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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, “comprising” should be “comprising:”. 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 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12 and 15-16 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.
Regarding claims 4, 6-7, 10, 12 and 15-16, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 15-16, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20110030479) in view of Matsumoto et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20120243771).
Regarding claim 1, Murai teaches an ultrasound measuring device for measuring extruded products in an extrusion line, the ultrasound measuring device comprising: multiple sensors, each emitting ultrasound waves and detecting reflected ultrasound waves (Paragraph 58), the sensors being distributed around an axis and aligned towards the axis (As shown in Fig.2, 10a-10f), - a controller device for activating the sensors and receiving measuring signals from the sensors (Paragraph 58), wherein the multiple sensors are arranged, in relation to one another, - helical or spiral around the axis, and/or - sequentially offset in relation to one another both in the circumferential direction around the axis and in the direction of the axis (As shown in Fig.2, 10a-10f).
Murai is silent about the controller device activating the sensors in such a way that always one sensor transmits and detects and the other sensors detect passively.
Matsumoto teaches the controller device activating the sensors in such a way that always one sensor transmits and detects and the other sensors detect passively (Paragraphs 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murai’s ultrasonic system to make it activate each ultrasonic element sequentially because the primary advantage of transmitting ultrasonic elements sequentially is the elimination of acoustic interference (crosstalk) between adjacent elements, which dramatically increases image clarity and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Matsumoto further teaches wherein the controller device activates the sensors in such a way that successively always another one of the sensors actively transmits and detects and the other sensors detect passively (Paragraphs 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murai’s ultrasonic system to make it activate each ultrasonic element sequentially because the primary advantage of transmitting ultrasonic elements sequentially is the elimination of acoustic interference (crosstalk) between adjacent elements, which dramatically increases image clarity and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Murai further teaches wherein the sensors form a symmetric helix, with an even offset angle in the circumferential direction and an even longitudinal spacing in the direction of the axis (As shown in Fig.2, 10a-10f).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Murai further teaches the helical arrangement of the multiple sensors (As shown in Fig.2, 10a-10f).
Matsumoto further teaches wherein the controller device activates the multiple sensors sequentially in series in such a way that always one of the sensors is active and transmits and receives, and the other sensors are passive and detect (Paragraphs 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murai’s ultrasonic system to make it activate each ultrasonic element sequentially because the primary advantage of transmitting ultrasonic elements sequentially is the elimination of acoustic interference (crosstalk) between adjacent elements, which dramatically increases image clarity and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Murai further teaches the helical arrangement of sensors (As shown in Fig.2, 10a-10f).
Matsumoto further teaches wherein the controller device is configured to activate the sensors in series in a sequence deviating from the geometric sequence in the helix (Paragraphs 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murai’s ultrasonic system to make it activate each ultrasonic element sequentially because the primary advantage of transmitting ultrasonic elements sequentially is the elimination of acoustic interference (crosstalk) between adjacent elements, which dramatically increases image clarity and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Matsumoto further teaches wherein the controller device is configured to activate at least two sensors spaced apart in the geometric sequence in a manner temporally overlapping and/or simultaneously as active sensors (Paragraphs 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murai’s ultrasonic system to make it activate each ultrasonic element sequentially because the primary advantage of transmitting ultrasonic elements sequentially is the elimination of acoustic interference (crosstalk) between adjacent elements, which dramatically increases image clarity and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Murai further teaches wherein multiple helical arrangements of sensors are interlaced with one another in such a way that the spirals or helixes are offset against one another in the axial direction (As shown in Fig.2, 10a-10f).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Murai further teaches wherein at least two helical arrangements of sensors are interlaced with one another in such a way that at least some of the sensors of the at least two helixes lie opposite one another, where the controller device carries out a determination of an interior diameter and/or exterior diameter of the extruded product from a measurement (As shown in Fig.2, 10a-10f and paragraphs 133-137 and 213-217).
Matsumoto teaches an active sensor of one of the arragement transmits and the sensor of the other arrangements lying opposite receives (Paragraphs 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murai’s ultrasonic system to make it activate each ultrasonic element sequentially because the primary advantage of transmitting ultrasonic elements sequentially is the elimination of acoustic interference (crosstalk) between adjacent elements, which dramatically increases image clarity and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto is silent about wherein opposite at least some sensors lies a sound affecting means, e.g., a reflector or an attenuating means, so as to prevent or reduce reflections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to place a sound affecting means opposite at least some sensors, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Murai further teaches wherein the controller device is configured to determine one or more of the following properties from the measuring signals: one or more layer thickness(es), an exterior diameter and/or interior diameter, faults, e.g., shrinkage cavities and/or inclusions and/or irregularities of the surfaces, e.g., sagging, material properties of the extruded product, in particular, a speed of sound in the material and/or an acoustic impedance (Paragraphs 133-137 and 213-217).
Regarding claim 11, Murai teaches a method for measuring an extruded product, where the extruded product is transported during the extrusion process along an axis and continuously measured by at least one ultrasound measuring device including multiple sensors (Paragraphs 133-137), the multiple sensors being - arranged successively in both the circumferential direction around the axis and offset in relation to one another in the direction of the axis, and/or - arranged helically or spirally around the axis (As shown in Fig.2, 10a-10f).
Murai is silent about wherein an active-passive measurement always one of the sensors transmits and receives and the other sensors detect passively.
Matsumoto teaches wherein an active-passive measurement always one of the sensors transmits and receives and the other sensors detect passively (Paragraphs 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murai’s ultrasonic system to make it activate each ultrasonic element sequentially because the primary advantage of transmitting ultrasonic elements sequentially is the elimination of acoustic interference (crosstalk) between adjacent elements, which dramatically increases image clarity and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, Matsumoto further teaches wherein one of the multiple sensors are each activated successively as the active sensor, and the measurement is carried out repeatedly in a cycle (Paragraphs 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murai’s ultrasonic system to make it activate each ultrasonic element sequentially because the primary advantage of transmitting ultrasonic elements sequentially is the elimination of acoustic interference (crosstalk) between adjacent elements, which dramatically increases image clarity and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, Matsumoto further teaches wherein at least one last sensor of the multiple sensors in the sequential arrangement merely measures passively so as to generate equal measuring signals (Paragraphs 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Murai’s ultrasonic system to make it activate each ultrasonic element sequentially because the primary advantage of transmitting ultrasonic elements sequentially is the elimination of acoustic interference (crosstalk) between adjacent elements, which dramatically increases image clarity and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, Murai further teaches wherein the extruded product is measured continuously in its full circumference (As shown in Fig.2, 10a-10f and paragraphs 133-137 and 213-217).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, Murai further teaches wherein an extruded product is measured from the group consisting of: pipes, hoses, profiles, sheets, cables, wires, in particular, made of plastics or rubber e.g., made of continuous or foamed material (As shown in Fig.2, 10a-10f and paragraphs 133-137 and 213-217).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Murai and Matsumoto teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, Murai further teaches wherein one or more of the following properties are determined from the measuring signals: one or more layer thickness(es), an exterior diameter and/or interior diameter, faults, e.g., shrinkage cavities and/or inclusions and/or irregularities of the surfaces, e.g., sagging, material properties of the extruded product, in particular, a speed of sound in the material and/or an acoustic impedance (Paragraphs 133-137 and 213-217).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIN Y ZHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights