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 § 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, 7, 9, 12, 17 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (US2016261829A1) in view of Farr (US20090292168A1).
Regarding claim 1, Olsson teaches a method of imaging an internal surface of a conduit (Fig. 8B), the method comprising:
deploying an inspection assembly within an internal volume of a conduit (Fig. 1 depicts the inspection assembly 110 being deployed into a conduit), the inspection assembly (210, Fig. 2) comprising a camera (220, Fig. 2) and a lighting array including a plurality of light emitters (230, Fig. 2);
illuminating a region of interest on said internal surface using the lighting array ('FOV' - Fig. 2); and
capturing image data of the region of interest using the camera (paragraph [0006]), the image data comprising spatial data (1140, Fig. 11 discloses finding spatial data for an image) and intensity data (inherent of image sensors, such as the one shown Fig. 2C as 260).
Olsson fails to teach the image data is captures at a plurality of different narrowband wavelength ranges of light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection of cavities, Farr discloses a method of using an inspection assembly which utilizes a plurality of different wavelengths (paragraph [0013] discloses five wavelength ranges used).
Farr discloses that by using a lighting array with multiple wavelengths, a higher image quality is captured (paragraph [0076]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Olsson with the multiple wavelength ranges taught in Farr in order to achieve a higher image quality.
Regarding claim 7, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches controlling the intensity of the light emitters to synchronise light emission at each of the different narrowband wavelength ranges of light in succession with image capture (Farr: paragraph [0068]).
Farr discloses that the synchronization of the light sources with the camera allow one image sensor to capture multiple wavelengths at once, therefore reducing the size of the camera module which reduces the size of the device (paragraph [0014]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr with the light emission synchronized with image capture taught in Farr in order to reduce the size of the device by only requiring one image sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches storing in memory or transmitting to a remote location the image data captured at a plurality of locations along the conduit (Olsson: paragraph [0016] discloses the image data may be stored in memory or transmitted to another computing device).
Regarding claim 12, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches capturing location data as the inspection assembly moves through the internal volume of the conduit (Olsson: Fig. 11; paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 17, Olsson teaches a conduit inspection assembly for capturing images of an interior surface of said conduit, the conduit inspection assembly comprising:
an elongate tubular housing (see Fig. 1, or 250, Fig. 2A);
a lighting array comprising a plurality of light emitters arranged to illuminate said interior surface (plurality of light sources - 230, Fig. 2B); and
a camera having an image sensor (220, Fig. 2B).
Olsson fails to teach the camera is configured to detect a plurality of different narrowband wavelength ranges of light.
However, Farr discloses an inspection assembly which utilizes a plurality of different wavelengths (paragraph [0013] discloses five wavelength ranges used). The examiner is interpreting this to mean the sensor of Farr is also capable of detecting a plurality of different wavelengths.
Farr discloses that by using a lighting array with multiple wavelengths, a higher image quality is captured (paragraph [0076]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the assembly of Olsson with the multiple wavelength ranges taught in Farr in order to achieve a higher image quality.
Regarding claim 28, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 17, and further teaches the conduit inspection assembly of claim 17 to image an internal surface of a pipeline conveying a fluid to determine the presence of corrosion or scale (Olsson: paragraph [0150] discloses using the images taken by the inspection assembly to check for defects. Corrosion or scale are both defects).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (US2016261829A1) in view of Farr (US20090292168A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKaigue (US20120257042A1).
Regarding claim 2, Olsson as modified by Far teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the lighting array comprises a plurality of subarrays and each subarray emits light at a different predetermined narrowband wavelength range.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conduit inspection, McKaigue discloses a method of conduit inspection where an inspection device has a plurality of subarrays, each with a different wavelength range of light (paragraph [0017] discloses three sets of lights are used, one corresponding to red light, one to blue light, and one to white light).
McKaigue discloses different wavelength ranges have different advantages, such as good image quality or tracing contours of the conduit (paragraph [0116]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr with the subarrays of different colors taught in McKaigue in order to benefit from the advantages of different wavelength ranges such as better image quality of contour tracing.
Regarding claim 3, Olsson as modified by Farr and McKaigue teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, and further teaches the lighting array emits light of at least three different discrete narrowband wavelength ranges (Farr: paragraph [0013] discloses five ranges).
As discussed above in claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr and McKaigue with the multiple wavelength ranges taught in Farr in order to achieve a higher image quality.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (US2016261829A1) in view of Farr (US20090292168A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yacoubian (US20220214286A1).
Regarding claim 4, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the light emitters emit wideband light and the method comprises filtering the light into a plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength ranges prior to image capture.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection, Yacoubian discloses a method to achieve multiple wavelength ranges by placing a narrowband wavelength filter in front of a wideband light source (paragraph [0040]).
Yacoubian discloses spectral filter aid in optimizing detection for the surface type (paragraph [0076]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr with the narrowband wavelength filter taught in Yacoubian in order to optimize detection depending on the surface type of the conduit.
Regarding claim 5, Olsson as modified by Farr and Yacoubian teaches the invention as explained above in claim 4, and further teaches the emitted light is filtered before illuminating the internal surface (Yacoubian: paragraph [0040]).
As discussed above in claim 4, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr with the narrowband wavelength filter taught in Yacoubian in order to optimize detection depending on the surface type of the conduit.
Claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (US2016261829A1) in view of Farr (US20090292168A1) as applied to claims 1, 12 and 17 above, and further in view of De Kerf ("Identification of Corrosion Minerals Using Shortwave Infrared Hyperspectral Imaging" Sensors 22, no. 1: 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22010407).
Regarding claim 10, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teach a plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength ranges of light (Farr: paragraph [0013]).
As discussed above in claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr with the multiple wavelength ranges taught in Farr in order to achieve a higher image quality.
Olsson as modified by Farr fails to teach comparing the intensity data in the image data with a known spectral response for a particular abnormality, defect or detectable fluid.
However, in the same field of endeavor of abnormality or defect detection, De Kerf disclose a method of comparing a known intensity with a measured intensity to detect a defect (Fig. 6 and Sec. 3.3 disclose comparing a reference intensity ratio to a measured intensity ratio to determine corrosion).
The method of comparing measured data to known data to determine a variable is well-known and widely used. A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would be able to apply the widely known comparison method taught in De Kerf to the data corresponding to different wavelengths of light of Olsson as modified by Farr and have a reasonable expectation of success in determining an abnormality from the comparison. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of measuring intensity data for multiple wavelengths taught in Olsson as modified by Farr with the comparison of the measured data to a known value to determine an abnormality or defect as taught in De Kerf as it is a well-known and widely used method.
Regarding claim 11, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 12, but fails to teach the step of calculating a ratio of intensities for the plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength ranges of light in the image data and comparing said calculated ratio with known ratios from a spectral response for a particular abnormality, defect or detectable fluid.
However, De Kerf discloses a method of comparing a known intensity with a measured intensity to detect a defect (Fig. 6 and Sec. 3.3 disclose comparing a reference intensity ratio to a measured intensity ratio to determine corrosion).
As explained above in claim 10, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of measuring intensity data for multiple wavelengths taught in Olsson as modified by Farr with the comparison of the measured data to a known value to determine an abnormality or defect as taught in De Kerf as it is a well-known and widely used method.
Regarding claim 13, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 12, and further teaches a plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength ranges of light in the image data (Farr: paragraph [0013]), and constructing a corrosion or scale map of the internal surface of the conduit by associating image data with location data (Olsson: paragraph [0018] discloses creating a map of the conduit; paragraph [0150] discloses using the images taken by the inspection assembly to check for defects. Corrosion or scale are both defects).
As discussed above in claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr with the multiple wavelength ranges taught in Farr in order to achieve a higher image quality.
Olsson as modified by Farr fails to teach comparing, for each captured image, the intensity data with a number of known spectral responses for a plurality of different corrosion or scale types;
determining, for each captured image, if corrosion or scale is present.
However, De Kerf discloses a method of comparing a known intensity with a measured intensity to determine if corrosion is present (Fig. 6 and Sec. 3.3 disclose comparing a reference intensity ratio to a measured intensity ratio to determine corrosion) for a plurality of different corrosion types (Fig. 6).
As discussed above in claim 10, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of measuring intensity data for multiple wavelengths taught in Olsson as modified by Farr with the comparison of the measured data to a known value to determine an abnormality or defect as taught in De Kerf as it is a well-known and widely used method.
Regarding claim 14, Olsson as modified by Farr and De Kerf teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches comprising the step of identifying, for each detected region of corrosion or scale, the type of corrosion or scale present (De Kerf: Fig. 5 depicts the results of different corrosion types).
De Kerf discloses that over time, corrosion composition may change, therefore the corrosion type may be used to monitor changes over time (page 7, paragraph 2). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr and De Kerf with the corrosion type identification taught in De Kerf in order to monitor for changes over time.
Regarding claim 24, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the camera is a hyperspectral camera.
However, De Kerf teaches the use of a hyperspectral camera (page 4, paragraph 1).
De Kerf discloses hyperspectral cameras have an advantage of a fast acquisition time and being portable (page 2, paragraph 2). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr with the hyperspectral camera taught in De Kerf in order to enable a fast acquisition time and portability.
Regarding claim 30, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 17, but fails to teach the camera is a hyperspectral camera.
However, De Kerf teaches the use of a hyperspectral camera (page 4, paragraph 1).
De Kerf discloses hyperspectral cameras have an advantage of a fast acquisition time and being portable (page 2, paragraph 2). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the assembly of Olsson as modified by Farr with the hyperspectral camera taught in De Kerf in order to enable a fast acquisition time and portability.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (US2016261829A1) in view of Farr (US20090292168A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of McKaigue (US20120257042A1) and Thursby (US20180373019A1).
Regarding claim 18, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 17, and further teaches the camera is a sideview camera (Olsson: Fig. 3D depicts an imaging module 394 on the side) and the lighting array comprises a plurality of annular emitters extending circumferentially around the inspection assembly (Olsson: 394, Fig. 3D. The examiner is interpreting a circumferential arrangement to mean the light emitters are around the circumference of the body, as shown in Fig. 3D), or in which the camera is a forward- facing down view camera (Olsson: 220, Fig. 2B) and the lighting array comprises a plurality of concentric annular emitters (Olsson: 230, Fig. 2B).
Olsson as modified by Farr fails to teach the lighting arrays have subarrays, or the subarrays disposed rearwardly of a lens of the camera, each of the light emitters being generally forward-facing.
However, McKaigue discloses the use of light arrays made of subarrays (paragraph [0017] and [0018] disclose multiple sets of light emitters (an array); paragraph [0018] further discloses each set is made up of a subset of lights (a subarray)).
The subsets of lights taught in McKaigue enable multiple wavelengths of light to be used, which enables better image quality and contour tracing (paragraph [0116]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the assembly of Olsson as modified by Farr with the subarrays of lights taught in McKaigue in order to ultimately have better image quality and contour tracing.
Olsson as modified by Farr and McKaigue fails to teach the subarrays disposed rearwardly of a lens of the camera, each of the light emitters being generally forward-facing.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conduit inspection, Thursby discloses an inspection device with a forward facing camera and light sources behind the camera lens and angled facing forward (paragraphs [0003] and [0004]).
Thursby discloses this distribution of a plurality of light sources provide even illumination around the complete periphery of the field of view (paragraph [0017]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the assembly of Olsson as modified by Farr and McKaigue with the positioning of the lights behind a camera lens taught in Thursby in order to provide even illumination in the field of view.
Regarding claim 20, Olsson as modified by Farr, McKaigue and Thursby teaches the invention as explained above in claim 18, and further teaches the light emitters in each of the subarrays emit light in a different discrete narrowband wavelength range (McKaigue: paragraph [0017] discloses each subarray is a different wavelength range).
McKaigue discloses different wavelength ranges have different advantages, such as good image quality or tracing contours of the conduit (paragraph [0116]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the assembly of Olsson as modified by Farr and McKaigue with the subarrays of different colors taught in McKaigue in order to benefit from the advantages of different wavelengths such as better image quality of contour tracing.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (US2016261829A1) in view of Farr (US20090292168A1) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Ritec (DE202021003909U1) and De Kerf ("Identification of Corrosion Minerals Using Shortwave Infrared Hyperspectral Imaging" Sensors 22, no. 1: 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22010407).
Regarding claim 25, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach which each of the plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength ranges has a full width half maximum value of no more than 30 nm, or in which the plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength ranges comprises two or more from the set of wavelength ranges comprising 500-520 nm, 660-680 nm, 760-770 nm, 830- 850 nm and 900-1700 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conduit inspection, Ritec discloses the use of a light source between 400 and 700 nm (paragraph [0028]).
Ritec discloses this wavelength is ideal for close range measurements (paragraph [0032]), such as imaging the sides of the conduit. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr with the wavelength range taught in Ritec in order to perform close range measurements.
Olsson as modified by Farr and Ritec fails to teach a second set of wavelengths ranges comprising 500-520 nm, 660-680 nm, 760-770 nm, 830- 850 nm and 900-1700 nm.
However, De Kerf teaches the use of light in the wavelength of 900-1700 nm (abstract).
De Kerf teaches this wavelength range is best suited to distinguish different corrosion types (page 1, paragraph 1). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Olsson as modified by Farr and Ritec with the wavelength range taught in De Kerf in order to monitor the conduit for corrosion.
Regarding claim 26, Olsson as modified by Farr teaches the invention as explained above in claim 17, but fails to teach which each of the plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength ranges has a full width half maximum value of no more than 30 nm, or in which the plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength ranges comprises two or more from the set of wavelength ranges comprising 500-520 nm, 660-680 nm, 760-770 nm, 830- 850 nm and 900-1700 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conduit inspection, Ritec discloses the use of a light source between 400 and 700 nm (paragraph [0028]).
Ritec discloses this wavelength is ideal for close range measurements (paragraph [0032]), such as imaging the sides of the conduit. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the assembly of Olsson as modified by Farr with the wavelength range taught in Ritec in order to perform close range measurements.
Olsson as modified by Farr and Ritec fails to teach a second set of wavelengths ranges comprising 500-520 nm, 660-680 nm, 760-770 nm, 830- 850 nm and 900-1700 nm.
However, De Kerf teaches the use of light in the wavelength of 900-1700 nm (abstract).
De Kerf teaches this wavelength range is best suited to distinguish different corrosion types (page 1, paragraph 1). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the assembly of Olsson as modified by Farr and Ritec with the wavelength range taught in De Kerf in order to monitor the conduit for corrosion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 ET.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights