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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16-25. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 25 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16-25 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, applicant’s amendments have corrected some of the issues of indefiniteness. However, there are still instances of the use of the phrase “such as” and “for example” throughout the claims which still necessitate the indefiniteness rejection. Therefore, the rejection is maintained as outlined below.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a final, post-clearning inspection to detect residues”; “to be used after cleaning and before filling”; “a camera that, from a single, static position, can itself rotate to capture footage”; changing the view is done without a support arm or end effector; performing the functions “without human vigilance”; ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner notes that Paragraph 94 of Cole et al. explicitly teaches the following “A tank inspection step can yield data that can be used to pre-program the control unit 223 of the FTS 100 to perform operations automatically. In some embodiments, operators program an otherwise predetermined set of data into the FTS 100 to perform operations automatically. In some embodiments, the tank 50 can also be inspected after operations to check for any remaining residue or debris.” Applicant continually argues many details which are not actually reflected in the explicit claim language, and as such, these arguments are not relevant to the rejection or evaluation of patentability.
Applicant argues that Cole et al. fails to teach “wherein the camera is configured to, in the inspection position, capture footage in predefined measurement directions associated with a contamination risk area in a mobile transport tank”; and “a contamination detector, operatively connected to the camera, wherein the camera is configured to, in the inspection position, capture footage in predefined measurement directions associated with a contamination risk area in a mobile transport tank, and wherein the contamination detector is configured to determine foreign contamination, such as moisture or fluid residue, in the mobile transport tank on the basis of the captured footage, and to provide a contamination signal representative for the determined contamination”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 73, Cole et al. teaches “In some embodiments, such as is illustrated in FIG. 9C, the end effector 350 may include one or more sensors, light(s), camera(s) or combinations thereof. As an example, the end effector 350 may include one or more wireless or wired cameras 351. The camera 351 may be operatively coupled to a remote display 360, and in other embodiments may be operatively coupled to the operator station 210, which includes a human-machine interface having a display 221 and input actuators 227. The camera 351 may be controllable by the operator by way of the remote display 360 or the operator station 210 for examining tank surfaces and for other inspection purposes. One or more cameras 351 may also be used simultaneously with end effector tools 357 such as scrapers, sanders, fastener tools, cutting tools, and other tools used for tank maintenance, inspection, refurbishment, and repair. However, such end effectors are not intended as limitations, and alternate camera embodiments are possible, e.g., to include cameras configured with sensors.” In Paragraph 74, Cole et al. teaches “Feedback signals from the camera(s) 351 and the sensors 371, 372 may be used for controlling rotation and/or distance positioning of the extension boom 200 and/or the manipulator arm 300, to determine the physical characteristics of material within the tank 50 (e.g., the thickness of material on the walls of the tank 50 to be cleaned, the content/consistency of debris within the tank 50) and/or to determine the condition of the interior of the tank 50. Such control may be manual (e.g., performed by the operator manually, such as by way of manual input actuators 227 sending electrical control signals to move the manipulator arm 300 in response to viewing the feedback signals) or automatic (e.g., performed by the control unit 223 by executing one or more pre-programmed algorithms or programs in response to the feedback signals).” This clearly and unambiguously teaches a movable camera used to inspect a mobile tank, and that such operations can be performed automatically according to predefined algorithms or in response to feedback signals. In Paragraph 90, Cole et al. further teaches “In some embodiments, the FTS 100 includes a computerized control system (e.g., the control unit 223) utilizing position feedback on some or all ranges of motion of the manipulator arm 300 described above. The control unit 223 may be either on-site or remote, and/or may include one or more mobile devices such as smart phones, laptops, and tablets, and a remote server, along with internet or network connectivity. In some embodiments, the control unit 223 an include feedback for one or more of the arm joints 305, 315, 320, 330, 325, 350, electrical controls, automatic cleaning programs, and/or camera software. In some embodiments, camera software may include one or more filters including fog filters and night vision, among others.” In Paragraph 93, Cole et al. teaches “In some embodiments, the FTS 100 includes one or more additional sensors 122, illustrated schematically in FIG. 9C, which can be coupled to any part of the frac tank 50 and/or the extension boom 200 and/or the manipulator arm 300, and operatively coupled to the control station 210. The one or more sensors 122 can include contact sensors, non-contact sensors, capacitive sensors, inductive sensors, 3D imagers, cameras, thermal imagers, thermometers, pressure sensors, accelerometers, inertial measurement units (IMUs), rotary encoders, radiation detectors, LIDARs, and strain sensors, among others.” In Paragraph 94, Cole et al. teaches “In some embodiments, the FTS 100 may be used for inspection. Inspection embodiments may include one or more sensors 122 positioned, connected, and used as detailed above. In some embodiments, the tank 50 may be inspected prior to cleaning operations. A tank inspection step can yield data that can be used to pre-program the control unit 223 of the FTS 100 to perform operations automatically. In some embodiments, operators program an otherwise predetermined set of data into the FTS 100 to perform operations automatically. In some embodiments, the tank 50 can also be inspected after operations to check for any remaining residue or debris.” This clearly and unambiguously is interpreted to teach the tank inspection as claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments that their invention has a different intended use, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
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 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16-25 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 1, 18, 23, and 25 the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). All claims which depend on the above claims are indefinite for the same reason.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, the phrase "for example" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In Claim 25 particularly, half of the claim language follows the phrase “for example” which renders them indefinite, and does not lend any of the applicable limitations patentable weight. All claims which depend on the above claims are indefinite for the same reason.
All claims that depend on above claims are rejected for the same reasons as above,
Applicant is still required to correct the issues of indefiniteness raised above.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cole et al. (US 20200398320 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cole et al. teaches a cleanliness inspection system for inspection of an inner space of mobile transport tanks (Paragraphs 54-55), comprising:
a support structure (Paragraph 55); and
an inspection unit, connected to the support structure, comprising an aligner to be aligned with an opening of a mobile transport tank, a housing and a camera, wherein the camera is movable with respect to the support structure between an idle position, in which the camera is arranged within the housing and an inspection position, in which the camera extends at least partially from the housing such that the camera protrudes through the opening to capture footage of an inner space of a mobile transport tank upon alignment of the aligner with the opening (Paragraph 54-55; Paragraphs 61-62, cameras connected to the support structure; Paragraph 70, describes aligners; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraphs 90-95),
wherein the cleanliness inspection system further comprises: a contamination detector, operatively connected to the camera (Paragraph 74), wherein the camera is configured to, in the inspection position, capture footage in predefined measurement directions associated with a contamination risk area in a mobile transport tank (Paragraphs 72-75), and
wherein the contamination detector is configured to determine foreign contamination, such as moisture or fluid residue, in the mobile transport tank on the basis of the captured footage, and to provide a contamination signal representative for the determined contamination (Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 2, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the camera comprises a lens and a condensation reduction device configured to prevent and/or reduce condensation on the lens when the camera is moved into the inner space (Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 3, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the camera comprises a polarising filter configured to filter captured footage at a filter angle (Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 4, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 3, wherein the inspection unit comprises a light source configured to emit light polarised in a polarisation angle and wherein a difference between the polarisation angle and the filter angle is 5°-65° (Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 5, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the cleanliness inspection system is configured to provide a filling approval for the mobile transport tank when the contamination signal is below a predefined threshold (Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 6, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the camera is configured to, in the inspection position, capture footage in multiple predefined measurement directions that are associated with multiple contamination risk areas in the mobile transport tank, wherein, for example, the camera, from the inspection position, is configured to capture footage in measurement directions that are opposite to each other with respect to a vertical symmetry plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the tank (Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 9, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the contamination detector is configured to determine condensation on walls of a mobile transport tank on the basis of the captured footage as contamination (Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 11, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the camera is configured to capture footage in a substantially horizontal measurement direction wherein the contamination detector is configured to determine fluid accumulation or objects at a vertical tank baffle or tank end wall (Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 12, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the aligner has a conical shape adapted to mate to a contour of a standard mobile tank opening, for example, to mate to the contour in such a way that passing of light through the opening is limited when the camera is in the inspection position, for example, such that passing of light is substantially avoided (Paragraph 54-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 14, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, comprising an actuation system, operatively connected to the housing and configured to move the camera between the idle position and the inspection position, wherein the cleanliness inspection system comprises a control interface, configured to receive operator input to activate the actuation system to move the camera to the inspection position upon receiving the operator input, and configured to activate the actuation system to move the camera back to the idle position after capturing footage, wherein the control interface is arranged on the support structure and/or on the inspection unit (Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 16, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising a locking system, configured to lock of the inspection unit with respect to the opening when the camera is in the inspection position (Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 17, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising a recognition system configured to recognize a mobile tank identifier, and to associate the recognised identifier with the captured footage (Paragraph 52; Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 18, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit comprises a temperature sensor, such as a pyrometer, configured to measure a temperature signal representative for a tank wall temperature (Paragraph 93).
Regarding Claim 19, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit comprises a gas sensor configured to measure a residual gas concentration in a mobile transport tank, wherein the cleanliness inspection system is configured block provision of a filling approval for the mobile transport tank when the residual gas concentration exceeds a predetermined concentration (Paragraph 52; Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 20, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising an orientation compensation unit configured to provide an orientation signal representative for an orientation of a mobile transport tank with respect to the aligner, wherein the cleanliness inspection system is configured to adjust the at least one predefined measurement direction on the basis of the orientation signal (Paragraph 52; Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 65-70; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 21, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising a fluid level protector configured to measure a fluid level signal representative for a fluid level in the movable transport tank, wherein the fluid level protector is configured to activate movement the camera towards the idle position and/or to block movement of the camera towards the inspection position when the fluid level signal exceeds a predetermined fluid level threshold (Paragraph 8; Paragraph 52; Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 22, Cole et al. teaches the cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the support structure is constructed as a fluid loading arm (Paragraph 8; Paragraph 52; Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 23, Cole et al. teaches t loading gantry for mobile transport tanks, comprising: a walkway positioned at least partially above a mobile transport tank parking location allowing operators to reach an opening of a mobile transport tank positioned on the transport tank parking location (Paragraph 53); and a cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1 (Paragraph 52; Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Regarding Claim 24, Cole et al. teaches the use of a cleanliness inspection system according to claim 1 for determining whether a tank has been cleaned according to predetermined standards (Paragraph 52; Paragraph 61-62; Paragraphs 72-75; Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 90-95).
Method claim 25 is drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16-24 above and have similar limitations as those rejected above. Method claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights