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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on April 23, 2024, and in Europe on August 7, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202421032058 application, or the EP24193375.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-14 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
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.
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.
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: a crawling unit in claims 1 and 15.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR20240025232A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an inspection and measurement system for a hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0001] discloses a device for determining the state of a pipe), the system comprising:
an inspection device which includes a crawling unit ('crawler' - 320, Fig. 5) and an inspection head ('measurement and collection unit - 110, Fig. 1a), wherein:
the inspection head comprises a first sensor ('camera' - 111, Fig. 1a) and a second sensor ('lidar sensor' - 112, Fig. 1a), each for sensing properties of an internal surface of the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0025]); and
the crawling unit is configured to move the inspection head along the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0075] discloses the crawler causes the device to be moved inside and outside the pipe); and
a controller ('monitoring system' - 330, Fig. 5), which is configured to:
activate the crawling unit and the inspection head such that the inspection head is moved along the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0075]) and such that the first sensor provides 2-dimensional image data of the internal surface of the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0025] discloses the camera captures 2D images of the inside of the pipe);
process the 2-dimensional image data to identify any surface defects in the internal surface of the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0036] discloses determining if the state of the pipe is normal or abnormal, including any corrosion, cracks, protrusions, etc.) and to determine the location on the internal surface of those surface defects (paragraph [0066] discloses displaying the location of the investigated area of the pipe. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the location has been determined);
activate the crawling unit and the inspection head such that the inspection head is moved along the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0075]) and such that the second sensor provides depth-data associated with the identified surface defects in the internal surface of the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0065] discloses the lidar sensor acquired data used to determine the depth of the damaged area); and
process the 2-dimensional image data and the depth-data in order to determine one or more parameters of the identified surface defects (paragraph [0036] discloses finding parameters such as measurement information of the identified abnormalities).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, and further teaches the controller is configured to apply an artificial intelligence algorithm when processing the 2-dimensional image data to identify any surface defects in the internal surface of the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0038] discloses the condition judgement unit uses deep learning to determine the abnormalities in the pipe. Deep learning is a type of AI algorithm).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches a method for inspection and measurement of a hollow cylindrical object using an inspection device (paragraph [0001]), wherein the inspection device comprises:
an inspection head that comprises a first sensor ('camera' - 111, Fig. 1a) and a second sensor ('lidar sensor' - 112, Fig. 1a), each for sensing properties of an internal surface of the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0025]); and
a crawling unit ('crawler' - 320, Fig. 5) that is configured to move the inspection head along the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0075]);
wherein the method comprises:
activating the crawling unit and the inspection head such that the inspection head is moved along the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0075]) and such that the first sensor provides 2-dimensional image data of the internal surface of the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0025] discloses the camera captures 2D images of the inside of the pipe);
processing the 2-dimensional image data to identify any surface defects in the internal surface of the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0036] discloses determining if the state of the pipe is normal or abnormal, including any corrosion, cracks, protrusions, etc.) and to determine the location on the internal surface of those surface defects (paragraph [0066] discloses displaying the location of the investigated area of the pipe. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the location has been determined);
activating the crawling unit and the inspection head such that the inspection head is moved along the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0075]) and such that the second sensor provides depth-data associated with the identified surface defects in the internal surface of the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0065] discloses the lidar sensor acquired data used to determine the depth of the damaged area); and
processing the 2-dimesnional image data and the depth-data in order to determine one or more parameters of the identified surface defects (paragraph [0036] discloses finding parameters such as measurement information of the identified abnormalities).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20240025232A) as applied to claim 1 or claim 2 above, and further in view of Shibayama (US20180025486A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1 or claim 2, and further teaches the one or more parameters of the identified surface defects comprise:
a maximum depth of the identified surface defect (paragraph [0036] discloses finding defect measurement information);
a type of the identified surface defect (paragraph [0036] discloses identifying a corrosion, crack, bead, fissure, or other defects); and
a change in internal diameter of the hollow cylindrical object (paragraph [0028] discloses determining internal pipe size).
Kim fails to teach finding a volume of the identified surface defect.
However, in the same field of endeavor of surface defect inspection, Shibayama teaches a device which finds the volume of defects in an inspection object (paragraph [0007]).
The device of Kim is intended to be used on a pipe transporting liquids (paragraph [0003]). Shibayama discloses that the flow of certain liquids, such as oil, are affected by defects which have an excessively large volume, making it important to regular an upper limit on the volume of surface defects (paragraph [0004]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the inspection device of Kim with the determination of volume of a defect taught in Shibayama in order to measure a volume of defects to ensure the flow through the pipe is optimal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877