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 .
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.
The limitation “tube pressure means” is interpreted as “pressure pads” according to paragraph 52 of the published present application.
The limitation “seal pressure means” is interpreted as “any object that is close to a tube seal” according to paragraphs 23-24 of the published present application.
The limitation “sensor means” is interpreted as “a sensor that is capable of measuring a signal representing the pressure in the tube” according to paragraph 57 of the published present application.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 17-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hesse (U.S. Publication No. 20150362401).
Regarding claim 1, Hesse teaches a leakage detecting device arranged to detect leakage in a seal of a tube, comprising a first tube pressure means (Figs. 3-6, clamping system 20 on the left side) and a second tube pressure means (Figs. 3-6, clamping system 20 on the right side) arranged to apply a predefined pressure to the tube (Paragraph 33), a first seal pressure means (Figs. 3-6, jaw-like clamping elements 15 on the left side) and a second seal pressure means (Figs. 3-6, jaw-like clamping elements 15 on the right side) arranged to be positioned at the seal (Figs. 3-6, 12) of the tube (Figs. 3-6, tube 10) before the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means apply the predefined pressure to the tube (Paragraphs 31-33),characterized in that the leakage detecting device comprises sensor means (Paragraph 36, “a sensor device 6 is provided, which according to FIG. 6 has two distance measuring devices 17”) arranged to measure a signal indicative of the pressure in the tube (Paragraph 36, the thickness d of the weld seam 12 is related to the internal pressure in the interior space 13) when the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means apply the predefined pressure to the tube, wherein the leakage detecting device comprises an electronic control unit arranged to determine if a pressure change has occurred in the tube based on input from the sensor means (Paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 2, Hesse teaches wherein the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means are configured for applying the predefined pressure to the tube by displacing the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means towards each other, when the tube is positioned between the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means (Paragraphs 32-33).
Regarding claim 3, Hesse teaches wherein the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means are arranged to bear on the seal before the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means apply the predefined pressure to the tube (Paragraphs 32-33).
Regarding claim 4, Hesse teaches wherein the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means are arranged to bear on the outer part of the seal before the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means apply the predefined pressure to the tube (Paragraphs 32-33).
Regarding claim 6, Hesse teaches wherein the predefined pressure applied to the tube is between 1.5 to 4 bars (Paragraphs 16 and 33).
Regarding claim 17, Hesse teaches a method for detecting leakage in a seal of a tube by a leakage detecting device, wherein the leakage detecting device comprises a first tube pressure means (Figs. 3-6, clamping system 20 on the left side) and a second tube pressure means (Figs. 3-6, clamping system 20 on the right side), a first seal pressure means (Figs. 3-6, jaw-like clamping elements 15 on the left side) and a second seal pressure means (Figs. 3-6, jaw-like clamping elements 15 on the right side), and sensor means (Paragraph 36, “a sensor device 6 is provided, which according to FIG. 6 has two distance measuring devices 17”), wherein the method comprises the steps: positioning the tube between the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means, and positioning the seal between the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means; applying a predefined pressure to the tub by the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means; measuring a signal indicative of the pressure in the tube by the sensor means when the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means apply the predefined pressure to the tube; determining if a pressure change has occurred in the tube by an electronic control unit based on input from the sensor means (Paragraphs 30-36).
Regarding claim 18, Hesse teaches wherein the method further comprises the step: applying the predefined pressure to the tube by displacing the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means towards each other (Paragraphs 32-33).
Regarding claim 19, Hesse teaches issuing a fault signal if a pressure change is determined by the electronic control unit (Paragraphs 30-36).
Regarding claim 20, Hesse teaches positioning the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means such that they bear on the seal of the tube (Paragraphs 32-33).
Regarding claim 22, Hesse teaches applying the predefined pressure to the tube in a range between 1.5 to 4 bars (Paragraphs 16 and 33).
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.
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse (U.S. Publication No. 20150362401) in view of Aarts (U.S. Patent No. 5333492).
Regarding claim 5, Hesse teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Hesse is silent about wherein the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means are arranged to be positioned with a distance of between 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm from the seal before the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means apply the predefined pressure to the tube.
Aarts teaches wherein the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means (Fig.1, 13) are arranged to be positioned with a distance from the seal (Fig.1, 12) before the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means (Fig.1, 30) apply the predefined pressure to the tube (Column 5, lines 46-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hesse’s measurement system to make Hesse’s jaw-like clamping elements 15 not in contact with the weld seam 12 because it would reduce interference and increase accuracy of Hesse’s measurement system.
The combination of Hesse and Aarts is silent about the distance is between 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm from the seal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hesse’s measurement system to make Hesse’s jaw-like clamping elements 15 in a distance between 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm from the weld seam 12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, Hesse teaches all the features of claim 17 as outlined above, Hesse is silent about positioning the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means at a distance of 0.1 to 1.0 mm from the seal of the tube.
Aarts teaches positioning the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means (Fig.1, 13) at a distance from the seal of the tube (Fig.1, 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hesse’s measurement system to make Hesse’s jaw-like clamping elements 15 not in contact with the weld seam 12 because it would reduce interference and increase accuracy of Hesse’s measurement system.
The combination of Hesse and Aarts is silent about the distance is between 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm from the seal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hesse’s measurement system to make Hesse’s jaw-like clamping elements 15 in a distance between 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm from the weld seam 12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 7-16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse (U.S. Publication No. 20150362401) in view of Calhoun et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20110056275).
Regarding claim 7, Hesse teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Hesse is silent about wherein the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means are arranged on a first drive belt driven by a first drive unit.
Calhoun teaches wherein the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means (Fig.3A, 304) are driven by a first drive unit (Fig.3A, 320 and paragraphs 37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to drive Hesse’s clamping system 20 with a drive unit because it would allow Hesse’s clamping system 20 to move relative to the tube under inspection.
The combination of Hesse and Calhoun is silent about wherein the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means are arranged on a first drive belt.
However, use a drive belt to move a clamping system is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to arrange the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means on a first drive belt driven by a first drive unit, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hesse and Calhoun teaches all the features of claim 7 as outlined above, Calhoun further teaches wherein the first drive unit comprises a first motor and a first transmission (Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hesse and Calhoun teaches all the features of claim 7 as outlined above, Calhoun further teaches wherein the sensor means is arranged to measure the drive current to the first drive unit (Paragraphs 37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Hesse’s sensor device and use Calhoun’s electrical parameters to determine pressure because it would reduce costs by using less components.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hesse and Calhoun teaches all the features of claim 7 as outlined above, Calhoun further teaches wherein the sensor means is arranged to measure the movement of the first drive unit (Paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Hesse’s sensor device and use Calhoun’s movement of the translatable member to determine pressure because movement often correlates perfectly with pressure changes for easy calibration.
Regarding claim 11, Hesse teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Hesse is silent about wherein the first tube pressure means is arranged on a linear actuator and the second tube pressure means is arranged on a linear actuator, or wherein the first tube pressure means is arranged on a pivotable bracket and the second tube pressure means is arranged on a pivotable bracket.
Calhoun teaches wherein the first tube pressure means is arranged on a linear actuator and the second tube pressure means is arranged on a linear actuator (Fig.1, 140 and paragraphs 37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to drive Hesse’s clamping system 20 with a linear actuator because it would allow Hesse’s clamping system 20 to move relative to the tube under inspection.
Regarding claim 12, Hesse teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Hesse is silent about wherein the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means are arranged on a second drive belt driven by a second drive unit.
Calhoun teaches a first drive unit (Fig.3A, 320 and paragraphs 37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to drive Hesse’s clamping system 15 with a drive unit because it would allow Hesse’s clamping system 15 to move relative to the tube under inspection.
The combination of Hesse and Calhoun is silent about wherein the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means are arranged on a second drive belt.
However, use a drive belt to move a clamping system is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to arrange the first seal pressure means and the second seal pressure means on a second drive belt driven by a second drive unit, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hesse and Calhoun teaches all the features of claim 12 as outlined above, Calhoun further teaches wherein the second drive unit comprises a second motor and a second transmission (Paragraphs 37-40).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hesse and Calhoun teaches all the features of claim 12 as outlined above, Calhoun further teaches wherein the sensor means is arranged to measure the drive current to the second drive unit (Paragraphs 37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Hesse’s sensor device and use Calhoun’s electrical parameters to determine pressure because it would reduce costs by using less components.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hesse and Calhoun teaches all the features of claim 12 as outlined above, Calhoun further teaches wherein the sensor means is arranged to measure the movement of the second drive unit (Paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Hesse’s sensor device and use Calhoun’s movement of the translatable member to determine pressure because movement often correlates perfectly with pressure changes for easy calibration.
Regarding claim 16, Hesse teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Hesse is silent about wherein the first seal pressure means is arranged on a linear actuator and the second seal pressure means is arranged on a linear actuator, or wherein the first seal pressure means is arranged on a pivotable bracket and the second seal pressure means is arranged on a pivotable bracket.
Calhoun teaches a linear actuator (Fig.1, 140 and paragraphs 37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to drive Hesse’s clamping system 20 with a linear actuator because it would allow Hesse’s clamping system 20 to move relative to the tube under inspection.
Regarding claim 23, Hesse teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Hesse is silent about wherein the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means are arranged on a first drive belt driven by a first drive unit, wherein the method comprises the step: measuring the drive current to the first drive unit by the sensor means when the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means apply the predefined pressure to the tube, wherein the measured drive current is indicative of the pressure in the tube, or measuring the movement of the first drive unit by the sensor means when the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means apply the predefined pressure to the tube, wherein the measured movement is indicative of the pressure in the tube.
Calhoun teaches wherein the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means (Fig.3A, 304) are driven by a first drive unit (Fig.3A, 320 and paragraphs 37-40), wherein the method comprises the step: measuring the drive current to the first drive unit by the sensor means when the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means apply the predefined pressure to the tube, wherein the measured drive current is indicative of the pressure in the tube (Paragraphs 37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to drive Hesse’s clamping system 20 with a drive unit because it would allow Hesse’s clamping system 20 to move relative to the tube under inspection, also it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Hesse’s sensor device and use Calhoun’s electrical parameters to determine pressure because it would reduce costs by using less components.
The combination of Hesse and Calhoun is silent about wherein the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means are arranged on a first drive belt.
However, use a drive belt to move a clamping system is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to arrange the first tube pressure means and the second tube pressure means on a first drive belt driven by a first drive unit, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse (U.S. Publication No. 20150362401).
Regarding claim 24, Hesse teaches all the features of claim 17 as outlined above, Hesse is silent about wherein the method steps are performed in less than 1 second.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to perform all the steps in less than 1 second, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights