Ex Parte Mori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2017

13126120 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/126,120 04/26/2011 Hisakazu Mori Q124320 1676
23373 7590 11/14/2017
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
PHILLIPS, RUFUS L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2877
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HISAKAZU MORI, TOYOKAZU TAD A, HIDEO CHO, and
YUICHI MACHIJIMA
Appeal 2016-003303
Application 13/126,120
Technology Center 2800
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., HUNG H. BUI, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—4 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to detecting corrosion in piping “by using a
fiber optical Doppler sensor to detect acoustic emission (which is an elastic
wave and may be referred to as ‘AE’ hereinafter) from flaking or
Appeal 2016-003303
Application 13/126,120
cracking at corroded portion of the piping (hereinafter, such a corroded
portion may be referred to as corrosive tubercle).” Specification 5,11. 18—
24.
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. An inspection method for inspecting corrosion under
insulation, in piping to which an heat insulator is provided, the
method comprising:
providing a fiber optical Doppler sensor to the piping;
detecting acoustic emission generated from the corrosion
under insulation in the piping using the fiber optical Doppler
sensor, and
monitoring an accumulated number of acoustic emission
occurrences, so as to evaluate a progress level of the corrosion
in real time.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1,3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. Patent 7,711,217 B2; issued May 4,
2010), Kageyama (Kazuro Kageyama et al., Acoustic emission monitoring of
a reinforced concrete structure by applying new fiber-optic sensors, 14
Smart Mater. Struct., S52—S59 (2005)) and Huang (Miinshiou Huang et
al., Using acoustic emission in fatigue and fracture materials research,
JOM, 1—13 (Nov. 1998) (http://www.tms.org/pubs/joumals/JOM/981
l/Huang/Huang-981 l.html (last accessed Dec. 9, 2013)). Final Rejection 4—
6; Answer 4—6.
Claim 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Takahashi, Kageyama, Huang, and Conquergood (U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2006/0225514 Al; published October 12, 2006).
Final Rejection 7.
2
Appeal 2016-003303
Application 13/126,120
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 6, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
February 12, 2016), the Answer (mailed December 24, 2015) and the Final
Rejection (mailed December 18, 2014) for the respective details.
Claim 1
Appellants contend the combination of Takahashi, Kageyama, and
Huang fails to disclose ‘“detecting acoustic emission generated from
the corrosion under insulation in the piping using the fiber optical Doppler
sensor’ and ‘monitoring an accumulated number of acoustic emission
occurrences, so as to evaluate a progress level of the corrosion in real time’
as recited by claim 1.” Appeal Brief 9. Appellants argue the ultrasonic
technique disclosed by Takahashi is different from the method of claim 1
because (1) Takahashi does not suggest detecting acoustic waves and (2)
“Takahashi does not mention anything about using ‘acoustic emissions’
anywhere throughout the specification, and is clearly not directed towards a
technique of detecting acoustic emissions.” Appeal Brief 11.
Takahashi diagnoses pipe deterioration by calculating the pipe’s
thickness by deriving a relationship between a frequency and a vibration
strength and comparing the calculated thickness to threshold values stored in
a database. Takahashi, col. 3,11. 12—28. It is evident that Takahashi
discloses detection of acoustic waves because Takahashi employs inputting
oscillatory waves (ultrasonic waves) into pipes and using an optical fiber
sensor to detect the waves in the pipes. Takahashi, column 4, lines 44—50.
Takahashi diagnoses deterioration in piping by utilizing a fiber-optic
Doppler (FOD) sensor that detects kinetic strain of the piping generated by
3
Appeal 2016-003303
Application 13/126,120
oscillatory waves inputted from an oscillator into the piping. Takahashi,
column 6, lines 1—7. Further, the Examiner relied upon Kageyama and not
Takahashi to disclose detecting acoustic emission using a FOD. Final
Rejection 5 (citing Kageyama Figure 5, sections 4 and 6.5).
Appellants’ Figure 2 is reproduced below:
Figure 2 discloses an oscillation measuring device that includes a
FOD sensor 3, an optical fiber 4, a light source 5 supplying input light to the
optical fiber 4 and a detector 6 for detecting frequency modulation.
Specification 14.
Kageyama Figure 5 is reproduced below:
'll
Sensing Area
Coupler
—I I-------4-
HM
H2-
ADM u I.jgM Source
Optical Fiber
Coupler
—O-
fn±fM
f0±JD IJM1m±1d
1 Output
Detector
Figure 5 discloses a laser Doppler velocimeter (LDV) used for
vibration/acoustic measurement wherein the fiber optic sensor is “very
adequate for real-time health monitoring of structures in their total life
cycle.” Kageyama Sections 1 and 4.
Appellants argue “Kageyama does not teach or suggest detecting
acoustic emission generated from the corrosion under insulation in the
piping using the fiber optical Doppler sensor, because measuring cracks in
reinforced concrete, as disclosed by Kageyama, is not the same as measuring
4
Appeal 2016-003303
Application 13/126,120
acoustic emissions generated from corrosion under insulating in piping.”
Appeal Brief 12 (emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellants that
measuring cracks in concrete is not the same as measuring corrosion from
piping; however, both the claimed invention and Kageyama rely upon
acoustic emission to detect structural abnormalities. We find modifying
Takahashi’s Doppler sensor to detect acoustic emissions from corroded
pipes would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art in view
of Kageyama’s disclosure.1
Appellants argue that Huang fails to address Takahashi’s deficiency
because “Huang does not disclose specific details about how [acoustic
emissions] is used to detect and monitor corrosion, and does not mention
anything about monitoring an accumulated number of acoustic emission
occurrences, so as to evaluate a progress level of the corrosion in real time.”
Appeal Brief 13. The Examiner finds Huang discloses a method for
inspection corrosion in piping. Final Rejection 6. Huang discloses on page
1, “Acoustic emissions (AEs) are the stress waves produced by the sudden
internal stress redistribution of the materials caused by the changes in the
internal structure” and that “AE has been widely used in industries,
including for the detection of faults or leakage in pressure vessels, tanks, and
piping systems. AE is also used to monitor the welding and corrosion
progress.” Accordingly, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive
1 “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
5
Appeal 2016-003303
Application 13/126,120
because Huang discloses using AE to detect and monitor corrosion in
pipping in well known in the technology.
Appellants argue the combination of Takahashi, Kageyama, and
Huang is improper because “[o]ne skilled in the art would have no reason,
other than impermissible hindsight gleaned from the Applicant’s
specification, to modify the conventional ultrasonic technique disclosed by
Takahashi to arrive at the features recited by Claim 1.” Appeal Br. 14. To
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show “some
objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art would lead that individual to combine the
relevant teachings of the references.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). “The motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly
from statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art, or, in some cases the nature of the problem to be solved.” In re Kotzab,
111 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We find it abundantly clear that the
combined teachings of Takahashi, Kageyama, and Huang would have
suggested the invention of claim 1 without the use of impermissible
hindsight.
Claim 3
Appellants argue claim 3 recites “wherein a plurality of the fiber
optical Doppler sensors are provided to the piping” and that “col. 6, lines 55-
60 of Takahashi simply discloses linearly arranging a plurality of active
sensors 10 to obtain a multi-point active sensor 20” and, therefore,
“Takahashi does not teach or suggest providing a plurality of sensors on a
pipe, and thus, does not teach or suggest the above-emphasized features of
claim 3.” Appeal Brief 15. Takahashi discloses in column 6, lines 1—7:
6
Appeal 2016-003303
Application 13/126,120
The optical fiber sensor 11 is formed from a fiber-optic
Doppler (FOD) sensor (see, FIGS. 3(a) to 3(d) that detects a
kinetic strain of the pipe 60, which is generated by the oscillatory
waves inputted from the oscillator 15 into the pipe 60. With the
use of such an optical fiber sensor 11, strains and vibrations can
be detected as the Doppler effect of light based on the FOD
principle.
Takahashi Figures 3(a)-(c) are reproduced below:
As shown in FIG. 3(a), connected to one end of the optical fiber
sensor 11 is a light source 5 that supplies a light beam of a
predetermined wavelength, such as a laser beam, into the optical
fiber sensor 11. Connected to the other end of the optical fiber
sensor 11 is a photodetector 6 that detects a deviation of the
wavelength which is caused by the kinetic strain in the pipe by
the Doppler effect when the light beam has passed through the
optical fiber sensor 11.
Takahashi, column 6, lines 21—29.
The optical fiber sensor shown in Takahashi Figures 3(a)-(c) is
sensing portion of the active sensor 10 employed to detect kinetic strain in a
pipe. Takahashi, column 6, lines 12—17, 21—29. Takahashi further
discloses a plurality of active sensors 10 could be employed and we agree
7
Appeal 2016-003303
Application 13/126,120
with the Examiner that each active sensor contains a fiber optic sensor.
Takahashi, column 6, lines 55—60, Figure 4, Answer 7—8. Accordingly, we
do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive.
Claim 4
Appellants contend “Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and recites: ‘wherein
the fiber optical Doppler sensor detects acoustic emission of frequencies in a
range of 10 kHz to 150 kHz’” and, therefore, “Applicants respectfully
submit that allowance of Claim [4] is warranted at least due to its
dependence on claim 1.” Appeal Brief 15—16. We do not find Appellants’
argument persuasive because we did not find claim 1 patentable over the
cited combination.
Claim 2
Appellants contend “Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites: ‘wherein
the fiber optical Doppler sensor is provided to a flange section of the
piping’” and, therefore, “Applicants respectfully submit that allowance of
Claim 2 is warranted at least due to its dependence on claim 1.” Appeal
Brief 16. Appellants further contend “that Conquergood, which merely
discloses placing a sensor 11 on a flange 40, clearly fails to remedy any of
the deficiencies of Takahashi, Kageyama, and Huang noted above noted
above with respect to claim 1.” Appeal Brief 16. We do not find
Appellants’ arguments persuasive because we did not find the Takahashi,
Kageyama, and Huang combination deficient.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—4 are affirmed.
8
Appeal 2016-003303
Application 13/126,120
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
9