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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 12, 14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stewart et al. (US 20230277150).
Regarding claim 1, Stewart teaches a pipe scanning system for circumferentially scanning a pipeline, the pipe scanning system comprising:
a track system 270 configured to secure to a circumference of a pipeline 220;
a scanning device 200 comprising: a drive carriage comprising: a motor; a power source configured to provide power to the motor; and one or more drive components in mechanical communication with the motor, wherein the one or more drive components, when driven by the motor, are configured to move the drive carriage about the circumference of the pipeline along the track system (para 1); and an x-ray emitter 240 configured to emit a scanning signal; a digital x-ray detector 260 configured to detect the scanning signal, wherein the x-ray emitter and the digital x-ray detector are configured to move with the drive carriage as the drive carriage moves about the circumference of the pipeline along the track system (figure 2);
a control system in communication with the emitter, the digital x-ray detector, and the motor, wherein the control system is configured to: provide a drive signal to the motor to cause the motor to drive the one or more drive components in a particular direction (para 1); provide a control signal to the emitter, the emitter control signal configured to instruct the emitter to output the scanning signal (para 1); and receive information representative of a portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal from the detector, wherein the information representative of the portion of the pipeline comprises information associated with one or more defects present in the pipeline (para 1, 42 and 51).
Regarding claim 5, Stewart teaches the emitter is configured to continuously output the scanning signal as the drive carriage moves about the circumference of the pipeline along the track system (para 1).
Regarding claim 12, Stewart teaches the scanning device comprises a memory, and wherein the control system is configured to store the information representative of the portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal at the memory (para 13).
Regarding claim 14, Stewart teaches the x-ray emitter is coupled to the drive carriage via a first arm, and wherein the digital x-ray detector is coupled to the drive carriage via a second arm (figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, Stewart teaches the information representative of the portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal comprises a full 3600 circumferential scan of a section of the pipeline (para 38).
Regarding claim 17, Stewart teaches a method for circumferentially scanning a pipeline, the method comprising: providing, by one or more processors, a drive signal to a motor of a drive carriage a scanning device, the drive signal configured to cause the motor to drive one or more drive components in a particular direction along a track secured to a circumference of a pipeline, wherein the scanning device is moved about the circumference of the pipeline along the track based on the one or more drive components of the drive carriage being driven by the motor; outputting, by a x-ray emitter, a scanning signal, wherein the x-ray emitter is coupled to the scanning device, and wherein the scanning signal is output by the emitter as the scanning device is moved about the circumference of the pipeline; and receiving, by the one or more processors, information representative of a portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal from a digital x-ray detector, wherein the information representative of a portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal comprises information associated with one or more defects present in the portion of the pipeline (figure 1, para 33-38).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart in view of Nisius et al. (US 20220099598).
Regarding claim 2, Stewart fails to teach the pipeline is an insulated pipeline comprising a pipe surrounded by insulation, and wherein the track system is secured to the circumference of the pipeline on an exterior surface of the insulation.
Nisius teaches pipeline is an insulated pipeline comprising a pipe surrounded by insulation 110, and wherein the track system is secured to the circumference of the pipeline on an exterior surface of the insulation (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the pipeline of Stewart with the insulated pipeline as taught by Nisius, since it would reduce overall operating costs of the insulated pipeline and also provide better modality of the inspection system.
Regarding claim 3, Nisius teaches the one or more defects comprise a corrosion under insulation (CUI) defect (para 19).
Regarding claim 4, Nisius fails to teach the one or more defects comprise moisture trapped within the insulation (para 19).
Regarding claim 6, Stewart teaches the track system comprises one or more lateral travel members in communication with the control system, the one or more lateral travel members configured to move the track system and the scanning device along a length of the pipeline in response to a lateral movement control signal provided by the control system.
Nisius teaches one or more lateral travel members in communication with the control system, the one or more lateral travel members configured to move the track system and the scanning device along a length of the pipeline in response to a lateral movement 105 control signal provided by the control system (figures 1a-b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the tracking system of Stewart with the drive mechanism as taught by Nisius, since it would provide better scanning positioning and improve scanning speed.
Regarding claim 7, Nisius teaches the lateral movement control signal is provided by the control system in response to completion of a scan of a first section of the pipeline, and wherein movement of the track system and the scanning device along the length of the pipeline is configured to facilitate scanning of a second section of the pipeline (figures 1a-b).
Regarding claim 8, Nisius fails to teach the first section of the pipeline at least partially overlaps with the second section of the pipeline.
Overlapping scanning is known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the scanning of Nisius with overlapping scanning, since it would provide better scanning information.
Regarding claim 9, Stewart teaches the first section of the pipeline does not overlap with the second section of the pipeline (figures 1a-b).
Regarding claim 10, Stewart fails to teach a remote computing device; wherein the scanning device comprises a communication interface communicatively coupling the scanning device to the remote computing device, and wherein the control system is configured to transmit the information representative of the portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal to the remote computing device via the communication interface.
Nisius teaches a remote computing device; wherein the scanning device comprises a communication interface communicatively coupling the scanning device to the remote computing device, and wherein the control system is configured to transmit the information representative of the portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal to the remote computing device via the communication interface (para 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the scanning system of Stewart with remote computing device, since it would provide better mobility and provide better safety.
Regarding claim 11, Nisius teaches the information representative of the portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal comprises media content (para 57).
Regarding claim 13, Stewart teaches the control system if configured to provide a first drive signal to the motor to cause the motor to drive the one or more drive components in a first direction (para 1).
However Stewarta fails to teach a second drive signal to the motor to cause the motor to drive the one or more drive components in a second direction that is opposite the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the scanning of Nisius with opposite direction scanning, since it would provide better scanning information.
Regarding claim 18, Stewart fails to teach the pipeline is an insulated pipeline comprising a pipe surrounded by insulation, and wherein the one or more defects comprise a corrosion under insulation defect, moisture present in the insulation, a scratch in a surface of the pipe of the pipeline, or a combination thereof.
Nisius teaches an insulated 110 pipeline comprising a pipe surrounded by insulation, and wherein the one or more defects comprise a corrosion under insulation defect, moisture present in the insulation, a scratch in a surface of the pipe of the pipeline, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the pipeline of Stewart with the insulated pipeline as taught by Nisius, since it would reduce overall operating costs of the insulated pipeline and also provide better modality of the inspection system.
Regarding claim 19, Stewart as modified teaches the portion of the pipeline is scanned without disturbing the insulation (figure 1, para 33-38).
Regarding claim 20, Stewart teaches the information representative of a portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal comprises image content, video content, or both.
However Stewart fails to teach the method further comprises: transmitting the media content to a remove computing device.
Nisius teaches method further comprises: transmitting the media content to a remove computing device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the scanning system of Stewart with remote computing device, since it would provide better mobility and provide better safety.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nisius et al. (US 20220099598) in view of Stewart.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Nisius teaches a pipe scanning system for circumferentially scanning a pipeline, the pipe scanning system comprising:
a scanning device 100 comprising: a drive carriage comprising: a motor; a power source configured to provide power to the motor; and one or more drive components in mechanical communication with the motor, wherein the one or more drive components, when driven by the motor, are configured to move the drive carriage about the circumference of the pipeline along the track system (para 30); and an x-ray emitter 106 configured to emit a scanning signal; a digital x-ray detector 102 configured to detect the scanning signal, wherein the x-ray emitter and the digital x-ray detector are configured to move with the drive carriage as the drive carriage moves about the circumference of the pipeline (figure 1a);
a control system in communication with the emitter, the digital x-ray detector, and the motor, wherein the control system is configured to: provide a drive signal to the motor to cause the motor to drive the one or more drive components in a particular direction; provide a control signal to the emitter, the emitter control signal configured to instruct the emitter to output the scanning signal; and receive information representative of a portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal from the detector, wherein the information representative of the portion of the pipeline comprises information associated with one or more defects present in the pipeline (para 72+).
Nisius fails to teach a track system configured to secure to a circumference of a pipeline.
Stewart teaches a track system 270 configured to secure to a circumference of a pipeline 220.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the scanning system of Stewart with the track system, since it would provide better scanner movement and provide better safety.
Regarding claim 2, Nisius teaches pipeline is an insulated pipeline comprising a pipe surrounded by insulation 110, and wherein the track system is secured to the circumference of the pipeline on an exterior surface of the insulation (figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Nisius teaches the one or more defects comprise a corrosion under insulation (CUI) defect (para 19).
Regarding claim 4, Nisius fails to teach the one or more defects comprise moisture trapped within the insulation (para 19).
Regarding claim 5, Stewart teaches the emitter is configured to continuously output the scanning signal as the drive carriage moves about the circumference of the pipeline along the track system (para 1).
Regarding claim 6, Nisius teaches one or more lateral travel members in communication with the control system, the one or more lateral travel members configured to move the track system and the scanning device along a length of the pipeline in response to a lateral movement 105 control signal provided by the control system (figures 1a-b).
Regarding claim 7, Nisius teaches the lateral movement control signal is provided by the control system in response to completion of a scan of a first section of the pipeline, and wherein movement of the track system and the scanning device along the length of the pipeline is configured to facilitate scanning of a second section of the pipeline (figures 1a-b).
Regarding claim 8, Nisius fails to teach the first section of the pipeline at least partially overlaps with the second section of the pipeline.
Overlapping scanning is known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the scanning of Nisius with overlapping scanning, since it would provide better scanning information.
Regarding claim 9, Stewart teaches the first section of the pipeline does not overlap with the second section of the pipeline (figures 1a-b).
Regarding claim 10, Nisius teaches a remote computing device; wherein the scanning device comprises a communication interface communicatively coupling the scanning device to the remote computing device, and wherein the control system is configured to transmit the information representative of the portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal to the remote computing device via the communication interface (para 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the scanning system of Stewart with remote computing device, since it would provide better mobility and provide better safety.
Regarding claim 11, Nisius teaches the information representative of the portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal comprises media content (para 57).
Regarding claim 12, Stewart teaches the scanning device comprises a memory, and wherein the control system is configured to store the information representative of the portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal at the memory (para 13).
Regarding claim 13, Nisius fails to teach a second drive signal to the motor to cause the motor to drive the one or more drive components in a second direction that is opposite the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the scanning of Nisius with opposite direction scanning, since it would provide better scanning information.
Regarding claim 14, Nisius teaches the x-ray emitter is coupled to the drive carriage via a first arm, and wherein the digital x-ray detector is coupled to the drive carriage via a second arm (figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Nisius teaches an orientation of the x-ray emitter is adjustable to control a direction of transmission of the scanning signal, and wherein an orientation of the digital x-ray detector is adjustable to control a field of view for detecting the scanning signal (para 32).
Regarding claim 16, Stewart teaches the information representative of the portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal comprises a full 3600 circumferential scan of a section of the pipeline (para 38).
Regarding claim 18, Nisius teaches an insulated 110 pipeline comprising a pipe surrounded by insulation, and wherein the one or more defects comprise a corrosion under insulation defect, moisture present in the insulation, a scratch in a surface of the pipe of the pipeline, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 19, Nisius as modified teaches the portion of the pipeline is scanned without disturbing the insulation (figure 1, para 33-38).
Regarding claim 20, Stewart teaches the information representative of a portion of the pipeline scanned by the scanning signal comprises image content, video content, or both and method further comprises: transmitting the media content to a remove computing device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights