses:
a network connecting the multiple measuring instruments to a central data collection point (Fig. 2, see each of the analysis-units 112 for each of the one or more probes 102 and the point of connection of network 205. Also see [0031]-[0032] and [0034]); wherein the material resistance data is uploaded to a database for storage (Fig. 2, see the database 230. Also see [0032]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “a network connecting the multiple measuring instruments to a central data collection point; wherein said material resistance data is uploaded to a database for storage”, as it is disclosed by Cullin into Lukacs, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by providing a database that may store files, records, identifiers or data and the like and combinations thereof with analysis software to determine whether the inputs satisfy a condition threshold (Cullin, Paragraph [0033]), while at the same time providing enhanced data security, data integration, data abstraction, reduction in data redundancy, data sharing, data consistency, data accuracy, data organization, etc (https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/dbms/advantages-of-database-management-system/).
Furthermore, Cullin states that “It may be apparent to those skilled in the art that various modifications and variations may be made without departing from the scope or spirit” (Cullin, Paragraph [0065]).
As per claim 4, the combination of Lukacs and Cullin discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 3 as described above.
Cullin, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-3, further discloses:
wherein the database is adapted to store the material resistance data (Fig. 2, see the database 230. Also see [0032]-[0033]) and provide it to a processor across the network (Fig. 2, the processor of the computing device 208. Also see [0032]-[0033] and/or claim-1).
As per claim 5, the combination of Lukacs and Cullin discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 4 as described above.
Cullin, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-3, further discloses:
wherein the processor (Fig. 2, the processor of the computing device 208. Also see [0032]-[0033] and/or claim-1) is adapted to analysis a plurality of material resistance data (Fig. 2, see the database 230. Also see [0032]-[0033]) and to allow a user to access and analyze this data on demand (Fig. 2, see the processor the user device 202. Also see [0035] and/or claim-1).
12. Claim(s) 6 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukacs in view of Cullin, and further in view of Hammondset et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0184003 hereinafter mentioned as “Hammonds”).
As per claim 6, the combination of Lukacs and Cullin discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 5 as described above.
Lukacs further discloses:
the processor (Fig. 2, see the measuring-unit 5. Also see [0063]-[0065] and claim-1) continuously monitors material resistance data to provide for data resistance monitoring over time.
Lukacs does not explicitly disclose a temperature sensor detects temperature data.
However, Hammonds further discloses:
wherein a temperature sensor detects temperature data (see [0020]),
wherein the processor continuously monitors the temperature data and the material resistance data to provide for data resistance monitoring over time (see [0019]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “temperature sensor detects temperature data”, as it is disclosed by Hammonds into Lukacs in view of Cullin, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by removing the effect of temperature swings on the measurement of resistance using a thermocouple to accurately measure the temperature and thus mathematically compensate for temperature swings through calculation of the change in resistance due to temperature alone (Hammonds, Paragraph [0020]).
Furthermore, Hammonds states that “it is to be understood that the present invention has been described by way of illustrations and not limitation. For instance, alternative devices and machines may be employed to collect and analyze the data other than those specifically mentioned” (Hammonds, Paragraph [0057]).
13. Claim(s) 9 and 14 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukacs in view of Furusawa (Pub. No.: US 2019/0264406 hereinafter mentioned as “Furusawa”).
As per claim 9, Lukacs discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 8 with the electrodes as described above but does not explicitly disclose that said electrodes use a waterproof adhesive.
However, Furusawa further discloses:
wherein the electrode end is coupled to the electrodes using a waterproof adhesive to protect the connection (see [0164] and/or [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “waterproof adhesive”, as it is disclosed by Furusawa into Lukacs, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by remarkably reducing damage to the electrode units (Furusawa, Paragraph [0151]).
Furthermore, Furusawa states that “Although the present invention has been described based on the embodiments, the present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments, and various modifications may be made within the scope described in the claims” (Furusawa, Paragraph [0172]).
As per claim 14, discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 8 as described above.
Lukacs further discloses that the attachment mechanism and electrodes are then potted (Figs. 1-2, see any unnumbered attachments mechanism inside the probes 8 including but not limited to connectors and the electrodes 7 and 9 for each probe 8-14 middle, 8-15 right, 8-15 left. Also see [0066], [0068] and claim-1) to the test object to protect the connection (Fig. 2, see the pipeline 1. Also see [0057]-[0058], [0022] and claim-1) but does not explicitly disclose that said potter is done with a waterproof adhesive.
However, Furusawa further discloses:
wherein the attachment mechanism and electrodes are then potted to the test object with a waterproof adhesive to protect the connection (Fig. 15, see electrodes 110 with its connectors with waterproof-coating and the water-tank 100. Also see [0164], [0153] and/or [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “waterproof adhesive”, as it is disclosed by Furusawa into Lukacs, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by remarkably reducing damage to the electrode units (Furusawa, Paragraph [0151]).
14. Claim(s) 11-12 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukacs in view of Alanazi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0018425 hereinafter mentioned as “Alanazi”).
As per claim 11, Lukacs discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 8 as described above.
Lukacs further discloses:
saide electrodes (Fig. 2, see the counter-electrodes 7 and the reference-electrodes 9. Also see [0057], [0068] and [0050]-[0051]) are made of corrosion resistant stainless steel (see [0066]) and are attached to the test object to provide a permanent test point (Fig. 2, see the permanent points on the pipeline 1. Also see [0057]-[0058], [0022] and claim-1).
Lukacs does not explicitly teach whether said electrodes are welded to directly said test object.
However, Alanazi further discloses that
the electrodes (Lukacs teaches the plurality of electrodes, therefore, this comes from the combination Lukacs and Alanazi) are welded directly to the test object to provide a permanent test point (Fig. 2, see the electrode 220 welded to pipe segment 200. Also see [0048] and [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “electrodes are welded to directly said test object”, as it is disclosed by Alanazi into Lukacs, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by measuring and monitoring the galvanic current and voltage potential between the anode and cathode sites so the galvanic current density and corrosion rate can then be calculated (Alanazi, Paragraph [0099]).
Furthermore, Alanazi states that “While the disclosure has been described in terms of exemplary embodiments, those skilled in the art will recognize that the disclosure can be practiced with modifications in the spirit and scope of the appended claims. These examples are merely illustrative and are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all possible designs, embodiments, applications, or modifications of the disclosure” (Alanazi, Paragraph [0133]).
As per claim 12, Lukacs discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 1 as described above.
Lukacs further discloses:
saide electrodes (Fig. 2, see the counter-electrodes 7 and the reference-electrodes 9. Also see [0057], [0068] and [0050]-[0051]) are made of corrosion resistant stainless steel (see [0066]) and are attached to the test object to provide a permanent test point (Fig. 2, see the permanent points on the pipeline 1. Also see [0057]-[0058], [0022] and claim-1).
Lukacs does not explicitly teach whether said electrodes are welded to directly said test object.
However, Alanazi further discloses that
the electrodes (Lukacs teaches the plurality of electrodes, therefore, this comes from the combination Lukacs and Alanazi) are welded directly to the test object to provide a permanent test point (Fig. 2, see the electrode 220 welded to pipe segment 200. Also see [0048] and [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “electrodes are welded to directly said test object”, as it is disclosed by Alanazi into Lukacs, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by measuring and monitoring the galvanic current and voltage potential between the anode and cathode sites so the galvanic current density and corrosion rate can then be calculated (Alanazi, Paragraph [0099]).
Furthermore, Alanazi states that “While the disclosure has been described in terms of exemplary embodiments, those skilled in the art will recognize that the disclosure can be practiced with modifications in the spirit and scope of the appended claims. These examples are merely illustrative and are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all possible designs, embodiments, applications, or modifications of the disclosure” (Alanazi, Paragraph [0133]).
15. Claim(s) 13 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukacs in view of FURUKAWA YASUNARI (Bibliographic data: JP2006300591 (A) ― 2006-11-02, hereinafter mentioned as “Furukawa”).
As per claim 13, Lukacs discloses the system for non-destructive resistance monitoring of claim 1 with the hardened stainless steel electrodes as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein hardened stainless steel electrodes which are machined to a point are spring loaded against the test object and held in place by a magnet, strap or adhesive.
However, Furukawa further discloses:
wherein hardened electrodes which are machined to a point are spring loaded against the test object and held in place by a magnet, strap or adhesive (Fig. 3, see the electrodes 10 each provided with springs loaded against tested pipe A and held in place by support-member that is in the form of a strap. Also see [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “wherein hardened electrodes which are machined to a point are spring loaded against the test object and held in place by a magnet, strap or adhesive”, as it is disclosed by Furukawa into Lukacs, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by enabling the system to perform measurements on outer surface of the pipe and reliably contact the metal pipe beneath any coating, thereby, enabling highly reliable corrosion diagnosis of the pipes and coated pipe (Furukawa, Paragraph [0039]), while not limiting the invention to particular application but expanding it to other type of objects and pipes (Furukawa, Paragraph [0024]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858