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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a supporting roller” and subsequently refers to “the support roller”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the linear rotational sensor device”, while claim 15 provides antecedent basis only for “the linear sensor device”. The term appears to be a typographical error, and for the purposes of examination is treated as “the linear sensor device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 7 and recite “the linear encoder device”. Claim 7 depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 1. None of claims 1, 5, or 7 recites a linear encoder device, that element is introduced in claim 8. There is no antecedent basis for “the linear encoder device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cook et al. (US5418456) “Cook”.
Regarding claim 1, Cook discloses a system (Fig. 1) for measuring tube movement through a tube altering machine (Column 1; “pilger forming apparatus”), comprising: a first sensor device (Fig. 1; 66) associated with a tube (Fig. 1; 20) moving through the tube altering machine that detects a rotational movement (“rotational motion sensor”) of the tube caused by the tube altering machine; and a second sensor (Fig. 1; 64) device associated with the tube moving through the tube altering machine that detects a linear movement (“axial motion sensor”) of the tube caused by the tube altering machine.
Regarding claim 2, Cook discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first sensor device (Fig. 1; 66) detects rotational movement (“rotational motion sensor”) of the tube (Fig. 1; 20) and the second sensor device (Fig. 1; 64) detects linear movement (“axial motion sensor”) of the tube (Fig. 1; 20) over a predetermined period of time comprising between one second and one minute (Column 6; lines 45-63).
Regarding claim 3, Cook discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second sensor devices comprise electro-mechanical devices (Column 6; lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 4, Cook discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second sensor devices are communicatively coupled to an electronic device (Fig. 7; 90) that determines if the detected rotational and/or linear movement of the tube through the tube altering machine differs from an expected rotational and/or linear movement (Column 3; lines 7-10) of the tube over a predetermined period of time (Fig. 7; “TIME” and Column 6; lines 45-63).
Regarding claim 5, Cook discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first sensor device (Fig. 1; 66) comprises a driver roller (Fig. 2; 74) engageable with a surface (Fig. 2; surface of 20) of the tube and a first encoder (Column 6; lines 11-13) associated with the driver roller (Fig. 2; 74) that detects rotation of the driver roller caused by rotation of the tube (Fig. 1; 20).
Regarding claim 6, Cook discloses the system of claim 5, including a supporting roller (Fig. 6; “opposed idler wheel”) engageable with the surface of the tube in spaced relation to the driver roller (Fig. 2; 74) for supporting the tube between the support roller (Fig. 6; “opposed idler wheel”) and the driver roller (Fig. 2; 74).
Regarding claim 7, Cook discloses the system of claim 5, including a clamping device (Column 6; 7-9) that selectively brings the driver roller (Fig. 2; 74) into engagement with the surface of the tube (Fig. 1; 20).
Regarding claim 8, Cook discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second sensor device (Fig. 1; 64) comprises a linear encoder device (Fig. 6; 72) associated with the tube so as to detect a linear distance (Column 4; lines 3-7) the tube travels over a predetermined period of time (Fig. 7; “TIME”).
Regarding claim 10, Cook discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the linear encoder device (Fig. 6; 72) is operably coupled to a vertical roll assembly (Figs. 5 and 6; 82), including a linear roller (Fig. 6; wheel of 72), that detects linear movement (“axial motion sensor”) of the tube (Fig. 5; 20).
Regarding claim 13, Cook discloses a method for measuring tube movement (Column 1; lines 8-9) through a tube altering machine (Column 1; “pilger forming apparatus”), comprising the steps of: detecting a rotational movement (Fig. 7; 66) of the tube (Fig. 1; 20) caused by the tube altering machine as the tube passes therethrough over a predetermined period of time (Fig. 7; 102); detecting a linear movement (Fig. 7; 64) of the tube caused by the tube altering machine as the tube passes therethrough over the predetermined period of time (Fig. 7; 102); and determining if adjustments (Column 4; lines 7-14) should be made to the tube altering machine by comparing the detected rotational movement and linear movement of the tube over the predetermined period of time to an anticipated rotational movement and linear movement (Column 4; “nominal standards”) of the tube over the predetermined period of time.
Regarding claim 14, Cook discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the predetermined period of time (Fig. 7; 120) comprises between one second and one minute (Column 6; lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 15, Cook discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the detecting rotational movement step (Fig. 7; 66) comprises the step of associating a rotational sensor device (Fig. 1; 66) with the tube to detect rotational movement (“rotational displacement”) of the tube, and wherein the detecting linear movement step (Fig. 7; 64) comprises the step of associating a linear sensor device (Fig. 1; 64) to measure the linear movement (“axial displacement”) of the tube.
Regarding claim 16, Cook discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the rotational sensor device (Fig. 1; 66) and the linear rotational sensor device (Fig. 1; 64) each comprise an electro-mechanical device (Fig. 5; 72, 74, and RVDT).
Regarding claim 17, Cook discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the rotational sensor device (Fig. 1; 66) comprises a driver roller (Fig. 5; 74) positionable onto a surface of the tube (Fig. 1; 20) and an encoder (Column 4; “shaft angle encoder”) operably connected to the driver roller (Fig. 5; 74).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook, in view of Kautz (US5236144) “Kautz”.
Regarding claim 9, Cook discloses the system of claim 7.
Cook does not disclose a retractable cable that extends.
Kautz teaches a retractable cable (98) that extends.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kautz’s retractable cable in Cook’s system for measuring tube movement, providing a more accurate linear distance measurement.
Regarding claim 11, Cook discloses the system of claim 7.
Cook does not disclose a linear encoder housing in fixed position and includes a retractable cable extendible from the linear encoder housing as a linear roller rotates in response to a linear movement.
Kautz teaches a linear encoder housing (Fig. 2; 24) in fixed position and includes a retractable cable (98) extendible from the linear encoder housing (Fig. 2; 24) as a linear roller (Figs. 5A and 5B; 16) rotates in response to a linear movement (Column 4; lines 61-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kautz’s linear encoder housing and retractable cable in Cook’s system for measuring tube movement, providing a more accurate linear distance measurement of Cook’s tube.
Regarding claim 12, Cook and Kautz disclose the system of claim 11, wherein the linear roller (Kautz; Figs. 5A and 5B; 16) is spaced apart from the tube (Cook; Fig. 1; 20) and is attached to an arm (Kautz; Fig. 1; 18 and Column 1; lines 22-30) that is coupled to the tube (Cook; Fig. 1; 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to couple Kautz’s linear roller and arm to Cook’s tube, allowing more precise measurement of the linear travel of Cook’s tube.
Regarding claim 18, Cook discloses the method of claim 15.
Cook does not disclose a retractable cable which extends from a fixed linear encoder.
Kautz teaches a retractable cable (98) which extends from a fixed linear encoder (Fig. 1; 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kautz’s retractable cable and fixed linear encoder in Cook’s method, to provide a more precise measurement of the linear displacement of Cook’s tube.
Regarding claim 19, Cook discloses the method of claim 18.
Cook does not disclose a linear roller coupled to the retractable cable.
Kautz teaches a linear roller (Figs. 5A and 5B; 16) coupled to the retractable cable (98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kautz’s linear roller and retractable cable, to better measure linear displacement during Cook’s method for measuring tube movement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US4611170 discloses a method and apparatus for inspection of a ferromagnetic element, or piping.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6528. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
