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 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.
Claims 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to Claim 18,
Step 1: This claim is a method of using claim and therefore is directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 18 recites “determining the magnetization state of the test volume in a region of the leakage flux probe using at least one magnetic field probe in order to generate magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe; normalizing the probe signals via the assigned magnetization signals in order to ascertain normalized probe signals; and evaluating the normalized probe signals in order to qualify the defects” on the last seven lines which is an abstract idea. This phrase is a mathematical calculation, because what is recited above are actual mathematical calculations made to “determine” the magnetization state, to normalize any signal, and to evaluate the normalized probe signals, as best understood. Applicant does not disclose what the evaluation device is, but the broadest reasonable interpretation of such a device would reasonably include a computer or microprocessor making calculations to perform each of the above claim features. These features do not just involve math but instead are actual mathematical calculations.
Note: The phrase “determining the magnetization state of the test volume in a region of the leakage flux probe using at least one magnetic field probe in order to generate magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe” is interpreted to be abstract, because the determination can be made using magnetic field probe data already obtained prior to the method. The claim does not actively require the use of the at least one magnetic field probe to provide any data or measurement actively in the claim. This is in fact illustrated in Claim 19, where applicant now recites that the magnetic field-sensitive probe is provided in addition to the leakage field probe and is “used” as the magnetic field probe. As such, this phrase is treated as abstract. However, for completeness, this feature is also addressed below as if the magnetic field probe is required and is itself not abstract.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The above abstract is not integrated into a practical application because no practical use or application of the above abstract idea is recited. While structural features are recited prior to the above abstract idea, a practical application is not one where structural features are somewhere recited in the claim, but rather a practical application is some meaningful (practical) use or application of the abstract idea itself. No feature uses or applies the abstract idea in any manner, and the claim instead ends with the abstract idea. As such, the claim does not recited any practical application of this abstract idea.
Step 2B: As noted above, no practical application of the abstract idea is recited. The claim does recite the additional elements of “magnetizing a test volume of the test material via an external magnetic field in order to generate a magnetization state of the test volume that is characterizable by a magnetization; scanning a surface of the test material via a probe arrangement comprising at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe in order to detect magnetic leakage fields caused by defects, the leakage flux probe, during the scanning, being held at a finite test distance from the surface of the test material and generating electrical probe signals that are a measure of the strength of the leakage field.” However, these recites are both field of use and conventional.
Note: The phrase “determining the magnetization state of the test volume in a region of the leakage flux probe using at least one magnetic field probe in order to generate magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe” is interpreted to be abstract as explained above, but as also explained above, the magnetic field probe is also addressed in the event that it is held that this feature and any measurement from such a probe is an additional element.
UHLIG et al. (UHLIG) (US 2017/0160236 A1) discloses magnetizing a test volume of the test material via an external magnetic field in order to generate a magnetization state of the test volume that is characterizable by a magnetization (Claim 1); scanning a surface of the test material via a probe arrangement comprising at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe in order to detect magnetic leakage fields caused by defects (Claim 1), the leakage flux probe, during the scanning, being held at a finite test distance from the surface of the test material and generating electrical probe signals that are a measure of the strength of the leakage field (Claim 1), determining the magnetization state of the test volume in a region of the leakage flux probe using at least one magnetic field probe in order to generate magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe (Claim 1 / note that because plural magnetic field sensitive probes are claimed, and because these sensors must provide magnetic field measurements of the nearby magnetic field, any one of these probes can be the leakage probe of the claim, and any other can be the at least one magnetic field probe also recited).
UHLIG et al. (UHLIG) (US 2017/0160236 A1) discloses:
magnetizing a test volume of the test material via an external magnetic field in order to generate a magnetization state of the test volume that is characterizable by a magnetization (Claim 1);
scanning a surface of the test material via a probe arrangement comprising at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe in order to detect magnetic leakage fields caused by defects (Claim 1), the leakage flux probe, during the scanning, being held at a finite test distance from the surface of the test material and generating electrical probe signals that are a measure of the strength of the leakage field (Claim 1),
determining the magnetization state of the test volume in a region of the leakage flux probe using at least one magnetic field probe in order to generate magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe (Claim 1 / note that because plural magnetic field sensitive probes are claimed, and because these sensors must provide magnetic field measurements of the nearby magnetic field, any one of these probes can be the leakage probe of the claim, and any other can be the at least one magnetic field probe also recited).
Min et al. (Min) (KR 20210086383 A) discloses
magnetizing a test volume of the test material via an external magnetic field in order to generate a magnetization state of the test volume that is characterizable by a magnetization (Paragraphs [0027],[0038]);
scanning a surface of the test material via a probe arrangement comprising at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe (one of 114 and 116) in order to detect magnetic leakage fields caused by defects (Paragraphs [0040],[0060] / note that while the embodiment of Figures 7a,7b is relied upon, it uses the same process of the previously described embodiment but merely adds more sensors), the leakage flux probe, during the scanning, being held at a finite test distance from the surface of the test material and generating electrical probe signals that are a measure of the strength of the leakage field (Paragraph [0057]),(Figures 7a,7b / note the sensors are kept at a finite distance from the test material as they are on the surface);
determining the magnetization state of the test volume in a region of the leakage flux probe using at least one magnetic field probe in order to generate magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe (Paragraphs [0058]-[0060] / note the state is determined by using another of sensors 114,116 to measure magnetic fields other than the leaked magnetic field).
As such, the “additional elements” from the claim are conventional as has been demonstrated above, and thus such additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, these additional elements are also field of use elements necessary for the type of data gathering needed to implement the abstract idea. In order to implement the abstract idea, the test object must be magnetized, and leakage and magnetic field probes are necessary in order to obtain and gather the data needed to perform the abstract idea, including the determination of the magnetization state, the normalization of the signals, and any evaluation.
The claim therefore pre-empts the abstract idea as any recited structure is conventional, field of use structure necessary for any data gathering to implement the method, and thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 19,
This claim recites the additional element of “a magnetic field-sensitive probe, separate from the leakage flux probe and provided in addition to the leakage flux probe, is used as the magnetic field probe” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the above noted prior art already discloses this features as explained above. The probes from the above noted reference include plural probes that are separate and in addition to each other, and are all magnetic field probes. Furthermore, these features, like those noted above, are field of use components necessary to gather the data needed for the abstract idea. The claim therefore pre-empts the abstract idea as any recited structure is conventional, field of use structure necessary for any data gathering to implement the method, and thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 20,
The additional claim feature is “in order to ascertain the magnetization state, a parallel component of the magnetic field that is directed substantially parallel to the surface of the test material and parallel to a main magnetization direction is measured in a close range around the leakage flux probe” but where such a feature does not actively recite any new method step, and instead, as best understood, merely describes what is necessary “in order to ascertain the magnetization state,” but where no actual ascertaining is required. That stated, actually ascertaining, as best understood, is an abstract idea as it is a mathematical calculation to determine the magnetization state, and where the remaining claim features are mere data gathering field of use limitations, and are features that are already disclosed in the above prior art references. Those references must reasonable make the same type of measurements as applicant, as they magnetized and detect in a substantially similar manner as applicant, thus demonstrating that any additional elements of this claim are conventional and thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 21,
This claim adds the additional element of “the test material is a ferromagnetic pipe, a magnetic field component directed substantially tangentially to the surface of the test material being measured in order to detect the magnetization state,” but where such a feature is mere field of use and conventional, and thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As evidence, the above UHLIG discloses this feature in paragraphs [0010],[0015], and applicant’s disclosure likewise in the background section and paragraph [0028]. While paragraph [0028] is not part of the background section, it demonstrate that when a pipe is magnetized, it will have a component tangential (parallel) to the surface. Because the sensors must reasonably detect such a component, even in part, such detection is conventional.
As to Claim 22,
The recitation of “a DC field component of the magnetization signal is ascertained and utilized for normalizing the probe signal” is directed towards more data processing and generic data gathering, where the ascertaining of the DC component is either mere measuring that must be part of the above prior references or is data processing, and the normalization is data processing. As such, this claim is still directed towards the abstract idea.
As to Claim 23,
No new additional elements are recited, as the leakage flux probe and related signal are, as best understood, is the same as the one already recited in Claim 18. The remaining claim features are mathematical calculations related to normalization, and therefore directed towards the abstract idea.
As to Claim 24,
This claim recites an additional element of “carrying out calibration measurements on a correlation portion of the test material, the correlation portion being equipped with at least one correlation fault.” However, this feature is already found in the above prior art references, because there is no different between a calibration measurement and any other measurement, as the measurement is the same and is done by the magnetic field probes. Furthermore, any defect or fault on the actual material being tested is a correlation fault because it is being used to correlate that fault to a possible defect. All remaining claim features, including the ascertaining of a compensation curve and deriving of compensation factors, are directed towards an abstract idea of mathematical calculations. As such, this claim does not recite any practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 25,
No new additional elements are recited, and the claim features as recited are mathematical calculations and thus further directed towards the abstract idea.
As to Claim 26,
No new additional elements are recited, and the claim features as recited are mathematical calculations and thus further directed towards the abstract idea.
As to Claim 27,
This claim adds the additional limitation of “the probe arrangement has a probe array comprising a multiplicity of leakage flux probes arranged next to one another in a first direction, two or more magnetic field probes arranged at a distance from one another in the first direction preferably being provided in order to detect the magnetization state, the number of magnetic field probes preferably being less than the number of leakage flux probes.” However, these features are conventional, because the above noted prior art discloses plural leakage flux probes arranged next to one another, two or more magnetic flux probes, and where the probes can be selected such that the number of magnetic flux probes is less than the number of leakage probes. See the above noted prior art. These features are therefore conventional, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These features are further field of use limitations necessary for the implementation of the abstract idea, and thus further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 28,
Step 1: This claim is an apparatus claim and thus within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: This claim recites the abstract idea of “evaluating the probe signals in order to qualify the defects … carry out a normalization of the probe signals by the assigned magnetization signals in order to ascertain normalized probe signals, and to evaluate the normalized probe signals in order to qualify the defects.” This feature is abstract because the broadest reasonable interpretation is that it is directed towards mathematical calculations, as the evaluating and normalization features are themselves mathematical calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two: No practical application is recited for the above feature, as the claim ends with the above noted abstract idea, and no practical use of this evaluation and normalization is recited in the claim. This claim therefore does not recite any practical application.
Step 2B: This claim recites the additional elements of: “a magnetization device for magnetizing a test volume of the test material; a probe arrangement comprising at least one leakage flux probe for detecting magnetic leakage fields caused by defects, the leakage flux probe being configured, during the scanning, to be held at a finite test distance from a surface of the test material and to generate electrical probe signals having a fault signal amplitude dependent on the leakage flux, said probe signals being a measure of the strength of the leakage field; an evaluation device; at least one magnetic field probe for generating magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe.”
First, these additional elements do not recite a practical application because they do not use the above identified abstract idea in any meaningful manner, and instead the claim ends with the abstract idea itself.
Second, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are conventional and field of use limitations, where such field of use limitations are necessary for the implementation of the abstract idea.
UHLIG et al. (UHLIG) (US 2017/0160236 A1) discloses:
a magnetization device for magnetizing a test volume of the test material (Claim 33);
a probe arrangement comprising at least one leakage flux probe for detecting magnetic leakage fields caused by defects, the leakage flux probe being configured, during the scanning, to be held at a finite test distance from a surface of the test material and to generate electrical probe signals having a fault signal amplitude dependent on the leakage flux, said probe signals being a measure of the strength of the leakage field (Claim 33 / note that because plural magnetic field sensitive probes are claimed, and because these sensors must provide magnetic field measurements of the nearby magnetic field, any one of these probes can be the leakage probe of the claim, and any other can be the at least one magnetic field probe also recited);
an evaluation device; at least one magnetic field probe for generating magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe (Claim 33).
Min et al. (Min) (KR 20210086383 A) discloses:
a magnetization device for magnetizing a test volume of the test material (Paragraphs [0027],[0038]);
a probe arrangement comprising at least one leakage flux probe (one of 114 and 116) for detecting magnetic leakage fields caused by defects (Paragraphs [0040],[0060] / note that while the embodiment of Figures 7a,7b is relied upon, it uses the same process of the previously described embodiment but merely adds more sensors), the leakage flux probe being configured, during the scanning, to be held at a finite test distance from a surface of the test material and to generate electrical probe signals having a fault signal amplitude dependent on the leakage flux, said probe signals being a measure of the strength of the leakage field (Paragraph [0057]),(Figures 7a,7b / note the sensors are kept at a finite distance from the test material as they are on the surface);
an evaluation device (142) (Paragraph [0077]); at least one magnetic field probe (another one of 114 and 116) for generating magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe (Paragraphs [0058]-[0060] / note the state is determined by using another of sensors 114,116 to measure magnetic fields other than the leaked magnetic field).
As such, the “additional elements” from the claim are conventional as has been demonstrated above, and thus such additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, these additional elements are also field of use elements necessary for the type of data gathering needed to implement the abstract idea. In order to implement the abstract idea, the test object must be magnetized, and leakage and magnetic field probes are necessary in order to obtain and gather the data needed to perform the abstract idea, including the determination of the magnetization state, the normalization of the signals, and any evaluation.
The claim therefore pre-empts the abstract idea as any recited structure is conventional, field of use structure necessary for any data gathering to implement the method, and thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 29,
This claim recites the additional element of “the magnetic field probe is a magnetic field-sensitive probe separate from the leakage flux probe and provided in addition to the leakage flux probe” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the above noted prior art already discloses this features as explained above. The probes from the above noted reference include plural probes that are separate and in addition to each other, and are all magnetic field probes. Furthermore, these features, like those noted above, are field of use components necessary to gather the data needed for the abstract idea. The claim therefore pre-empts the abstract idea as any recited structure is conventional, field of use structure necessary for any data gathering to implement the method, and thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 30,
This claim recites the additional element of “at least one test head in which a probe arrangement comprising at least one leakage flux probe and also at least one magnetic field probe are arranged in a fixed spatial relationship with respect to one another.” Such a feature is conventional, because the prior art discloses the feature as explained below, and thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Min discloses at least one test head (910) in which a probe arrangement comprising at least one leakage flux probe and also at least one magnetic field probe are arranged in a fixed spatial relationship with respect to one another (Figures 7a,7b,9), (Paragraphs [0061],[0072] / note the test head can be the housing for the sensors 114,116)
UHLIG discloses at least one test head in which a probe arrangement comprising at least one leakage flux probe and also at least one magnetic field probe are arranged in a fixed spatial relationship with respect to one another (Paragraph [0061]).
As to Claim 31,
This claim recites the additional element of the leakage flux probe is arranged to detect a normal component of the leakage field that is oriented substantially perpendicularly to the surface of the test specimen, and/or the magnetic field probe is arranged to detect a parallel component of the magnetic field that is directed substantially parallel to the surface of the test material and parallel to the main magnetization direction,” but where such feature is conventional and thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Min discloses the leakage flux probe is arranged to detect a normal component of the leakage field that is oriented substantially perpendicularly to the surface of the test specimen, and/or the magnetic field probe is arranged to detect a parallel component of the magnetic field that is directed substantially parallel to the surface of the test material and parallel to the main magnetization direction (Figures 7a,7b), (Paragraph [0060] / note the sensors would reasonable detect/measure this type of magnetization in the claimed direction as the same type of magnetization and sensors are used as applicant, making this a property of the system).
UHLIG discloses the leakage flux probe is arranged to detect a normal component of the leakage field that is oriented substantially perpendicularly to the surface of the test specimen, and/or the magnetic field probe is arranged to detect a parallel component of the magnetic field that is directed substantially parallel to the surface of the test material and parallel to the main magnetization direction (Paragraph [0064]).
As to Claim 32,
This claim recites the additional element of “the probe arrangement has a probe array comprising a multiplicity of leakage flux probes arranged next to one another in a straight series in a first direction, two or more magnetic field probes arranged at a distance from one another in a straight series in the first direction being provided in order to detect the magnetization state.” However, these features are conventional, as the probes identified in the above two references both disclose probes arranged at a distance from each other and in a line as seen for example in Figures 7a,7b of Min and Figures 3,4 of UHLIG with the sensors being part of SA. As such, this feature does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is conventional.
As to Claim 33,
This claim recites the additional element of “a number of magnetic field probes is less than a number of leakage flux probes, the number of leakage flux probes being at least five times as high as the number of magnetic field probes, and/or the leakage flux probes are arranged at uniform distances from one another, and the magnetic field probes are arranged at non-uniform distances from one another, a density of magnetic field probes being greater in end regions of the probe arrangement than in a central region of the probe arrangement.” However, these features are conventional, as the probes identified in the above two references both disclose probes that can be selected such that the number of leakage probes is 5 times greater than the number of magnetic field probes, such as when only one magnetic field probe is selected and the remaining probes are considered leakage probes. As such, this feature does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is conventional.
As to Claim 34,
This claim recites the additional element of “the leakage flux probes are arranged on a side of the test head that is to be directed towards the test specimen, and the magnetic field probes are arranged at a distance behind the leakage flux probes.” However, these features are conventional, because the probes of both prior art references are arranged on a test head directed towards a test object, and where magnetic field probes can be selected that are behind the leakage probes, such as those clearly seen in Figure 7a of Min, and in Figure 3 of Uhlig where any set of probes along the line of probes can be selected as the magnetic field probes which are located beyond other probes designated as leakage probes along the R1 indicated axis. As such, this feature does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is conventional.
As to Claims 19-27 and 29-34,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 18,
The phrase “determining the magnetization state of the test volume in a region of the leakage flux probe using at least one magnetic field probe in order to generate magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe; normalizing the probe signals via the assigned magnetization signals in order to ascertain normalized probe signals; and evaluating the normalized probe signals in order to qualify the defects” on the last seven lines lacks proper written description.
While applicant does disclose an “evaluation device” to perform the above determination and normalization, the original disclosure provides no examples or explanation of what this evaluation device is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what device applicant is using. While the threshold for determining proper written description rests in the knowledge of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the disclosure, the disclosure must still provide sufficient guidance to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing a claim feature. Disclosing any well-known type of device or a newly invented device with sufficient detail would reasonably apprise such a person. However, when the disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant implements the claim features, and when the only disclosed “device” is not a well-known device and the disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which this device is implemented, the disclosure does not reasonably provide proper written description. Here, no device is reasonably disclosed to be usable to implement the above claim feature, as an “evaluation device” is not readily recognizable device and is not one that itself is well-known. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to recognize whether applicant intended to use any particular device, and whether that device was intended to be a well-known device or one that applicant has invented.
As to Claim 28,
The phrase “an evaluation device for evaluating the probe signals in order to qualify the defects; at least one magnetic field probe for generating magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe; and wherein the evaluation device is configured to carry out a normalization of the probe signals by the assigned magnetization signals in order to ascertain normalized probe signals, and to evaluate the normalized probe signals in order to qualify the defects” on lines 9 to the end lacks proper written description.
While applicant does disclose an “evaluation device” to perform the above determination and normalization, the original disclosure provides no examples or explanation of what this evaluation device is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what device applicant is using. While the threshold for determining proper written description rests in the knowledge of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the disclosure, the disclosure must still provide sufficient guidance to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing a claim feature. Disclosing any well-known type of device or a newly invented device with sufficient detail would reasonably apprise such a person. However, when the disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant implements the claim features, and when the only disclosed “device” is not a well-known device and the disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which this device is implemented, the disclosure does not reasonably provide proper written description. Here, no device is reasonably disclosed to be usable to implement the above claim feature, as an “evaluation device” is not readily recognizable device and is not one that itself is well-known. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to recognize whether applicant intended to use any particular device, and whether that device was intended to be a well-known device or one that applicant has invented.
As to Claims 19-27 and 29-34,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 18-34 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 18,
The phrase “magnetizing a test volume of the test material via an external magnetic field in order to generate a magnetization state of the test volume that is characterizable by a magnetization” on line 3-5 is indefinite. At issue here is that the phrase “in order to generate” is an intended use recitation, but whether method of use claims are directed towards the actual use of the device, and not its intended use. It is clear that the magnetization of the test volume must occur, but it is unclear if the magnetization states must be generated or if the magnetization of the test volume is all that is required, and where the states could occur but do not have to occur. Reciting an intended use recitation in a method of use claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the intended use is or is not required.
The phrase “scanning a surface of the test material via a probe arrangement comprising at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe in order to detect magnetic leakage fields caused by defect” on lines 6-8 is indefinite. At issue here is that the phrase “in order to detect” is an intended use recitation, but whether method of use claims are directed towards the actual use of the device, and not its intended use. It is clear that the scanning of the test material must occur, but it is unclear if the detecting of any magnetic leakage fields must be made during the method, or if the scanning is all that is required, and where the detecting could occur but do not have to occur. Reciting an intended use recitation in a method of use claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the intended use is or is not required.
The phrase “by defects” on line 8 is indefinite. Line 2 of the claim already recites defects, and the difference and relationship between these two distinctly recited defect recitations are unclear. As best understood, both phrases refer to the same defects of the disclosure and are therefore not distinct, but these phrases are being distinctly recited, rendering their relationship and difference to be unclear and thus indefinite.
The phrase “the strength of the leakage field” on line 10 is indefinite as no strength of such a field was previously recited. As more than one strength can exist depending on location and whether a defect is or is not present, it is unclear what strength this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “determining the magnetization state of the test volume in a region of the leakage flux probe using at least one magnetic field probe in order to generate magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe” on lines 11-14 is indefinite.
Claim 18 is a method of use claim, and thus directed towards the actual use of the device. Reciting a method step that relies upon an intended use or a feature that is not clearly positively implemented is indefinite, because it is unclear what features are required to be actively implemented as part of the method. Making a determination of the magnetization state is clearly a method of use step, but reciting “using at least one magnetic field probe in order to generate magnetization signals” is not clearly a method step. First, the phrase “in order to generate” is an intended use of the field probe, making it unclear whether the actual use of the field probe is required in the claim, and making it unclear whether the generation of magnetization signals are required. Second, and related to this issue, is whether the field probe use itself is required in the claim. The claim feature is directed towards a determination, and thus a process being implemented by the evaluation device itself. Such a device only needs data (measurements), and these measurements can be actively implemented with a subsequent determination by the evaluation device, or the measurements can be made outside the method, as the evaluation device only needs to the data from the sensors which can be obtained at any time. The claim does not reasonably actively recite the use of a magnetic field probe making measurements subsequent to the determination step, and thus it is unclear what features of this claim are required as part of the method.
The phrase “the magnetization state of the test volume in a region of the leakage flux probe” on lines 11-12 is indefinite. While a magnetization state was previously recited, no such state was recited to be “in a region” as claimed, but this phrase is referring to such a state. As such, it is unclear what magnetization state of the test volume this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe” on lines 13-14 is indefinite. While a magnetization state was previously recited, no such state was recited to be “in a region” as claimed, but this phrase is referring to such a state. As such, it is unclear what magnetization state of the test volume this phrase is referencing. Furthermore, no such state was of claimed to be “of the test material in the region” of the flux probe. The previous recitation was of the state “of the test volume,” not “of the test material.” As such, it is unclear what state this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the probe signals” on line 15 is indefinite. More than one type of probe was previously recited (leakage flux probe and magnetic field probe), and it is unclear which signals this phrase is referencing. Reciting “at least one” for each type of probe reasonably includes plural signals for each probe, and as best understood, applicant is not normalizing the signals from the at least one magnetic field probe, in light of the disclosure. However, the claim phrase recitation of “the probe signals” reasonably includes all probe signals, making it unclear which signals this phrase is intended to reference.
The phrase “the assigned magnetization signals” on line 15 is indefinite. No “assigned” magnetization signals or magnetization signals in general were previously claimed. It is therefore unclear what signals this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “normalizing the probe signals via the assigned magnetization signals in order to ascertain normalized probe signals” on lines 15-16 is indefinite.
At issue here is that the phrase “in order to ascertain” is an intended use recitation, but whether method of use claims are directed towards the actual use of the device, and not its intended use. It is clear that the normalizing the probe signals must occur, but it is unclear if the any ascertaining of normalized probe signals is required during the method, or if the normalizing is all that is required, and where the ascertaining could occur but do not have to occur. Reciting an intended use recitation in a method of use claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the intended use is or is not required.
The phrase “evaluating the normalized probe signals in order to qualify the defects” on the last line is indefinite. At issue here is that the phrase “in order to qualify” is an intended use recitation, but whether method of use claims are directed towards the actual use of the device, and not its intended use. It is clear that the evaluating the probe signals must occur, but it is unclear if the any qualifying of the normalized probe signals is required during the method, or if the evaluating is all that is required, and where the qualifying could occur but do not have to occur. Reciting an intended use recitation in a method of use claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the intended use is or is not required.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “a magnetic field-sensitive probe, separate from the leakage flux probe and provided in addition to the leakage flux probe, is used as the magnetic field probe” on lines 2-3 is indefinite.
1) More than one leakage flux probe and more than one magnetic field probe were previously recited, and those phrases were introduced with “at least one,” making it unclear which probes this phrase is referencing.
2) It is unclear what applicant means by reciting that the above probe is “used as the magnetic field probe,” in that it is unclear what use is being recited in the claim. It is unclear if this is merely recited that one probe is used as another, or if any actual use, being part of a method of use, is intended with this phrase.
3) It is unclear what the difference and relationship is between the magnetic field-sensitive probe and the magnetic field probe. All magnetic field probes are magnetic field-sensitive, and there is no distinction between a magnetic field-sensitive probe and a magnetic field probe, as there are merely different naming conventions that mean that same thing. As such, it is unclear what scope different exists between a magnetic field-sensitive probe and a magnetic field probe. For the purpose of compact prosecution, these probes are interpreted such that any magnetic field sensor or probe meets both claim recitations.
4) It is unclear what difference in scope the above phrase has over those features recited in Claim 18. Claim 18 already distinctly recites the at least one leakage field probe from the at least one magnetic field probe, and thus they must already be separate from each other and in addition to each other. It is unclear if claiming that they are separate from each other means they are physically separate, or if applicant intends this phrase to mean that they are merely distinguished from each other. The scope of the above claim phrase is therefore unclear.
As to Claim 20,
The phrase “in order to ascertain the magnetization state, a parallel component of the magnetic field that is directed substantially parallel to the surface of the test material and parallel to a main magnetization direction is measured in a close range around the leakage flux probe” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
1) It is unclear what, if any, limitation is being positively recited in the above phrase. This phrase can reasonably mean, as claimed, that in order to perform a function (ascertain the magnetization state), certain features must be implemented (e.g. the measuring of a magnetization). Such an interpretation does not require the above claim feature to actually be implemented, and instead only describes what would happen “in order” to actually ascertain any magnetization state. A second interpretation is that the magnetization state is actually ascertained, but this still is unclear, as no clear method step of ascertaining is recited. As such, this phrase is indefinite, because it is unclear what limitations are or are not being required or positively recited. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to describe would is necessary in order to ascertain the magnetization state, but that it is not required in the claim.
2) It is further unclear what is meant by “is measured” in the above phrase, as such a recitation is a past tense recitation and not an active method step. It is unclear if any actual measuring is required in the claim, or if applicant is describing something already performed outside of the method.
3) Applicant distinctly recites any measuring in the above phrase from any sensor previously recited, but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. Any measuring of a magnetic field of the system must come by way of the already recited magnetic field probes, as the previous recitation includes all possible probes by reciting “at least one” in front of each probe phrase. As such, the above measuring claim limitation cannot be distinct from these probes but where it is being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 21,
The phrase “the test material is a ferromagnetic pipe, a magnetic field component directed substantially tangentially to the surface of the test material being measured in order to detect the magnetization state” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
1) It is further unclear what is meant by “is measured” in the above phrase, as such a recitation is a past tense recitation and not an active method step. It is unclear if any actual measuring is required in the claim, or if applicant is describing something already performed outside of the method.
2) Applicant distinctly recites any measuring in the above phrase from any sensor previously recited, but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. Any measuring of a magnetic field of the system must come by way of the already recited magnetic field probes, as the previous recitation includes all possible probes by reciting “at least one” in front of each probe phrase. As such, the above measuring claim limitation cannot be distinct from these probes but where it is being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 22,
The phrase “a DC field component of the magnetization signal is ascertained and utilized for normalizing the probe signal” is indefinite.
1) More than one magnetization signal was previously recited, and it is unclear what magnetization signal this phrase is referencing.
2) At issue here is that the phrase “for normalizing” is an intended use recitation, but whether method of use claims are directed towards the actual use of the device, and not its intended use. It is unclear if the any normalizing of the probe signal is required during the method. Reciting an intended use recitation in a method of use claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the intended use is or is not required.
3) Applicant is distinctly reciting the above “for normalizing” from the step of normalizing recited in Claim 18, rendering the difference and relationship unclear. It is unclear if the above normalizing is the same as the normalizing of Claim 18 or different.
4) The phrase “the probe signal” is indefinite, because more than one probe signal was previously recited, and it is unclear what probe signal this phrase is referencing.
5) The phrase “is ascertained” is indefinite because this past tense phrase is not clearly a method step, making it unclear whether his ascertaining is or is not required in the method. It is unclear, for example, if the ascertaining is performed prior or outside the method, as this phrase reasonable refers to this feature in the past tense and thus already performed.
6) Lastly, it is unclear what applicant means by reciting that the DC field component “is ascertained,” in that it is unclear if this feature merely means that the component was measured, or if applicant’s ascertained requires something beyond mere measuring. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose what applicant means by this phrase.
As to Claim 23,
The phrase “the probe signal of a leakage flux probe has a signal amplitude, and in order to normalize the probe signal, the signal amplitude is multiplied by a compensation factor that at least partly compensates for a magnetization dependence of the test sensitivity, the compensation factor being substantially inversely proportional to the strength of the magnetization of the test volume scanned by the leakage flux probe” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
1) The phrase “the probe signal” is indefinite, because more than one probe signal was previously recited, and it is unclear what probe signal this phrase is referencing.
2) The phrase “a leakage flux probe” is indefinite because Claim 18 already recites “at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe” which reasonably includes all probes, and thus the difference and relationship between the above probe and the previously recited probes are unclear.
3) The phrase “the leakage flux probe” is indefinite, because more than one such probe was previously recited, and it is unclear what probe this phrase is referencing.
4) The phrase “a signal amplitude” is indefinite, as signals from the probe were already recited, and such signals must have an amplitude. As such, the difference and relationship between the above signal amplitude and the previously recited signals are unclear.
5) The phrase “in order to normalize the probe signal, the signal amplitude is multiplied by a compensation factor that at least partly compensates for a magnetization dependence of the test sensitivity” is indefinite because it is unclear if this feature is required, and because this feature is being recited in the past tense, and it is unclear if this feature is actively required to be performed in the method.
First, Claim 18 requires a normalization, but the above “normalize” feature is not claimed to be linked to that process, making it unclear how, and if, the two are related.
Second, to the extent that the above normalize feature and the previously recited normalization step are the same, this claim is indefinite because Claim 18 requires normalization, but the phrase “in order to normalize” no longer requires actual normalization, and instead only describes what would be required to normalize, thereby indicating that this feature is no longer necessarily required as it has been broadened to an explanation of what would be required to perform this feature without actually requiring it.
Third, it is unclear what new limitation is being imposed with this claim feature, as this feature, as best understood, merely describes what would be required to be able to normalize, but does not actually require any of the features to normalize.
Fourth, and to that point, it is unclear if this phrase is required in the claim, as no step or multiplication is claimed and no device or component is claimed to be configured or otherwise capable of performing such a feature. The claim is reciting that the signal amplitude “is multiplied,” but such a feature is a past tense recitation of what could be done, such as outside the method, and reciting that something “is multiplied” is not the same as a positive multiplication method step recitation. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that this feature is not positively recited and is instead referring to a feature that could be performed outside the method.
6) The phrase “the test sensitivity” is indefinite because no such test sensitivity was previously recited, and it is unclear what test sensitivity this phrase is referencing.
7) The phrase “the strength of the magnetization of the test volume scanned by the leakage flux probe” is indefinite. No strength of the magnetization scanned by the probe was previously recited. The probe was claimed to measure the strength of the leakage field, but that is not the same as the same as the above strength as claimed. It is therefore unclear what strength of the magnetization of the test volume that is being referenced with this phrase.
As to Claim 24,
The phrase “carrying out calibration measurements on a correlation portion of the test material, said correlation portion being equipped with at least one correlation fault, in order to ascertain a compensation curve that describes a functional relationship between a magnetization state of the test material in the case of external magnetic fields of different strengths, corresponding magnetization signals of a magnetic field probe and a signal amplitude of the probe signal that is generated by a standard defect, and deriving compensation factors for normalizing probe signals from the compensation curve during the evaluation of the probe signals” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
1) Applicant claims “carrying out calibration measurements,” but where this feature is distinctly recited from any of the previously recited probes. While applicant is not required to recite any of the probes in a method of use claim, because these probes have been recited, it is indefinite to claim them distinctly from the very measurements they are used to obtain. It is unclear if the above measurements come from the probes because they are distinctly recited, making their relationship unclear.
2) The phrase “said correlation portion being equipped with at least one correlation fault, in order to ascertain a compensation curve that describes a functional relationship between a magnetization state of the test material in the case of external magnetic fields of different strengths, corresponding magnetization signals of a magnetic field probe and a signal amplitude of the probe signal that is generated by a standard defect” is indefinite, because it is unclear what is related to the “in order to ascertain” feature recited above. Applicant states “in order to ascertain a compensation curve,” but applicant does not recite any clear feature that is required to ascertain such a curve. No method step or any other language is recited. As best understood, this phrase is referring to the correlation portion being equipped with at least one correction fault, and is therefore entirety directed towards an intended us of this correlation fault. This phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear what features this phrase is requiring. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this phrase is being treated as an intended use of how the correlation fault could be used, but is otherwise not required.
3) To the extent that the phrase “in order to ascertain” is an intended use of the correlation fault, this phrase is indefinite because, as explained above, reciting an intended use inside an method of using claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether this intended use is required. Method of use claims are expressly directed towards the actual use of the device, and thus reciting an intended use inside such a claim is indefinite as it is unclear whether this intended use must be implemented.
4) The phrase “corresponding magnetization signals of a magnetic field probe and a signal amplitude of the probe signal that is generated by a standard defect” is indefinite.
First, it is unclear how this relates to the previously recite claim features such as the “in order to ascertain” limitation. The above phrase is not reasonably linked to any previous feature as worded, making it unclear whether this is part or required in the ability to ascertain as claimed. This phrase is essentially recited in a distinct manner from all other claim features, but it is not a method step and does not reasonably limit the claim.
Second, Claim 18 already recites a magnetic field probe by reciting “at least one magnetic field probe,” which reasonably includes all such probes. As such, the above phrase cannot reasonably be distinct from the prior recitation, but where these features are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
Third, more than one probe signal was previously claimed, as plural “probe signals” were recited in Claim 18. Reciting “the probe signal” is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which probe signal this phrase is referencing.
Fourth, the difference and relationship between the initially recited correlation fault and the later recited standard defect is unclear. As best understood, the correlation fault already represents a standard defect, making the relationship between these two distinctly recited features unclear.
5) The phrase “deriving compensation factors for normalizing probe signals from the compensation curve during the evaluation of the probe signals,” is indefinite.
The phrase “for normalizing probe signals” is indefinite At issue here is that the phrase “for normalizing” is an intended use recitation, but whether method of use claims are directed towards the actual use of the device, and not its intended use. It is unclear if the any normalizing of the probe signal is required during the method. Reciting an intended use recitation in a method of use claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the intended use is or is not required. Furthermore, applicant is distinctly reciting the above “for normalizing” from the step of normalizing recited in Claim 18, rendering the difference and relationship unclear. It is unclear if the above normalizing is the same as the normalizing of Claim 18 or different. Lastly, Claim 18 already recites probe signals, and as best understood, the above probe signals recitation refers to the same probe signals already recited in Claim 18 but in a distinct manner. The difference and relationship between these probe signals are therefore unclear.
Applicant claims “normalizing probe signals from the compensation curve,” but no probe signals were previously recited to be part of this curve, and it is unclear how the probe signals relate to the curve. The curve was previously claimed to be a relationship between a magnetization state and not signals, making it unclear what signals this phrase is referencing. To the extent that the claim was intended to state that the curve is a relationship between a magnetization state and corresponding magnetization signals of the probe, these probe signals are being distinctly recited, making their relationship unclear. Applicant recites probe signals / magnetization signals on line 6, but then distinctly recites probe signals on line 8, making their relationship unclear.
The phrase “the probe signals” is indefinite as more than one set of probe signals were previously recited, making it unclear what probe signals this phrase is referencing.
Lastly, it is unclear if the above phrase is required. While applicant does claim that the driving compensation factors is during the evaluation of the probe signals, and where Claim 18 does positively recite a method step of evaluating, the compensation curve necessary for this deriving is not positively recited nor required in the claim. Claim 24 is reasonably reciting that the compensation curve is something that is an intended use of the correlation portion but that is not required, both by reciting “in order to ascertain,” and because applicant also expressly recites that his curve is “in case of external magnetic fields of different strengths.” As such, when the fields are not of different strengths, this phrase is conditional and not required. Requiring a deriving method step be based on a feature that is not required in the claim because it is conditional and an intended use renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the deriving method step is required in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the deriving step is not required, and instead is conditional should fields of different strengths occur and only must be able to be implemented as an intended use of the correlation fault / portion, but is otherwise not required.
As to Claim 25,
The phrase “taking account of a variation of the magnetization state depending on an axial position of a test portion to be tested when ascertaining the correction factor to be applied for the test portion by a procedure in which, when ascertaining the correction factor, an axial offset between the calibration portion and the test portion is ascertained and the correction factor is modified depending on the offset” on lines 2-6 is indefinite.
1) The entirety of this claim is indefinite because it is unclear what features, if any, are required in the claim. Applicant recites “taking account of a variation … when ascertaining,” and as such, the entirety of this phrase is conditional with no clear feature positively recited. Furthermore, claiming “taking account of a variation” is not a positive recitation or a method step, and at most implies that something should consider this variation, but not that any variation must exist or even requiring anything being taken into account. It is therefore unclear what features are being required with this claim.
2) Reciting “the magnetization state” is indefinite because more than one such state was previously recited, in the combination, and it is unclear what state this phrase is referencing.
3) The phrase “a test portion” is indefinite, because it is distinctly recited from any previous test object, but where, as best understood, it is not distinct and is instead part of the test object, in light of the disclosure. The difference and relationship between this test portion and the previously recited test object / material is therefore unclear.
4) The phrase “is ascertained and the correction factor is modified” is indefinite because, as has been explained above, these features are being recited in the past tense and thus are not clear method steps. It is therefore unclear whether these are features that are required to be performed in the method, or are otherwise performed or intended to be implemented by an apparatus.
5) 1) No correction factor was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what factor this phrase is referencing. It is further unclear how this factor relates to the compensation factors of Claim 24. It is unclear if the correction factor is one of the compensation factors or is a different value.
As to Claim 26,
The phrase “the correction factor for an axial position in a test portion is ascertained on the basis of a displaced compensation curve, the displaced compensation curve having the curve shape of the compensation curve ascertained in the calibration portion, said compensation curve being displaced by a displacement value corresponding to the axial offset relative to the compensation curve ascertained in the calibration portion” on lines 2-6 is indefinite.
1) No correction factor, and no correction factor for an axial position was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what factor this phrase is referencing. It is further unclear how this factor relates to the compensation factors of Claim 24. It is unclear if the correction factor is one of the compensation factors or is a different value.
2) The phrase “is ascertained” is indefinite because this past tense phrase is not clearly a method step, making it unclear whether his ascertaining is or is not required in the method. It is unclear, for example, if the ascertaining is performed prior or outside the method, as this phrase reasonable refers to this feature in the past tense and thus already performed.
3) The phrase “the curve shape” is indefinite as no curve shape was previously recited, and it is unclear what curve shape this phrase is referencing.
4) The phrase “the calibration portion” is indefinite, as no such calibration portion was previously recited, and the difference and relationship between this and the correlation portion is unclear. As best understood, these two portions refer to the same portion but are distinctly recited.
5) The phrase “the axial offset relative” as no such offset was previously recited, and it is unclear what offset this phrase is referencing.
6) The entirety of this claim is indefinite, as no method step is clearly recited, and instead the claim recites in the past tense what has been done, and it is therefore unclear what features of this claim are positively recited. This claim phrase is further linked to the intended use of ascertaining a compensation curve in Claim 24, which is further not positively recited. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this phrase is being interpreted as intended use, and thus not positively recited or required.
As to Claim 27,
The phrase “the probe arrangement has a probe array comprising a multiplicity of leakage flux probes arranged next to one another in a first direction, two or more magnetic field probes arranged at a distance from one another in the first direction preferably being provided in order to detect the magnetization state, the number of magnetic field probes preferably being less than the number of leakage flux probes” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
1) The phrase “the probe arrangement has a probe array comprising a multiplicity of leakage flux probes” is indefinite because this phrase distinctly recites the probe array and leakage flux probes from the already recited at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe of Claim 18. Reciting “at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe” reasonably includes all such probes, and as best understood, this would include the above probe arran and multiplicity of leakage flux probes that are distinctly recited, but where they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these different probes are therefore indefinite.
2) The phrase “two or more magnetic field probes” is indefinite, because Claim 18 already recites at least one magnetic flux probe, and where that probe both reasonably includes all such probes, and would include the above now claim probes but where these features are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these distinct probe recitations are therefore unclear.
3) The phrase “in order to detect the magnetization state” is indefinite, because it is an intended use recitation of detection but where Claim 27 is directed towards a method of use. It is indefinite to recite an intended use inside a method of use claim because it is unclear if such use is or is not required. Furthermore, the magnetization state is required to be determined in Claim 18, and thus it just have been detected in Claim 18. It is unclear whether this claim requires the detection of the magnetization state or if such a feature was implicit in Claim 18.
4) 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 27 recites the broad recitation “two or more magnetic field probes arranged at a distance from one another in the first direction”, and the claim also recites “preferably being provided in order to detect the magnetization state” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
5) The phrase “preferably being provided in order to detect the magnetization state” is further indefinite, because it is unclear whether the probes must be used to detect the magnetization state, or if it is not required as it is only preferred, but thus not required.
6) 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 27 recites the broad recitation two or more magnetic field probes arranged at a distance from one another in the first direction,” and the claim also recites “preferably being less than the number of leakage field probes” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
7) The phrases “the number of magnetic field probes” and “the number of leakage flux probes” are indefinite, as no number for other of these probes were previously recited, and it is unclear what number of probes these phrases are referencing.
As to Claim 28,
The phrase “leakage flux probe being configured, during the scanning, to be held at a finite test distance from a surface of the test material and to generate electrical probe signals having a fault signal amplitude dependent on the leakage flux” on lines 5-8 is indefinite.
1) The phrase “the scanning” is indefinite as no such scanning was previously recited. It is unclear what “scanning” this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how it relates to the already recited detecting of magnetic leakage fields as such detection is a scanning of the test material.
2) The phrase “the leakage field” is indefinite because no such field was previously recited, and it is unclear what field this phrase is referencing.
3) The phrase “the strength of the leakage field” on line 8 is indefinite. No strength was previously recited, and it is unclear what strength this phrase is referencing as the strength can change during detection.
The phrase “the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe” on lines 10-11 is indefinite.
First, no magnetization state of the test material was previously recited, and it is unclear what state this phrase is referencing. Furthermore, it is unclear how this state relates to the previous intended use of magnetizing the test volume, any magnetizing would generate a magnetization state but where these features are distinctly recited when they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
Second, no region of the leakage flux probe was previously recited, and as there can reasonably be more than one region, it is unclear what region this phrase is referencing.
Third, more than one leakage probe is included in the previous claim recitation of “at least one leakage flux probe,” and thus reciting “the leakage flux probe” is indefinite because it is unclear which probe this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the evaluation device is configured to carry out a normalization of the probe signals by the assigned magnetization signals in order to ascertain normalized probe signals” on lines 13-14 is indefinite. No “assigned magnetic signals” were previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what assigned signals this phrase is referencing. It is unclear what makes these signals assigned, and it is unclear how they relate to any of the previously recited signals, probes, and magnetization state.
As to Claim 29,
The phrase “the magnetic field probe is a magnetic field-sensitive probe separate from the leakage flux probe and provided in addition to the leakage flux probe” on lines 2-3 is indefinite.
1) More than one leakage flux probe and more than one magnetic field probe were previously recited, and those phrases were introduced with “at least one,” making it unclear which probes this phrase is referencing.
2) It is unclear what the difference and relationship is between the magnetic field-sensitive probe and the magnetic field probe. All magnetic field probes are magnetic field-sensitive, and there is no distinction between a magnetic field-sensitive probe and a magnetic field probe, as there are merely different naming conventions that mean that same thing. As such, it is unclear what scope different exists between a magnetic field-sensitive probe and a magnetic field probe. For the purpose of compact prosecution, these probes are interpreted such that any magnetic field sensor or probe meets both claim recitations.
4) It is unclear what difference in scope the above phrase has over those features recited in Claim 18. Claim 18 already distinctly recites the at least one leakage field probe from the at least one magnetic field probe, and thus they must already be separate from each other and in addition to each other. It is unclear if claiming that they are separate from each other means they are physically separate, or if applicant intends this phrase to mean that they are merely distinguished from each other. The scope of the above claim phrase is therefore unclear.
As to Claim 30,
The phrase “at least one test head in which a probe arrangement comprising at least one leakage flux probe and also at least one magnetic field probe are arranged in a fixed spatial relationship with respect to one another” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
Claim 28 already recites at least one leakage flux probe and magnetic field probe, but where the above recitations of these features in Claim 30 are being distinctly recited from those already recited in Claim 28. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore indefinite as they are distinctly referring to the same claim features but where they are not distinct.
As to Claim 31,
The phrase “the leakage flux probe is arranged to detect a normal component of the leakage field that is oriented substantially perpendicularly to the surface of the test specimen, and/or the magnetic field probe is arranged to detect a parallel component of the magnetic field that is directed substantially parallel to the surface of the test material and parallel to the main magnetization direction” on lines 2-6 is indefinite.
1) No leakage field was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what leakage field this phrase is referencing.
2) No test specimen was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what test specimen this phrase is referencing. It is further unclear how this test specimen relates to the previously recited test material. As best understood, these claim recitations are referring to the same feature of the disclosure but using different terminology, rendering their relationship unclear.
3) The phrase “the leakage flux probe” is indefinite because Claim 28 recites “at least one leakage flux probe” which reasonably includes more than one such probe, making it unclear which probe this phrase is referencing.
4) The phrase “the magnetic field probe” is indefinite because Claim 28 recites “at least one magnetic field probe” which reasonably includes more than one such probe, making it unclear which probe this phrase is referencing.
5) The phrase “the magnetic field that is directed substantially parallel to the surface of the test material and parallel to the main magnetization direction” is indefinite, as plural magnetic fields were previously recited, making it unclear which field this phrase is referencing. Further, no main magnetization direction was previously recited, and it is unclear what main magnetization direction this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 32,
The phrase “the probe arrangement has a probe array comprising a multiplicity of leakage flux probes arranged next to one another in a straight series in a first direction, two or more magnetic field probes arranged at a distance from one another in a straight series in the first direction being provided in order to detect the magnetization state” on lines 2-5 is indefinite.
1) The phrase “the probe arrangement has a probe array comprising a multiplicity of leakage flux probes” is indefinite because this phrase distinctly recites the probe array and leakage flux probes from the already recited at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe of Claim 28. Reciting “at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe” reasonably includes all such probes, and as best understood, this would include the above probe arran and multiplicity of leakage flux probes that are distinctly recited, but where they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these different probes are therefore indefinite.
2) The phrase “two or more magnetic field probes” is indefinite, because Claim 28 already recites at least one magnetic flux probe, and where that probe both reasonably includes all such probes, and would include the above now claim probes but where these features are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these distinct probe recitations are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 33,
The phrase “a number of magnetic field probes is less than a number of leakage flux probes, the number of leakage flux probes being at least five times as high as the number of magnetic field probes, and/or the leakage flux probes are arranged at uniform distances from one another, and the magnetic field probes are arranged at non-uniform distances from one another, a density of magnetic field probes being greater in end regions of the probe arrangement than in a central region of the probe arrangement” on lines 2-8 is indefinite.
1) The phrase “a number of magnetic field probes is less than a number of leakage flux probes” is indefinite because this phrase is being distinctly recited from any of the previous probes but where it is not distinct. The previous recitation of at least one magnetic field probe and at least one leakage flux probe reasonably include all such probes, but where those features are being distinctly recited from the above probes. The difference and relationship between these distinctly recited probe recitations are therefore unclear.
2) The phrases “the leakage flux probes” and “the magnetic field probes” are indefinite, because different distinct sets of each of these probes were previously recited in Claim 33 and in Claim 28, and it is unclear which probes these phrases are referencing.
3) The phrase “a density of magnetic field probes” is indefinite because this phrase is distinctly reciting these probes from any previous probes, but where the previous recitations of probes reasonable include all possible probes. As such, it is unclear what probes this phrase refers to in the disclosure, and it is unclear how this phrase relates to any of the already recited probes.
As to Claim 34,
The phrase “the leakage flux probes are arranged on a side of the test head that is to be directed towards the test specimen, and the magnetic field probes are arranged at a distance behind the leakage flux probes” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
1) No test head was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what test head this phrase is referencing.
2) Plural leakage and magnetic flux probes were not clearly previously recited, as these features were instead recited as “at least one” leakage or magnetic field probe. While “at least one” can include plural probes, it does not have to, and this phrase is therefore indefinite because it unclear if plural probes are required, it is unclear what previously recited “probes” are being referenced, and it is unclear how this relates to the previously recited “at least one” initial recitation for the probes.
3) The phrase “the test specimen” is indefinite, because no such specimen was previously recited. Claim 28 introduced a test material, but not a test specimen. It is therefore unclear whether applicant is referencing the test material when reciting a test specimen, and it is unclear what test specimen this phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 19-27 and 29-34,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 18-20 and 22-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Min et al. (Min) (KR 20210086383 A).
Note: the cited paragraphs come from the provided English machine translation.
As to Claim 18,
Min discloses A method for leakage flux testing of ferromagnetic test material in order to detect defects, comprising:
magnetizing a test volume of the test material via an external magnetic field in order to generate a magnetization state of the test volume that is characterizable by a magnetization (Paragraphs [0027],[0038]);
scanning a surface of the test material via a probe arrangement comprising at least one magnetic field-sensitive leakage flux probe (one of 114 and 116) in order to detect magnetic leakage fields caused by defects (Paragraphs [0040],[0060] / note that while the embodiment of Figures 7a,7b is relied upon, it uses the same process of the previously described embodiment but merely adds more sensors), the leakage flux probe, during the scanning, being held at a finite test distance from the surface of the test material and generating electrical probe signals that are a measure of the strength of the leakage field (Paragraph [0057]),(Figures 7a,7b / note the sensors are kept at a finite distance from the test material as they are on the surface);
determining the magnetization state of the test volume in a region of the leakage flux probe using at least one magnetic field probe in order to generate magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe (Paragraphs [0058]-[0060] / note the state is determined by using another of sensors 114,116 to measure magnetic fields other than the leaked magnetic field);
normalizing the probe signals via the assigned magnetization signals in order to ascertain normalized probe signals (Paragraph [0060] / note the signals of the one of the 114,116 are normalized by the other of 114,116 by subtracting the “other” magnetic field signals); and
evaluating the normalized probe signals in order to qualify the defects (Paragraph [0078]).
As to Claim 19,
Min discloses wherein a magnetic field-sensitive probe, separate from the leakage flux probe and provided in addition to the leakage flux probe, is used as the magnetic field probe (Figures 7a,7b / note the probes 114,116 are separate and in addition to each other), (Paragraph [0060]).
As to Claim 20,
Min discloses in order to ascertain the magnetization state, a parallel component of the magnetic field that is directed substantially parallel to the surface of the test material and parallel to a main magnetization direction is measured in a close range around the leakage flux probe (Figures 7a,7b), (Paragraph [0060] / note the prior art can be used in this manner and this feature is not positive recited, and the sensors would reasonable detect/measure this type of magnetization in the claimed direction as the same type of magnetization and sensors are used as applicant, making this a property of the system).
As to Claim 22,
Min discloses wherein a DC field component of the magnetization signal is ascertained and utilized for normalizing the probe signal (Figure 7a,7b), (Paragraph [0017] / note the magnetic field inducer that magnetizes the test material does so with a DC magnetic field from an electromagnet or permanent magnet, and thus any detected magnetic field must have a DC component that is obtained/ascertained and used in normalizing the probe signal).
As to Claim 23,
Min discloses the probe signal of a leakage flux probe has a signal amplitude, and in order to normalize the probe signal, the signal amplitude is multiplied by a compensation factor that at least partly compensates for a magnetization dependence of the test sensitivity, the compensation factor being substantially inversely proportional to the strength of the magnetization of the test volume scanned by the leakage flux probe (Paragraph [0060] / note that the probe signal must have an amplitude, and that the system is can be used with such a compensation factor, but where this is not positively recited as no method step is recited to actually multiply by a compensation factor).
As to Claim 24,
Min discloses carrying out calibration measurements on a correlation portion of the test material, said correlation portion being equipped with at least one correlation fault, in order to ascertain a compensation curve that describes a functional relationship between a magnetization state of the test material in the case of external magnetic fields of different strengths, corresponding magnetization signals of a magnetic field probe and a signal amplitude of the probe signal that is generated by a standard defect, and deriving compensation factors for normalizing probe signals from the compensation curve during the evaluation of the probe signals (Paragraph [0060] / note that a calibration measurement is not a calibration and only requires a measurement that can be used for calibration, and any actual measurement can be a calibration measurement as these measurements are the same, and any measurement of any actual fault can be a correlation fault, as the measurement of this fault is correlated to a defect).
As to Claim 25,
Min discloses taking account of a variation of the magnetization state depending on an axial position of a test portion to be tested when ascertaining the correction factor to be applied for the test portion by a procedure in which, when ascertaining the correction factor, an axial offset between the calibration portion and the test portion is ascertained and the correction factor is modified depending on the offset (Paragraph [0060] / note that the entirety of this phrase is conditional, and the prior art discloses the claim feature when the correction feature is not ascertained, and further, the prior art can be said to have taken this feature into account by merely disclosing the invention as disclosed, because it is reasonable to conclude that Min et al. considered all reasonably relevant information at the time and thus took it into account).
As to Claim 26,
Min discloses the correction factor for an axial position in a test portion is ascertained on the basis of a displaced compensation curve, the displaced compensation curve having the curve shape of the compensation curve ascertained in the calibration portion, said compensation curve being displaced by a displacement value corresponding to the axial offset relative to the compensation curve ascertained in the calibration portion (Paragraph [0060] / note that the entirety of this phrase intended use, and the prior art can be used int his manner to obtain these features, thus disclosing the claim features).
As to Claim 27,
Min discloses the probe arrangement has a probe array comprising a multiplicity of leakage flux probes arranged next to one another in a first direction, two or more magnetic field probes arranged at a distance from one another in the first direction preferably being provided in order to detect the magnetization state, the number of magnetic field probes preferably being less than the number of leakage flux probes (Figures 7a,7b / note the number of probes for each, and note that while the “preferably” lower number of magnetic probes relative to the leakage probes is not a positive recitation and thus not required, the number of probes in one of 114,116 can be selected such that this number is less than the other of 114,116, as it is not required that all probes for each 114,116 are required to be selected as the claimed probes).
As to Claim 28,
Min discloses An apparatus for leakage flux testing of ferromagnetic test material in order to detect defects, comprising:
a magnetization device (112) for magnetizing a test volume of the test material (Paragraph [0038]);
a probe arrangement (114,116) comprising at least one leakage flux probe (one of 114,116) for detecting magnetic leakage fields caused by defects, the leakage flux probe being configured, during the scanning, to be held at a finite test distance from a surface of the test material and to generate electrical probe signals having a fault signal amplitude dependent on the leakage flux (Paragraphs [0057],[0073], [0040],[0060] / note that while the embodiment of Figures 7a,7b is relied upon, it uses the same process of the previously described embodiment but merely adds more sensors), said probe signals being a measure of the strength of the leakage field (Paragraph [0057]),(Figures 7a,7b / note the sensors are kept at a finite distance from the test material as they are on the surface);
an evaluation device (142) for evaluating the probe signals in order to qualify the defects (Paragraph [0077]);
at least one magnetic field probe (another of 114,116) for generating magnetization signals that represent a measure of the magnetization state of the test material in the region of the leakage flux probe (Paragraphs [0058]-[0060] / note the state is determined by using another of sensors 114,116 to measure magnetic fields other than the leaked magnetic field); and
wherein the evaluation device is configured to carry out a normalization of the probe signals by the assigned magnetization signals in order to ascertain normalized probe signals (Paragraph [0060] / note the signals of the one of the 114,116 are normalized by the other of 114,116 by subtracting the “other” magnetic field signals), and to evaluate the normalized probe signals in order to qualify the defects (Paragraph [0078]).
As to Claim 29,
Min discloses the magnetic field probe is a magnetic field-sensitive probe separate from the leakage flux probe and provided in addition to the leakage flux probe (Figures 7a,7b).
As to Claim 30,
Min discloses at least one test head (910) in which a probe arrangement comprising at least one leakage flux probe and also at least one magnetic field probe are arranged in a fixed spatial relationship with respect to one another (Figures 7a,7b,9), (Paragraphs [0061],[0072] / note the test head can be the housing for the sensors 114,116).
As to Claim 31,
Min discloses the leakage flux probe is arranged to detect a normal component of the leakage field that is oriented substantially perpendicularly to the surface of the test specimen, and/or the magnetic field probe is arranged to detect a parallel component of the magnetic field that is directed substantially parallel to the surface of the test material and parallel to the main magnetization direction (Figures 7a,7b), (Paragraph [0060] / note the sensors would reasonable detect/measure this type of magnetization in the claimed direction as the same type of magnetization and sensors are used as applicant, making this a property of the system).
As to Claim 32,
Min discloses the probe arrangement has a probe array comprising a multiplicity of leakage flux probes arranged next to one another in a straight series in a first direction (Figures 7a,7b), two or more magnetic field probes arranged at a distance from one another in a straight series in the first direction being provided in order to detect the magnetization state (Figures 7a,7b).
As to Claim 33,
Min discloses a number of magnetic field probes is less than a number of leakage flux probes, the number of leakage flux probes being at least five times as high as the number of magnetic field probes (Figures 7a,7b / note probes can be selected from 114,116 such that the number of probes from the leakage probes are 5 times greater than the number of magnetic field probes), and/or the leakage flux probes are arranged at uniform distances from one another, and the magnetic field probes are arranged at non-uniform distances from one another, a density of magnetic field probes being greater in end regions of the probe arrangement than in a central region of the probe arrangement (the other feature from the and/or limitation is met, thus disclosing the claim).
As to Claim 34,
Min discloses the leakage flux probes are arranged on a side of the test head (910) that is to be directed towards the test specimen, and the magnetic field probes are arranged at a distance behind the leakage flux probes (Figures 7a,7b, 9).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (Min) (KR 20210086383 A) in view of UHLIG et al. (UHLIG) (US 2017/0160236 A1).
As to Claim 21,
Min discloses a magnetic field component directed substantially tangentially to the surface of the test material being measured in order to detect the magnetization state (Figures 7a,7b / note that the magnetic field must have a component that is parallel, and thus tangential, to the surface of the material.
Min does not disclose the test material is a ferromagnetic pipe.
UHLIG the test material is a ferromagnetic pipe (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Min to include the test material is a ferromagnetic pipe as taught by UHLIG in order to advantageously be able to detect defects in pipes that may have defects that can cause the pipe to fail, thus necessitating detection to ensure they are able to safely continue to function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2016/0313285 to Lee et al. which discloses an apparatus and method of detecting a defect in a steel plate, using magnetizing device to magnetize the plate and magnetic sensor array to detect magnetic flux leaking when the flux passes through a defect, and 2) US 2011/0037461 to Braun which discloses a method and device for detecting defects in a pipe by magnetizing it and then magnetically detecting defects based on that magnetization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights