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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “5” has been used to designate both the body motor (FIG. 1) and components of the crack sensor assembly (FIG. 5).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 57, S1, S2, Fe1, and Fe2.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 7, 8, 10, 55a, 55b, 55c, and 57b.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification in compliance with CFR 1.121(b), are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “inspection devise” should read “inspection device”; in claim 3, “according of to claim 1” should read “according to claim 1,” and “second seal discs” should read “second seal disc”. 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 1 – 4 and 7 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 claim 1, the limitation “at least one array of four ultrasonic sensors arranged to measure a wall thickness of a tubular good” is unclear. The phrase “at least one of” followed by a list joined by “and” ordinarily requires at least one of each listed element, whereas the specification describes the wall thickness array and the crack detection array as separate aspects (see para. [0016] – [0017]). Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim requires both arrays or only one of them. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as requiring both of the recited arrays.
Further regarding claim 1, the term “array of four ultrasonic sensors” is unclear, as the specification does not define which sensor constitute an array. The disclosed embodiment includes sixteen wall thickness sensors arranged two per extension on eight extensions, and five crack sensors at +45° and five crack sensors at -45° on rows of two rotating arms (see para. [0056], [0059]), none of which are grouped in fours. It is also unclear whether the arrays of four are the same as, part of, or in addition to the previously recited “at least one array of ultrasonic sensors.” For examination purposes, any four ultrasonic sensors arranged to perform the recited function are interpreted as an array of four ultrasonic sensors.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the multiple arms and the shoe, the top part, and the lower part. Claim 4 recites multiple arms mounted on the second body part but does not recite how the arms are connected to or cooperate with the shoe, the top part, or the lower part, such that the structural role of the arms in the claimed device is unclear.
Further regarding claim 4, the limitation “the ultrasonic sensors being housed in a corresponding shoe” is unclear, as it refers to all of the ultrasonic sensors, whereas the specification discloses only crack sensors 51 housed in shoes 55 (see para. [0058]), with wall thickness sensors 41 mounted on extensions 42 (see para. [0056]). It is therefore unclear whether all or only some of the ultrasonic sensors are housed in a shoe, and it is unclear to what each shoe “corresponds.” For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as at least some of the ultrasonic sensors being housed in a shoe.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear whether the “two arrays of four angled ultrasonic sensors arranged to detect circumferential cracks” include the “at least one array of four ultrasonic sensors arranged to detect cracks” of claim 1 or are in addition to it. For examination purposes, the arrays of claim 7 are interpreted as including the crack detection array of claim 1.
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 1 – 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 3,810,384 – hereafter “Evans”) in view of Imbert et al. (US 2011/0257903 A1 – hereafter “Imbert”).
As per claim 1, Evans teaches:
An inspection device for a tubular good (figs. 8 – 9, see col. 2, ll. 21 – 33) comprising:
a first body part (housing 100, see col. 3, ll. 56 – 58), main axis Xx corresponding to the direction of displacement of the inspection device along the length of a tubular good (see col. 6, ll. 32 – 35);
a second body part rotatably mounted on the first body part (housing 120 on shaft 108, see col. 4, ll. 1 – 3), the second body part includes at least one array of ultrasonic sensors (transducers 122, see col. 4. ll. 3 – 5);
a body motor arranged to rotate the second body part around axis Xx relatively to the first body part (motor 110, see col. 3, ll. 60 – 64);
and scanning electronics, said scanning electronics being connected to the ultrasonic sensors (see col. 4, ll. 15 – 27),
wherein said scanning electronics comprises a circuitry arranged to drive emission and reception of ultrasonic signals by ultrasonic sensors of said array of ultrasonic sensors (see col. 4, ll. 8 – 16, 58 – 64).
Evans further teaches that the rotation speed of the transducer assembly is selected according to the number and dimension of the transducers and the rate of travel to effect 100 percent circumferential coverage (see col. 4, ll. 8 – 16, 58 – 64).
However, Evans does not teach the scanning electronics mounted on the second body part and generating an A-scan, the scanning electronics and ultrasonic sensors corotating at a speed of at least 0.5 rotation per second, or the arrays of four ultrasonic sensors for wall thickness measurement and crack detection.
Imbert teaches scanning electronics mounted on said second body part (DAUs 102 on rotating plate 108, see para. [0062]), said scanning electronics being arranged to generate an A-scan (see para. [0067]), wherein scanning electronics and ultrasonic sensors are mounted on the second body part such that scanning electronics and ultrasonic sensors are arranged to be rotated at a same rotation speed when second body part is rotated (see paras. [0062] – [0063]), and wherein the inspection device includes ultrasonic sensors arranged to measure a wall thickness of a tubular good and ultrasonic sensors arranged to detect cracks in a surface of a tubular good (see pars. [0126], [0145]). Imbert further teaches that throughout and circumferential scanning resolution are functions of the rotation speed and number of probes (see para. [0116] – [0121], [0129]), and that the rotation speed is calculated from known system parameters using predetermined equations (see para. [0083] – [0084]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evan’s device in view of Imbert to mount the scanning electronics on the second body part, generate an A-scan, rotate the scanning electronics and ultrasonic sensors at a same rotation speed of at least 0.5 rotation per second, and include at least one array of four ultrasonic sensors arranged to measure a wall thickness of a tubular good and at least one array of four ultrasonic sensors arranged to detect cracks in a surface of a tubular good, as taught by Imbert, wherein Evans and Imbert each recognize the rotation speed and number of sensors as result effective variables governing circumferential coverage, scanning resolution, and throughput (see Evans, col. 4, ll. 8 – 16; Imbert, para. [0116] – [0121]), and Imbert calculates the rotation speed using predetermined equations (see Imbert, para. [0083] – [0084]), such that arriving at the claimed values would have been routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)-(B)), in order to avoid the signal noise of transmitting analog transducer signals through a slip ring connection and to increase throughput without sacrificing scanning resolution (see Imbert, para. [0027], [0129]).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The inspection device for a tubular good according to claim 1, wherein rotation speed is at most 6 rotations per second.” Evans fails to explicitly teach the rotation speed being at most 6 rotations per second.
Imbert teaches that for a given axial speed, a higher rotation speed yields a lesser circumferential scanning resolution unless the pulse repetition frequency is increased (see para. [0120]), and that the rotation speed is calculated from known system parameters using predetermined equations (see paras. [0083] – [0084]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans in view of Imbert to set the rotation speed is a result effective variable and arriving at the claimed value would have been routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain circumferential scanning resolution for a given pulse repetition frequency.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The inspection device for a tubular good according of to claim 1, comprising in succession axially, a first seal disc, the second body part, a second seal disc, wherein first seal disc and second seal disc are arranged to retain an acoustic coupling liquid in the space defined by first seal disc and second seal discs when the inspection device is inside a tubular good.”
Evan further teaches comprising in succession axially, a first seal disc (cup 34), the second body part (transducer assembly at position 46, see col. 2, ll. 46 – 53), a second seal disc (cup 36), wherein first seal disc and second seal disc are arranged to retain an acoustic coupling liquid in the space defined by first seal disc and second seal discs when the inspection device is inside a tubular good (see col. 2, ll. 29 – 38).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “The inspection device for a tubular good according to claim 1 further comprising two arrays of six angled ultrasonic sensors arranged to detect longitudinal cracks in a surface of a tubular good, and two arrays of four angled ultrasonic sensors arranged to detect circumferential cracks in a surface of said tubular good.”
Evans teaches angled ultrasonic transducers arranged to detect longitudinal and transverse flaws, but fails to teach the angled sensors arranged as two arrays of six and two arrays of six and two arrays of four.
Imbert teaches a rotating phased array inspection system, wherein angled probes are arranged to detect longitudinal and transverse defects (see para. [0079]), and a plurality of probes sharing the same inspection angle increases axial throughput in proportion to the number of probes (see para. [0127], [0129]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans in view of Imbert to include two arrays of six angled ultrasonic sensors arranged to detect longitudinal cracks and two arrays of four angled ultrasonic sensors arranged to detect circumferential cracks, since the number of sensors is a result effective variable and arriving at the claimed numbers would have been routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase inspection throughput without sacrificing circumferential scanning resolution.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Imbert, and further in view of Hetherington et al. (US 3,837,202 – hereafter “Hetherington”).
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “The inspection device for a tubular good according to claim 1, further comprising multiple arms mounted on the second body part, the ultrasonic sensors being housed in a corresponding shoe, each shoe being mounted on a top part being rotatably mounted on a lower part, said lower part being pivotably mounted on the second body part.”
Evans in view of Imbert fails to teach the arms and the shoe, top part, and lower part mounting arrangement.
Hetherington teaches a rotary ultrasonic testing apparatus, wherein multiple arms are mounted on the second body part (bracket arms 3 on rotatable support 4, see col. 2, ll. 22 – 26), the ultrasonic sensors being housed in a corresponding shoe (probes 31 carried by pad member 18 with base shoe 13, see col. 2, ll. 40 – 43; col. 3, ll. 5 – 6), each shoe being mounted on a top part (yoke 7, see col. 2, ll. 30 – 33) being rotatably mounted on a lower part (arms 5, see col. 2, ll. 28 – 30), said lower part being pivotably mounted on the second body part (pivot pin 2, col. 2, ll. 22 – 28).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans in view of Imbert in further view of Hetherington to include multiple arms mounted on the second body part with the ultrasonic sensors housed in a shoe mounted on a top part rotatably mounted on a lower part pivotably mounted on the second body part, as taught by Hetherington, in order to provide the shoe a large freedom of angular movements to maintain engagement with the tube surface across eccentric tubes, surface faults, and varying diameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
