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.
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: “imaging device” “optical imaging device” in claims 1, 5, & 6.
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.
Applicant recites a processor receiving captured images from the image device (claim 6).
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 § 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 12 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation the range 4% to 10%, and claim 12 also recites in the range of 4% to 6% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. A narrower range or preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent claim or in a dependent claim. Examples of claim language which have been held to be indefinite are "a temperature of between 45 and 78 degrees Celsius, preferably between 50 and 60 degrees Celsius". The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Clarification is required.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alexouli,“3D numerical model of tube-tubesheet joint roller expansion process”, 2017, N. Merah “Combined Effects of Tube
Projection, Initial Tube-Tubesheet Clearance, and Tube Material Strain Hardening on Rolled Joint Strength”, July 24, 2009, US 20180112973, & US 20120249778.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “capturing a first image…an initial inner diameter of pipe before expansion, an outer diameter of pipe before expansion an inner diameter of pipe sheet hole and a final inner diameter of the pipe after expansion and determining the wall thickness reduction of the pipe based on the received diameters”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a processor configured for receiving the captured images, for performing image analysis on the captured images for determining a diameter of an item comprised in the captured image, and for %:JWR…diameters determining the wall thickness reduction, %WR, execute the acts of the method of claim 1”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 6.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “carry out one or more method acts of the method of claim 1”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 7.
As to claim 8, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “carry out one or more method acts of the method of claim 1”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 8.
As to claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “using the method of claim 1”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights