DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend line 4 of claim 18 as follows: “testing probe centered therein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “conduit pushing device”, “pneumatic or motorized conduit pushing device”, and “at least one eddy current generating coil” as recited in claims 7-9, respectively, 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.
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.
Claim 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the terms “wherein the UHMW material comprises a low coefficient of friction and high abrasion resistance relative to traditional nylon delivery tubing, which allows for reduced force requirements when pushing a testing probe into a conduit under test” in claim 17 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “low”, “high”, and “reduced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The only support for the claim is provided in [0009] of the specification as filed 8/28/2024 which does not provide guidance as to what constitutes a low coefficient of friction, a high abrasion resistance, or a reduced force requirement. As best understood by the examiner, the properties as claimed would be inherent to UHMW polyethylene as recited in claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recites, “wherein the UHMW material comprises a low coefficient of friction and high abrasion resistance relative to traditional nylon delivery tubing, which allows for reduced force requirements when pushing a testing probe into a conduit under test.” As best understood by the examiner, these are inherent physical properties of UHMW polyethylene. Since claim 17 is dependent on claim 14, and claim 14 recites UHMW polyethylene which would inherently comprise the physical properties as claimed, claim 17 fails to further limit parent claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 4,938,908 (Shiraki).
Regarding claim 14, Shiraki teaches delivery tubing for a conduit testing system, comprising: an ultra high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene material sufficient to enable insertion of the probe head into a convoluted, lengthy, or damaged conduit under test, wherein the UHMW delivery tubing comprises an outside diameter of a not more than 0.50 inches and an inside diameter of not more than 0.250 inches, wherein the UHMW delivery tubing comprises a wall thickness of between 0.050 to 0.250 inches (As best understood by the examiner, the claims is merely directed toward a UHMW polyethylene material having the specific dimensions as claimed. The claim recites “delivery tubing for a conduit testing system” and “sufficient to enable insertion of the probe head into a convoluted, lengthy, or damaged conduit under test,”, merely recite an intended use that does not limit the structure of the delivery tubing. Any UHWM polyethylene tubing may reasonably be interpreted as tubing for a conduit testing system as claimed. Shiraki teaches “an outer diameter of 50 mm.0. or less, preferably 1 to 20 mm.0., and a ratio of the outer diameter to the wall thickness of 40 or less, preferably 2.0 to 20. The tubes according to the present invention have an indefinite length.” Wherein an outer diameter of 1 to 20 mm corresponds to an outer diameter of 0.8 inches or less, an OD of 0.5 inches with an OT to thickness ratio of 40 corresponds to a wall thickness of 0.0125 inches, and an inside diameter of 0.25 inches. Therefore, a UHWM polyethylene tubing of Shiraki would have all the dimensions as claimed and would inherently have the physical properties to perform all the functional limitations as claimed. See col. 3, lines 33-52.).
Regarding claim 15, Shiraki teaches comprising a wall thickness of 0.150 inches (Shiraki teaches wherein the tubes may have a ratio of the outer diameter to wall thickness of 10. See col. 7, lines 45-50. A wall thickness of 0.150 inches corresponds to 3.81 mm, corresponding to an OD of 38 mm when the ratio of the OD to thickness is 10. Therefore, a UHMW tube having a wall thickness of 0.150 is within the dimensions disclosed in Shiraki.).
Regarding claim 16, Shiraki teaches comprising a length up to 150 feet (the UHMW polyethylene tubes are formed by an extruding method which allows the tubes to have an indefinite length. See col. 3, lines 33-52).
Regarding claim 17, Shiraki teaches wherein the UHMW material comprises a low coefficient of friction and high abrasion resistance relative to traditional nylon delivery tubing, which allows for reduced force requirements when pushing a testing probe into a conduit under test (Shiraki teaches forming UHMW polyethylene tubes having the dimensions as claimed and, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations as claimed would be inherent properties of the UHMW polyethylene tubing as recited in claim 14.).
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) 1 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,969,275 (Moe) in view of US 5,174,164 (Wilheim) and US 2017/0176294 (Shumka).
Regarding claim 1, Moe teaches an eddy current probe system (eddy current probe system of Figs. 1-7), comprising:
a probe head (eddy current probe 10 of Figs. 1-7); and
delivery tubing coupled to the probe head for pushing or pulling the probe head into or out of a conduit under test (“Generally, a testing probe is delivered internal the conduits by means of a positioning shaft to which it is attached. As the shaft impels the probe into the conduit, the probe measures the host conduit along its length, or longitudinally, transmitting probe measurement data out of the conduit through cables carried in a duct within the shaft.” See Fig. 1; see col. 1, lines 11-22).
wherein the delivery tubing is sufficient to enable insertion of the probe head into a convoluted, lengthy, or damaged conduit under test (It is known in the art to have remote sensors, or probes, traveling in tubular members, such as are found in steam generators and heat exchangers, to inspect the integrity of such tubes and conduits when human access is restricted. Generally, a testing probe is delivered internal the conduits by means of a positioning shaft to which it is attached. As the shaft impels the probe into the conduit, the probe measures the host conduit along its length, or longitudinally, transmitting probe measurement data out of the conduit through cables carried in a duct within the shaft. An eddy current probe is one such remote sensor commonly employed in the inspection of conduits. See col. 1, lines 11-22; See tubular shaft 30, see the tube connected at the left side of the eddy current probe in Figs. 1 and 7).
Moe fails to teach wherein the delivery tubing comprises an ultra high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene material.
Wilheim teaches wherein the delivery tubing comprises a polyethylene material (an eddy current probe for inspection of a nuclear steam generator tube comprises a cable 310 comprising a generally cylindrical flexible sheath 550, wherein the sheath may be a flexible material made of “DELRIN” polyethylene or plastic or the like; see Figs. 3-5; see col. 10, lines 34-45).
Shumka teaches an eddy current sensor comprising an ultra high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene material (an eddy current array probe teaches wherein a resilient surface of the probe comprises a UHMW polyethylene; see [0065], [0067]; see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Wilheim and Shumka into Moe in order to gain the advantage of a sheath comprising polyethylene which is flexible and having a low coefficient of friction for allowing a probe to be inserted into a U-bend region of a nuclear steam generator tube and to prevent a core member from damage, wherein UHMW polyethylene is a known for of polyethylene used in the art due as a resilient surface which is pliable, formable, flexible, and resilient to wear and scratching, with a low coefficient of friction and high abrasion resistance.
Regarding claims 7-8, Moe fails to teach further comprising: a conduit pushing device, wherein the delivery tubing is forcibly pushed or withdrawn from the conduit under test by the conduit pushing device; and wherein the conduit pushing device comprises a pneumatic or motorized conduit pushing device.
Wilheim teaches comprising: a conduit pushing device, wherein the delivery tubing is forcibly pushed or withdrawn from the conduit under test by the conduit pushing device; and wherein the conduit pushing device comprises a pneumatic or motorized conduit pushing device (a probe carrier 290 is pushed into the steam generator 10 by means of a pusher 305, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the pusher device would be pneumatic or motorized as is conventional in the art; see Fig. 1; see col. 7, line 62 – col. 8, line 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Wilheim into Moe in order to gain the advantage of a pusher to push the inspection probe through the manway and through an open tube end so that precise location of anomalies can be detected, wherein the device would reasonably be motorized or pneumatic such that a human is not required to manually push the probe into and out of the nuclear steam generator.
Regarding claim 9, Moe teaches wherein the probe head comprises: a probe body that includes at least one eddy current generating coil; and one or more centering members for ensuring that probe body is centered within the conduit under test (a probe head 10 includes a probe body 12 including at least one eddy current coil 11 and multiple probe-centering apparatus 20; see Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 10, Moe teaches wherein each centering member comprises: a tubular or frustoconical base portion; and a plurality of resilient cantilevered legs that project radially and distally outwardly from the tubular or frustoconical base portion (each centering apparatus 20 comprises a frustoconical base portion 40 and cantilevered legs 23 as claimed; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Moe further teaches further comprising: a probe shaft, wherein the probe head and the delivery tubing are coupled to the probe shaft (a probe shaft 30 is coupled to the probe head 12 and the tubing formed on the left side of the eddy current probe 10 as shown in Fig. 1; see Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 12, Moe teaches wherein the probe shaft comprises: an extended flexible drive section; and a rigid section, wherein the probe head is coupled to the rigid section (a flexible drive section 30 and a rigid section 31 are coupled to the probe head 12; see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Moe teaches further comprising: a plurality of centering beads coupled to the probe shaft for ensuring that probe shaft is centered within the conduit under test (probe-centering beads are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 7).
Claim(s) 2-6 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,969,275 (Moe) in view of US 5,174,164 (Wilheim) and US 2017/0176294 (Shumka), and in further view of US 4,938,908 (Shiraki).
Regarding claims 2-6, Moe fails to teach wherein the UHMW delivery tubing has the particular outside diameters, inside diameters, thickness, and length as claimed, however, the claimed dimensions would be an obvious matter of routine optimization and mere changes in size wherein the dimensions must be sized such that the tube fits inside the tube of a nuclear steam generator tube. Wilheim teaches, as an example, a nuclear steam generator having an outside diameter of approximately 0.875 inches (see col. 11, line 35 – col. 12, line 10 of Wilheim). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. see MPEP 2144.05 II.. Therefore, the limitations as claimed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine optimization and changes in size in order to fit the eddy current probe within a nuclear steam generator tube, or any tubes under investigation as desired. Furthermore, Shiraki teaches a method of generating a UWHM polyethylene tube having “an outer diameter of 50 mm.0. or less, preferably 1 to 20 mm.0., and a ratio of the outer diameter to the wall thickness of 40 or less, preferably 2.0 to 20. The tubes according to the present invention have an indefinite length.” Which correspond to an OD of 0.8 inches or less, and thickness of 0.05 inches or less, a ratio of the OF to thickness of 40 or less, and an indefinite length. See col. 3, lines 33-52.
Regarding claim 18, Moe teaches a conduit testing system (eddy current probe system of Figs. 1-7), comprising:
a testing probe (eddy current probe 10 of Figs. 1-7);
one or more centering members for engaging a conduit under test and maintaining the testing probe centered therein (probe-centering apparatus 20 are substantially identical to the centering members as disclosed in the pending application which would reasonably perform the functional limitations as claimed; see Figs. 1-7; see col. 1, line 30 – col. 2, line 13); and
delivery tubing coupled to the testing probe head for pushing or pulling the probe head into or out of the conduit under test (“Generally, a testing probe is delivered internal the conduits by means of a positioning shaft to which it is attached. As the shaft impels the probe into the conduit, the probe measures the host conduit along its length, or longitudinally, transmitting probe measurement data out of the conduit through cables carried in a duct within the shaft.” See Fig. 1; see col. 1, lines 11-22),
wherein the delivery tubing is sufficient to enable insertion of the probe head into a convoluted, lengthy, or damaged conduit under test (It is known in the art to have remote sensors, or probes, traveling in tubular members, such as are found in steam generators and heat exchangers, to inspect the integrity of such tubes and conduits when human access is restricted. Generally, a testing probe is delivered internal the conduits by means of a positioning shaft to which it is attached. As the shaft impels the probe into the conduit, the probe measures the host conduit along its length, or longitudinally, transmitting probe measurement data out of the conduit through cables carried in a duct within the shaft. An eddy current probe is one such remote sensor commonly employed in the inspection of conduits. See col. 1, lines 11-22; See tubular shaft 30, see the tube connected at the left side of the eddy current probe in Figs. 1 and 7).
Moe fails to teach wherein the delivery tubing comprises an ultra high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene material, and wherein the delivery tubing comprises an outside diameter less than 0.40 inches and a wall thickness of between 0.10 to 0.25 inches.
Wilheim teaches wherein the delivery tubing comprises a polyethylene material (an eddy current probe for inspection of a nuclear steam generator tube comprises a cable 310 comprising a generally cylindrical flexible sheath 550, wherein the sheath may be a flexible material made of “DELRIN” polyethylene or plastic or the like; see Figs. 3-5; see col. 10, lines 34-45).
Shumka teaches an eddy current sensor comprising an ultra high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene material (an eddy current array probe teaches wherein a resilient surface of the probe comprises a UHMW polyethylene; see [0065], [0067]; see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Wilheim and Shumka into Moe in order to gain the advantage of a sheath comprising polyethylene which is flexible and having a low coefficient of friction for allowing a probe to be inserted into a U-bend region of a nuclear steam generator tube and to prevent a core member from damage, wherein UHMW polyethylene is a known for of polyethylene used in the art due as a resilient surface which is pliable, formable, flexible, and resilient to wear and scratching, with a low coefficient of friction and high abrasion resistance.
The combination of Moe fails to explicitly teach wherein the delivery tubing comprises an outside diameter less than 0.40 inches and a wall thickness of between 0.10 to 0.25 inches, however, the claimed dimensions would be an obvious matter of routine optimization and mere changes in size wherein the dimensions must be sized such that the tube fits inside the tube of a nuclear steam generator tube. Wilheim teaches, as an example, a nuclear steam generator having an outside diameter of approximately 0.875 inches (see col. 11, line 35 – col. 12, line 10 of Wilheim). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. see MPEP 2144.05 II.. Therefore, the limitations as claimed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in as a matter of routine optimization and changes in size in order to fit the eddy current probe within a nuclear steam generator tube, or any tubes under investigation as desired. Furthermore, Shiraki teaches a method of generating a UWHM polyethylene tube having “an outer diameter of 50 mm.0. or less, preferably 1 to 20 mm.0., and a ratio of the outer diameter to the wall thickness of 40 or less, preferably 2.0 to 20. The tubes according to the present invention have an indefinite length.” Which correspond to an OD of 0.8 inches or less, and thickness of 0.05 inches or less, a ratio of the OF to thickness of 40 or less, and an indefinite length. See col. 3, lines 33-52.
Regarding claims 19-20, Moe fails to teach comprising a wall thickness of 0.150 inches, and comprising a length up to 150 feet.
Shiraki teaches comprising a wall thickness of 0.150 inches (Shiraki teaches wherein the tubes may have a ratio of the outer diameter to wall thickness of 10. See col. 7, lines 45-50. A wall thickness of 0.150 inches corresponds to 3.81 mm, corresponding to an OD of 38 mm when the ratio of the OD to thickness is 10. Therefore, a UHMW tube having a wall thickness of 0.150 is within the dimensions disclosed in Shiraki.).
Shiraki teaches comprising a length up to 150 feet (the UHMW polyethylene tubes are formed by an extruding method which allows the tubes to have an indefinite length. See col. 3, lines 33-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Shiraki into Moe in order to gain the advantage of a sheath comprising polyethylene which is flexible and having a low coefficient of friction for allowing a probe to be inserted into a U-bend region of a nuclear steam generator tube, wherein the precise dimension as claimed would be achieved as a matter of routine optimization and change in sized based on the particular size of the device undergoing eddy current testing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights