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
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 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, 2, 11, 21, 22, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williams (US PAT 5,990,687).
With respect to claim 1, Williams discloses a magnetic probe (See [312] in figure 3A of Williams) for detecting defects in a ferromagnetic part of a cable (See Col. 1, lines 5-10 of Williams in view of Col. 2, lines 38-48 of Williams), the magnetic probe comprising: a frame having a central axis (See [206] in figure 2 of Williams) and a passage for passing the cable therethrough (See hole of [206] in which cable [208] passes therethrough in figure 2 of Williams); at least three magnetic circuits held by the frame (See Col. 10, lines 29-47 of Williams), each being spaced apart from one another (See Col. 10, lines 29-47 of Williams), each magnetic circuit comprising: a core configured to extend along the cable when the magnetic probe is in use (See Col. 10, lines 29-47 of Williams); flux-generating means for generating a magnetic flux in a section of the ferromagnetic part of the cable (See [201] in figure 2 of Williams); and an air gap located in the core to create a point of zero magnetic field surrounded by a zone of low magnetic field (See Col. 16, lines 58-64 of Williams), between the core and the central axis (See Col. 16, lines 58-64 of Williams); and at least three magnetic sensors (See Col. 10, lines 29-47 of Williams), each magnetic sensor being associated with at least one of the at least three magnetic circuits (See Col. 10, lines 29-47 of Williams) and located outside the core (See Col. 16, lines 58-64 of Williams), in the low-magnetic-field zone (See Col. 2, lines 38-48 in view of Col. 6, lines 53-67 of Williams), the at least three magnetic sensors being able to measure a low magnetic flux or a low variation in magnetic flux caused by the defects in the ferromagnetic part of the cable (See Col. 2, lines 38-48 in view of Col. 6, lines 53-67 of Williams).
With respect to claim 2, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1, comprising exactly three magnetic circuits and three associated magnetic sensors, equidistant from one another (See Col. 10, lines 29-47 of Williams).
With respect to claim 11, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1, comprising one or more control modules (See Col. 8, lines 7-17 of Williams), each comprising acquisition means (See the detector disclosed in Col. 15, lines 9-26 of Williams), processing means (See the processing disclosed in Col. 15, lines 9-26 of Williams) and calculating means for acquiring and processing signals picked up by the at least three magnetic sensors, and for performing calculations from the processed signals (See Col. 7, lines 42-50 of Williams).
With respect to claim 21, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1, wherein the at least three magnetic circuits (See Col. 10, lines 29-47 of Williams) and the at least three magnetic sensors are positioned (See Col. 10, lines 29-47 of Williams) and dimensioned to allow inspection of cable whose ferromagnetic portion has a diameter of between approximately 2 mm and approximately 50 mm (See the diameter of [206] in figure 2 of Williams).
With respect to claim 22, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1, wherein the at least three magnetic circuits (See Col. 10, lines 29-47 of Williams) and the at least three magnetic sensors are positioned (See Col. 10, lines 29-47 of Williams) and dimensioned to allow inspection of connecting sleeves of electrical conductors on high-voltage transmission lines (See Col. 2, lines 1-15 of Williams), the ferromagnetic part comprising a section in the sleeves connecting the electrical conductors (See the section of the cable [208] encompassed by [206] in figure 2 of Williams), and a transition zone between the conductors and the sleeves (See the space between the cable [208] and element [206] in figure 2 of Williams), in which the passage of the magnetic probe allows continuous measurement during relative movement between the magnetic probe and the sleeve (See the space between [206] and [208] in figure 2 of Williams which allows for relative movement along the measurement path).
With respect to claim 27, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1, wherein the measurements made by the at least three magnetic sensors have a linear relationship with a geometric parameter of the ferromagnetic part of the cable, facilitating calibration of the magnetic probe (See Col. 8 lines 18-29 of Williams).
With respect to claim 28, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1, wherein the passage comprises a fixed, permanently open gap (See the open gap shown in [206] in figure 2 of Williams).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weischedel (US 2010/0148766).
With respect to claim 4, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein: the core comprises a longitudinal portion extending along the cable, when the probe is in use, and two tabs oriented radially towards the central axis; and the flux-generating means comprise a first magnet located in a first tab of the two tabs and a second magnet located in a second tab of the two tabs. However, Weischedel does disclose wherein: the core comprises a longitudinal portion extending along the cable (See the longitudinal portion of [12] in figure 1 of Weischedel), when the probe is in use, and two tabs oriented radially towards the central axis (See the tabs [14] in figure 1 of Weischedel); and the flux-generating means comprise a first magnet located in a first tab of the two tabs and a second magnet located in a second tab of the two tabs (See paragraph [0034] of Weischedel). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Williams to include the features disclosed by Weischedel because doing so enables enhanced magnetic susceptibility and flux sensing resolution.
With respect to claim 5, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1 but fails to disclose the magnetic flux generated in the cable is below a magnetic saturation level of the cable when the magnetic probe is in use. However, Weischedel does disclose the magnetic flux generated in the cable is below a magnetic saturation level of the cable when the magnetic probe is in use (See paragraph [0049] of Weischedel). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Williams to include the features disclosed by Weischedel because doing so enables enhanced magnetic susceptibility and flux sensing resolution.
With respect to claim 6, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the air gap of each circuit creates a magnetic field leakage at the center of the core in the opposite direction to the magnetic flux generated. However, Weischedel does disclose wherein the air gap of each circuit creates a magnetic field leakage at the center of the core in the opposite direction to the magnetic flux generated (See paragraph [0014] of Weischedel). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Williams to include the features disclosed by Weischedel because doing so enhances flux sensing resolution.
With respect to claim 26, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least three magnetic sensors are of the flux gate, Hall effect or magnetoresistance type. However, Weischedel does disclose wherein the at least three magnetic sensors are of the flux gate, Hall effect or magnetoresistance type (See paragraph [0042] of Weischedel). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Williams to include the feature disclosed by Weischedel because doing so ensures high magnetic field detector sensitivity.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Goroshevskiy et al. (US PUB 2016/0231278), hereinafter Goroshevskiy.
With respect to claim 8, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein the at least three magnetic sensors are sensors capable of measuring a magnetic flux of less than 5 mT. However, Goroshevskiy does disclose wherein the at least three magnetic sensors are sensors capable of measuring a magnetic flux of less than 5 mT (See paragraph [0157] of Goroshevskiy). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Williams to include the feature disclosed by Goroshevskiy because doing so enables detection of micro defects.
With respect to claim 9, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least three magnetic sensors each have an operating range of ± 2.5 mT, and preferably an operating range minimally between ± 1 mT. However, Goroshevskiy does disclose wherein the at least three magnetic sensors each have an operating range of ± 2.5 mT, and preferably an operating range minimally between ± 1 mT (See paragraph [0157] of Goroshevskiy). The flux intensity range disclosed by Goroshevskiy doesn’t exactly encompass the ranges recited in the claim; however,
MPEP 2144.05 states that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.”.Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Williams to include the feature disclosed by Goroshevskiy because doing so enables detection of micro defects.
With respect to claim 17, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein each control module is configured to calculate magnetic surface losses (MSL) from absolute measurements made by the magnetic sensors. However, Goroshevskiy does disclose wherein each control module is configured to calculate magnetic surface losses (MSL) from absolute measurements made by the magnetic sensors (See paragraph [0024] of Goroshevskiy). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Williams to include the features disclosed by Goroshevskiy because doing so enhances failure detection accuracy and sensitivity.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Williams and Goroshevskiy, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Roller et al. (US PAT 3,796,874), hereinafter Roller.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Williams and Goroshevskiy disclose the magnetic probe according to claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein symmetrical positioning of the at least three magnetic sensors and averaging of the measurements compensate for cable displacements relative to the central axis of up to ±2 cm, limiting the error to a maximum of 2 µT. However, Roller does disclose wherein symmetrical positioning of the at least three magnetic sensors and averaging of the measurements compensate for cable displacements relative to the central axis of up to ±2 cm, limiting the error to a maximum of 2 µT (See Col. 9, lines 10-35 of Roller). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by the combination of Williams and Goroshevskiy to include the features disclosed by Roller because doing so enhances detection accuracy.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roller.
With respect to claim 12, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein a symmetrical positioning of the at least three magnetic sensors reduces or eliminates the effect produced by a displacement of the cable relative to the central axis on the measurements made by the magnetic probe, the calculation means being configured to average the measurements of the at least three magnetic sensors or perform an equivalent operation. However, Roller does disclose wherein a symmetrical positioning of the at least three magnetic sensors reduces or eliminates the effect produced by a displacement of the cable relative to the central axis on the measurements made by the magnetic probe (See Col. 9, lines 10-35 of Roller), the calculation means being configured to average the measurements of the at least three magnetic sensors or perform an equivalent operation (See Col. 9, lines 10-35 of Roller). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Williams to include the features disclosed by Roller because doing so enhances detection accuracy.
Claim(s) 24 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bango et al. (US PUB 2018/0238955), hereinafter Bango.
With respect to claim 24, Williams discloses the magnetic probe according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the frame, the at least three magnetic circuits and the at least three sensors have a total mass of less than 2 kg, making the magnetic probe portable by drone or similar means of transport. However, Bango does disclose wherein the frame, the at least three magnetic circuits and the at least three sensors have a total mass of less than 2 kg, making the magnetic probe portable by drone or similar means of transport (See paragraph [0167] of Bango). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Williams to include the features disclosed by Bango because doing so enables remote deployment of the sensing hardware without risking human safety.
With respect to claim 32, Williams discloses a system for detecting defects in a ferromagnetic part of a cable (See Col. 1, lines 5-10 of Williams in view of Col. 2, lines 38-48 of Williams), the system comprising: a magnetic probe (See [312] in figure 3A of Williams) according to claim 1; but fails to disclose a transport means for moving the magnetic probe along the cable so as to collect measurements representative of potential defects in the ferromagnetic part of the cable. However, Bango does disclose a transport means for moving the magnetic probe along the cable so as to collect measurements representative of potential defects in the ferromagnetic part of the cable (See paragraph [0167] of Bango). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Williams to include the features disclosed by Bango because doing so enables remote deployment of the sensing hardware without risking human safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 18-20 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein two adjacent magnetic circuits are spaced apart by 120°, around the central axis of the frame.
With respect to claim 18, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements comprising a linear encoder configured to be in contact with the cable to be inspected, each control module being configured to locate for broken strands (LF) from differential measurements made by the magnetic sensors or from absolute measurements read at regular intervals, the intervals being determined as a function of position readings obtained from the linear encoder.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements comprising a sensor for earth's gravitational field, each control module comprising algorithmic means for reducing or eliminating the effect of the earth's gravitational field on the magnetic flux measurements made by the at least three magnetic sensors.
With respect to claim 20, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein an opening of the magnetic probe corresponds to a transverse circular section around the central axis capable of receiving the cable between the at least three magnetic sensors of the magnetic probe, the ratio of the radius of the opening of the magnetic probe to the weight of the magnetic probe being of the order of 60 mm/kg.
With respect to claim 29, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the core and tabs each comprise a stack of mild steel laminations in a configuration that minimizes weight by optimizing shape to concentrate and uniform magnetic flux therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5814. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (flex schedule).
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights