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 § 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 6 – 8, 14 – 16 and 20 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 claims 6, 14, and 20 it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “interface integrity”?
Claim 16, should be dependent on claim 15.
Claims 7 - 8 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 6.
Claims 15 - 16 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 1 – 5, the prior art fails to show a plurality of test probes coupled to the test fixture and adapted to contact a plurality of sub-parts coupled to the part if the plurality of sub-parts are present on the part, thereby creating a closed electrical loop associated with each of the plurality of sub-parts indicating the presence of each of the plurality of sub-parts on the part, and protrude into a space intended for a sub-part coupled to the part if the sub-part is absent from the part, thereby not creating a closed electrical loop associated with the sub-part indicating the absence of the sub-part from the part. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claims 9 – 13, the prior art fails to show contacting a plurality of sub-parts coupled to the part with a plurality of test probes coupled to the test fixture if the plurality of sub-parts are present on the part, thereby creating a closed electrical loop associated with each of the plurality of sub-parts indicating the presence of each of the plurality of sub-parts on the part, wherein a test probe of the plurality of test probes coupled to the test fixture protrudes into a space intended for a sub- part coupled to the part if the sub-part is absent from the part, thereby not creating a closed electrical loop associated with the sub-part indicating the absence of the sub-part from the part. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claims 17 – 19, the prior art fails to show correlating a plurality of signals received from a plurality of test probes coupled to a test fixture to presence/absence of a plurality of sub-parts on/from a part, wherein the plurality of test probes are adapted to contact the plurality of sub-parts coupled to the part if the plurality of sub-parts are present on the part, thereby creating a closed electrical loop associated with each of the plurality of sub-parts indicating the presence of each of the plurality of sub-parts on the part, and protrude into a space intended for a sub-part coupled to the part if the sub-part is absent from the part, thereby not creating a closed electrical loop associated with the sub-part indicating the absence of the sub-part from the part. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Shumka et al. (11,340,193) is cited for its disclosure of a form-fitting eddy current array sensor and method of use thereof.
Uselton et al. (11,307,173) is cited for its disclosure of an apparatus, systems, and methods for inspection of tubular goods.
Viviers (2021/0356066) is cited for its disclosure of pipeline inspecting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REENA AURORA whose telephone number is (571)272-2263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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 5712705628. 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.
/REENA AURORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights