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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 07/25/2024 and 08/02/2024 have been acknowledged and considered by examiner.
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 6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 6, the claim recites “measured signal” in line 2 without proper antecedent basis. Independent claim 1 recites “measuring the resulting magnetic field” but does not introduce “measured signal”. As best understood, the “measured signal” in claim 6 is intended to be the “resulting magnetic field” that is measured in independent claim 1. This is the interpretation that will be used in the rejections below.
As to claim 8, the claim recites “the step of preparing the predefined calibration method”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5, which claim 8 depends from, does not recite such a step; rather the “step of preparing the predefined calibration method” is first introduced in claim 7. As best understood, claim 8 should depend from claim 7 and this is the interpretation that will be used in the rejections below.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “the distance between these sensors is less than 50 mm for a pipe inspection device that is adapted to inspect 24 inch pipes”. This language is conditional and fails to distinctly claim the metes and bounds of the device. It is ambiguous whether the device must be adapted for 24-inch pipes, or if the limitation only applies under specific circumstances.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention could be directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are drawn to a computer program product which could be interpreted as a signal or carrier wave (i.e. a transitory computer readable medium). Such a signal or carrier wave is not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (See MPEP 2106, II, A), but is directed to judicially excepted subject matter.
It is noted that computer programs embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium or other structure, which would permit the functionality of the program to be realized, would be directed to a product and be within a statutory category of invention, so long as the computer readable medium is not disclosed as non-statutory subject matter per se (signals or carrier waves).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180245994A1 (May) in view of US20150008908A1 (Buttle).
With regards to claims 1 and 16, May teaches a method for determining mechanical stress in ferromagnetic pipes (“the device… may be used for… measuring mechanical forces in drilling pipes… The metal pipes may be ferromagnetic” [0055]),
comprising introducing magnetic fields into the pipe wall at at least two different frequencies (“the first driving signal is an alternating current with a first predetermined frequency and the second driving signal is an alternating current with a second predetermined frequency, which is different from the first predetermined frequency” [0005])
measuring the resulting magnetic field with a magnetic sensor (“a first magnetic field sensing element being adapted to sense a magnetic field” [0005])
and then converting the magnetic field into a predictive value for the existing mechanical stress within the pipe by using a predefined calibration method (“determine a correction value for at least one of the first and second sensing signals in order to compensate a hysteresis related deviation… based on an algorithm being representative for the object to be sensed” [0013] and [0015]).
While May teaches that the calibration algorithm is determined based on a “test cycle” recording sensing signals at different signals ([0017]), May conducts this on the object to be sensed and does not teach that the calibration method analyses the magnetic field(s) measured at a specimen. However, Buttle teaches a calibration method that analyses the magnetic field(s) measured at a specimen (“taking measurements on a sample of material of the same type as the object, while subjecting it to a variety of different stresses. This may be done with a rectangular strip sample in a test rig” [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-sensor system of May to apply the specimen-based calibration as taught by Buttle wherein it analyses the magnetic field(s) measured at a specimen because “The calibration contours enable the changes due to lift-off to be readily distinguished from changes due to stress…” ([0034] Buttle).
With regards to claim 2, May as modified by Buttle teaches wherein the predefined calibration method analyses the specimen also at different mechanical load conditions (“subjecting it to a variety of different stresses” [0033] Buttle).
With regards to claim 3, May as modified by Buttle teaches wherein no prior demagnetization nor prior magnetic saturation nor magnetic saturation is carried out in conjunction with the measurement of the magnetic field of the pipe wall to be measured (“an AC signal supply unit (not shown) such that the alternating magnetic field is considerably less than saturation” [0044] Buttle).
With regards to claim 4, May as modified by Buttle teaches wherein when measuring the pipe for each of the frequencies of the introduced magnetic field(s) a comparative value is determined, and wherein the predefined calibration method uses the comparative values to determine the predictive value for the existing mechanical stress (“determine the difference between the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal at an applied force” [0013] and [0086] May).
With regards to claim 5, May as modified by Buttle teaches wherein only magnetic field data measured with the magnetic sensor or a plurality of magnetic sensors that each measure the resulting magnetic field(s) are used to determine the predictive value of the mechanical stress (May relies entirely on the electrical signals corresponding to the magnetic fields measured by the sensing coils to calculate the hysteresis correction [0013]-[0014]).
With regards to claim 7, May as modified by Buttle teaches wherein in a step of preparing the predefined calibration method, a plurality of magnetic field values is measured by applying varied mechanical stress to a test specimen (“calibration of the probe…, taking measurements on a sample of material of the same type as the object, while subjecting it to a variety of different stresses” [0033] Buttle) at a magnetic field of at least two different frequencies (“the first driving signal is an alternating current with a first predetermined frequency and the second driving signal is an alternating current with a second predetermined frequency, which is different from the first predetermined frequency” [0005] May) to receive hysteresis data at different frequencies in respect to the varied mechanical stress (“test cycle including at least two recorded sensing signal sets… at an applied force” to “compensate a hysteresis related deviation between the respective sensing signal sensed when applying said force…” [0017] and [0013] May) .
With regards to claim 8, May as modified by Buttle teaches wherein in the step of preparing the predefined calibration method, the varied mechanical stress comprises both tension and compression (“contours may be obtained for other values of stress, more particularly both for tension and compression” [0033] Buttle).
With regards to claim 10, May as modified by Buttle teaches wherein in both the determination of the predictive value for the existing mechanical stress within the pipe and also the preparation of the predefined calibration method, a combined magnetic field of different frequencies is employed that were generated by a signal generator and that is either introduced to the pipe or a test specimen, wherein the magnetic sensor creates measured data, that is demodulated to create a comparative value of the magnetic field condition at the corresponding frequencies (“the first generator signal and the second generator signal are applied at least temporally overlapping… The separation of the signals can be realized with e.g. band pass filters” [0011]-[0012] May).
With regards to claim 11, May as modified by Buttle teaches a computer program product, loadable into a program memory and having program instructions to perform all steps of the method according to claim 1 when the program is executed (“There may be a need for hysteresis compensation at a magnetic field based force sensing, a corresponding programme element and computer readable medium” [0004] May).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180245994A1 (May) in view of US20150008908A1 (Buttle) and EP3730775A1 (Kazanci).
With regards to claim 6, May as modified by Buttle does not teach wherein measured signal is analysed using a consideration of the harmonics in a higher frequency to increase the accuracy of the predictive value.
However, Kazanci teaches wherein measured signal is analysed using a consideration of the harmonics in a higher frequency to increase the accuracy of the predictive value (“the magnetic field may contain… at least one upper harmonic (i.e. a multiple of the basic frequency)… to detect the magnetization at different depths while maintaining the magnetizing frequency constant” [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-sensor system of May as modified by Buttle to incorporate the teachings of Kazanci wherein measured signal is analysed using a consideration of the harmonics in a higher frequency to increase the accuracy of the predictive value to determine the mechanical stress “in a non-destructive way and possibly with high accuracy and high spatial resolution” ([0012] Kazanci).
With regards to claim 9, May as modified by Buttle does not teach wherein the predefined calibration method comprises multiple linear regression and/or reference tables and/or a trained neuronal network and/or an AI-system and outputs a value of a stress.
However, Kazanci teaches wherein the predefined calibration method comprises multiple linear regression and/or reference tables and/or a trained neuronal network and/or an AI-system and outputs a value of a stress (“The reference values can be stored in a lookup table of the control unit 10” [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-sensor system of May as modified by Buttle to incorporate the teachings of Kazanci wherein the predefined calibration method comprises multiple linear regression and/or reference tables and/or a trained neuronal network and/or an AI-system and outputs a value of a stress “so that the control unit 10 could automatically determine and output the mechanical stress” ([0035] Kazanci).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180245994A1 (May) in view of US20120038354A1 (Gies).
With regards to claim 12, May teaches a pipe inspection device for determining a mechanical stress within a pipe (“the device… may be used for… measuring mechanical forces in drilling pipes… The metal pipes may be ferromagnetic” [0055]), the device comprising: at least one measuring unit comprising at least one solenoid for creating at least one magnetic field based on signals generated by a signal generator with different frequencies either simultaneously or sequentially (“the first driving signal is an alternating current with a first predetermined frequency and the second driving signal is an alternating current with a second predetermined frequency, which is different from the first predetermined frequency… the first generator signal and the second generator signal are applied at least temporally overlapping…” [0005] and [0011]), wherein the measuring unit further comprises at least one magnetic sensor wherein the measuring unit does not comprise any means for creating a non-alternating permanent magnetic field (May discloses a magnetic sensor unit lacking permanent magnets, utilizing solenoids (coils) driven entirely by alternating current at different frequencies ([0005], [0013]-[0014], and [0076]).).
May does not teach wherein the measuring unit comprises a clearance means for creating determined gaps from an inner wall of the pipe to both the solenoid and the at least one magnetic sensor(s), when the pipe inspection device is located in that pipe,
wherein the determined gap from the pipe's inner wall to the magnetic sensor(s) is at least 0.1 mm.
However, Gies teaches wherein the measuring unit comprises a clearance means for creating determined gaps from an inner wall of the pipe to both the solenoid and the at least one magnetic sensor(s), when the pipe inspection device is located in that pipe (“The pig has… a standoff mounted to prevent the sensors from touching the pipe wall” [0011])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-sensor system of May to be mounted in the protective standoff shell as taught by Gies wherein the measuring unit comprises a clearance means for creating determined gaps from an inner wall of the pipe to both the solenoid and the at least one magnetic sensor(s), when the pipe inspection device is located in that pipe in order to not “be affected by debris; weld heads, or other deposits in the pipeline” ([0075] Gies).
While Gies does not explicitly disclose the exact numerical dimension of the gap being at least 0.1 mm, Gies teaches that the standoff shell protects the internal sensors from the harsh, high-pressure, and abrasive environment of the pipeline ([0003] and [0075]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any physical protective shell or standoff used in an abrasive pipeline environment would inherently possess a structural thickness of at least 0.1 mm. Furthermore, determining the exact dimensional thickness of a standoff gap is recognized as a mere matter of routine design choice and optimization, driven by the durability requirements of the pipeline tool, and yields no unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.05).
With regards to claim 13, May as modified by Gies teaches wherein the measuring unit comprises at least two magnetic sensors and the distance between these sensors is less than 50 mm for a pipe inspection device that is adapted to inspect 24 inch pipes (“Sensor array… may include as many as… 250 sensors spaced circumferentially” [0055] Gies).
With regards to claim 14, May as modified by Gies teaches wherein the measuring unit comprises at least 5 magnetic sensors (“Sensor array… may include as many as… 250 sensors spaced circumferentially” [0055] Gies).
With regards to claim 15, May as modified by Gies does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the magnetic sensor(s) is configured to measure frequencies greater than 20 kHz.
However, May teaches “a high IOF (like 10.000 Hz) and above will have a very limited penetration into the surface of the test object” ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensor of May as modified by Gies to measure frequencies greater than 20 kHz because “a high IOF (like 10.000 Hz) and above will have a very limited penetration into the surface of the test object” ([0051] May). Selecting a specific frequency threshold above 10,000 Hz to achieve the desired depth penetration is recognized as a mere matter of routine design choice and optimization, driven by the required inspection depth of the pipeline wall, and yields no unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSAMAH MURSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-9534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11 a.m. 8 p.m. ET..
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.
/OSAMAH MURSHED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights