DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on October 31, 2025. Claims 7 and 20 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0238136 A1 Ten Grotenhuis et al. [herein “Ten Grotenhuis”] in view of US 20170016862 A1 Holmes et al. [herein “Holmes”], and further in view of US 2010/0042243 A1 Burgos Gallego et al. [herein “Burgos Gallego”].
This action is made Non-Final.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 31, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 31, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection(s) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 3, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 5, which recites “a convex shape” in Ln. 11-12, is improper because there is a previous recitation of “a convex shape” in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, “a convex shape” will be interpreted as “the convex shape” to properly refer back to the previous recitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 22 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; Claims 15-19 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of a machine; and Claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and falls within the statutory category of an article of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 15, and 21: The claims recite the following limitations of :
“identifying a scan surface that represents an inspection area of a fuselage structure, wherein the scan surface that represents the inspection area of the fuselage structure is formed using a convex shape”
“generating a plurality of sample points on an outer surface of the fuselage structure identified from a model of the fuselage structure and a corresponding plurality of projected points on an inner surface of the fuselage structure identified from the model of the fuselage structure using the scan surface, a first geometric representation of the outer surface, and a second geometric representation of the inner surface, wherein the outer surface is an outer mold line (OML) of the fuselage structure”,
“wherein generating the plurality of sample points on the outer surface further comprises: identifying a plurality of scan points on the convex shape”,
“processing, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points on the convex shape, a relevant surface area to identify a patch of the relevant surface area that is nearest the selected scan point, wherein the patch is a portion or section of the first geometric representation or of the second geometric representation”,
“forming, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points, a sample point of the plurality of sample points based on using a point on the patch, the scan surface, and a location of the selected scan point”,
“computing distance data using the plurality of sample points and the corresponding plurality of projected points” and “compute distance data using the plurality of sample points and the corresponding plurality of projected points, wherein the distance data identifies a distance between a point pair formed by a sample point of the plurality of sample points and a projected point of the corresponding plurality of projected points”, and
“analyzing sensor data generated for the inspection area of the fuselage structure using the distance data to detect a presence of an inconsistency in the fuselage structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, these limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally create or draw with a pen and paper a model which is an initial surface which is representation of a fuselage structure to create a scan surface of the fuselage structure and alter the scan surface by recreating the initial surface to match the contours of a convex shape to match the geometry of the fuselage structure,
a person can mentally identify or draw with pen and paper points on the outer and inner fuselage surfaces that correspond to the representation of the fuselage model and geometric representations of the fuselage’s outer and inner surfaces,
a person can mentally identify or draw with pen and paper a plurality on points on the scan surface,
a person can mentally identify or draw with pen and paper the portion of the outer surface area that is closest to each respective scan point,
a person can mentally identify or draw with pen and paper the point on the scan surface that corresponds to the point on the patch as the sample point on the corresponding outer or inner surface,
a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper determine the distance between the points on the fuselage outer surface (the outer mold line) and corresponding points on the inner surface (inner mold line) for use in determining that the distances calculated that are outside the specified tolerance of specified design are inconsistencies with the fuselage structure, and
a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper determine the distances which are calculated that are outside the specified tolerance of specified design are inconsistencies with the fuselage structure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, Claims 1, 15, and 21: The limitations of “generating a plurality of sample points on an outer surface of the fuselage structure identified from a model of the fuselage structure and a corresponding plurality of projected points on an inner surface of the fuselage structure identified from the model of the fuselage structure using the scan surface, a first geometric representation of the outer surface, and a second geometric representation of the inner surface, wherein the outer surface is an outer mold line (OML) of the fuselage structure” and “computing distance data using the plurality of sample points and the corresponding plurality of projected points” and its similar recitation of “compute distance data using the plurality of sample points and the corresponding plurality of projected points, wherein the distance data identifies a distance between a point pair formed by a sample point of the plurality of sample points and a projected point of the corresponding plurality of projected points”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating sample points on the outer and inner surfaces (outer and inner mold lines of a fuselage) can be accomplished using the representation of the fuselage model, geometric representation of the fuselage structure’s outer and inner surfaces, and a spatial algorithm (see Para. 122, spatial indexing algorithm can be found at https://www.cs.siue.edu/~marmcke/docs/cs490/spatialIndexing.html). Additionally, calculating the distance between two points in space (one point on the outer mold line surface and one point on the inner surface) for a number of different sets of points can be accomplished by using the Pythagorean theorem (see Para. 123, the equation of the Pythagorean theorem can be found at https://byjus.com/maths/distance-between-two-points-3d/).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 15, and 21 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 15, and 21: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements “by a device”, “a system comprising: a memory and a processor coupled to the memory and to cause the processor to implement an analysis tool”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors of a first node” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 15, and 21 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 15, and 21: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 15, and 21 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, they recite an additional limitation of “generating a visualization output of the distance data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a visual representation, such as a graph, of the distance variations with respect to their location on the fuselage structure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 17, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the analysis tool is further configured” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, they recite an additional limitation of “displaying the visualization output, the visualization output including a color-coded thickness map that represents at least a portion of the distance data” and “display the visualization output, the visualization output comprising a thickness map” and , as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a colored visual representation, such as a graph, of the distance variations with respect to their location on the fuselage structure, where the colors represent different variations in distance between the points of the inner and outer surface.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 18, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the analysis tool is further configured to display the visualization output on a display device” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, they recite an additional limitation of “generating a function using the distance data that enables a distance between the outer surface and the inner surface to be computed via the function at any selected point along the outer surface”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper an equation to determine the distance between a point on the outer surface and a point on the inner surface, such as creating a transposition of the Pythagorean theorem to solve for the distance between two points.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 4 and 19, they recite an additional limitation of “generating a function using the distance data that enables a distance between the outer surface and the inner surface to be computed via the function at any selected point along the outer surface”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the distance between two points in space (one point on the outer mold line surface and one point on the inner surface) for a number of different sets of points can be accomplished by using the Pythagorean theorem (see Para. 123, the equation of the Pythagorean theorem can be found at https://byjus.com/maths/distance-between-two-points-3d/).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 19, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the analysis tool is further configured” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 19 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5, it recites the following additional limitations of:
“wherein identifying the scan surface comprises: identifying coordinates for the inspection area of the fuselage structure”,
“creating an initial surface of the fuselage surface using the coordinates”,
“generating a convex shape for the initial surface”, and
“forming the scan surface using the convex shape such that the scan surface has a substantially convex shape” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, these limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper coordinates on the fuselage structure with respect to a localized or absolute point on the structure,
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper an initial surface of the fuselage structure by connecting the coordinates that form the boundary of the surface,
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a convex shape which will contain or surround the entirely of the initial surface of the structure, and
a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper the scan surface of the structure by recreating the initial surface to match the contours of the convex shape.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein generating the plurality of sample points on the outer surface comprises: identifying a relevant surface area of the fuselage structure that represents a portion of the outer surface corresponding to the scan surface”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally separate or draw with pen and paper portions of the outer surface and identify each portion to its corresponding location on the fuselage surface model.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 8, it recites additional limitations of “wherein identifying the plurality of scan points comprises: identifying a plurality of reference curves for the scan surface corresponding to a plurality of paths used by a sensor system to scan the inspection area of the fuselage structure” and “forming the plurality of scan points using the plurality of reference curves and a spacing distance used by the sensor system”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally identify or draw with pen and paper paths which were taken to capture all the scan surfaces of the fuselage structure based on the programed sequenced of the sensor capturing the scan surfaces and can mentally create or draw with pen and paper scan points on each of the paths taken to scan the structure and a provided distance in which to space each scan point from another scan point.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 9, it recites additional limitations of “wherein forming the plurality of scan points comprises: identifying points along each reference curve of the plurality of reference curves based on the spacing distance to form a collection of points” and “selecting a portion of the collection of points that falls within a boundary corresponding to the inspection area to form the plurality of scan points”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper points which are determined from the correspond path which was used to generated the scan structure and from a certain distance from another scan point on the portion and can mentally select or draw with pen and paper a construction of the points which are located only within or on the inspection area boundary.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 10, it recites the following additional limitations of:
“wherein identifying the relevant surface area of the fuselage structure comprises: generating the first geometric representation of the outer surface, the first geometric representation comprising a plurality of patches”,
“sampling the first geometric representation to generate sampling points”,
“narrowing the sampling points to a focused collection of sampling points using a spatial indexing algorithm”, and
“forming the relevant surface area of the fuselage structure based on the focused collection of sampling points, the relevant surface area of the fuselage structure comprising a selected portion of the plurality of patches” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, these limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a representation of the outer surface by combining segments of the outer surface,
a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper sample the points from the outer surface to create a collection of outer surface points,
a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper partition the outer surface points to create a focused collection of outer surface points, and
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper combine portions of patches of the outer surface with contain certain partitions of the desired outer surface points to create a relevant outer surface area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein generating the corresponding plurality of projected points on the inner surface comprises: identifying a relevant surface area that represents a portion of the inner surface corresponding to the scan surface”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally separate or draw with pen and paper portions of the inner surface and identify each portion to its corresponding location on the scan surface.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 12, it recites additional limitations of “wherein generating the corresponding plurality of projected points on the inner surface further comprises: processing, for each selected sample point of the plurality of sample points, the relevant surface area to identify a patch of the relevant surface area that is nearest the selected sample point” and “forming, for each selected sample point of the plurality of sample points, a projected point using a point on the patch that intersects with a vector that is substantially normal to the outer surface at a location of the selected sample point”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally identify or draw with pen and paper the portion of the inner surface area that is closest to selected point on the outer surface and can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a vector that is normal to the outer surface and intersects at a point on the portion of the inner surface area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 13, it recites the following additional limitations of:
“wherein identifying the relevant surface area comprises: generating the second geometric representation of the inner surface, the second geometric representation comprising a plurality of patches”,
“sampling the second geometric representation to generate sampling points”,
“narrowing the sampling points to a focused collection of sampling points using a spatial indexing algorithm”, and
“forming the relevant surface area based on the focused collection of sampling points, the relevant surface area comprising a selected portion of the plurality of patches” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, these limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a representation of the inner surface by combining segments of the inner surface,
a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper sample the points from the inner surface to create a collection of inner surface points,
a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper partition the inner surface points to create a focused collection of inner surface points, and
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper combine portions of patches of the inner surface with contain certain partitions of the desired inner surface points to create a relevant inner surface area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 14, it recites additional limitations of “wherein the plurality of sampling points and the corresponding plurality of projected points form a plurality of point pairs” and “wherein computing the distance data comprises: computing a distance between each point pair of the plurality of point pairs”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally combine or draw with pen and paper the outer surface point and corresponding point on the inner surface to form a point pair or a pair of points and can mentally or draw with pen and paper determine the distance of each pair of points, and a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper determine the distance between the pair of points consisting of a point on the fuselage outer surface (the outer mold line) and corresponding point on the inner surface (inner mold line) for each pair of corresponding points using simple geometry.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding Claim 14, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein computing the distance data comprises: computing a distance between each point pair of the plurality of point pairs”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the distance in the points of a pair of points can be accomplished by using the Pythagorean theorem (see Para. 123, the equation of the Pythagorean theorem can be found at https://byjus.com/maths/distance-between-two-points-3d/).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites additional limitation of “analyze sensor data generated for the inspection area of the fuselage structure using the distance data to detect a presence of an inconsistency in the fuselage structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper determine the distances in the fuselage model, captured by a senor, which are calculated that are outside the specified tolerance of specified design are inconsistencies with the fuselage structure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 16, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the analysis tool is further configured” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 22, it recites additional limitations of “generating a visualization output of the distance data” and “wherein the visualization output is a three-dimensional distance map or distance model that visually presents at least a portion of distance data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a visual representation, such as a graph, of the distance variations to show how each point on the inner and outer surface deviated from their respective expected location on the fuselage structure in 3-D space, such a determined deviation in each direction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 22, it recites an additional recitation of “sending the visualization output to a display device for display to a user” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and an insignificant extra-solution data outputting activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 22 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-6, 8-14 and 22 as well as claims 16-19 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1 and 15, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0238136 A1 Ten Grotenhuis et al. [herein “Ten Grotenhuis”] in view of US 20170016862 A1 Holmes et al. [herein “Holmes”], and further in view of US 2010/0042243 A1 Burgos Gallego et al. [herein “Burgos Gallego”].
As per claim 1, Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “A method comprising: identifying, by a device, a scan surface that represents an inspection area of a [fuselage] structure”. (Para. 0026, “the application is directed to a method of modeling the near and far surfaces of an object within a scanning plane passing through the near and far surfaces of the object, comprising providing a set of full-matrix-capture ultrasound scanning data corresponding to a scanning area within the scanning plane” [identifying a scan surface that represents an inspection area of the structure]. Para. 0147, “Data recorded by the array 200 is sent to an external data recorder and processor via the data connections 108, where it is stored and processed as further described below” [by a device]. Further see Para. 0026 and 0147. The examiner has interpreted that a method that provides through an external data recorder and processor scanning data corresponding to a scanning area within a scanning plane of an object as a method comprising identifying, by a device, a scan surface that represents an inspection area of a structure.)
Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “generating, by the device, a plurality of sample points on an outer surface of the [fuselage] structure identified from a model of the [fuselage] structure and a corresponding plurality of projected points on an inner surface of the [fuselage] structure identified from the model of the [fuselage] structure using the scan surface, a first geometric representation of the outer surface, and a second geometric representation of the inner surface”. (Para. 0131, “First, the outer surface of the pipe is modeled” [a first geometric representation of the outer surface identified from a model of the structure] “by constructing an intensity map of the surface” [generating a plurality of sample points on an outer surface of the structure] “and filtering this map to detect the boundary of the outer surface. Second, the model of the outer surface constructed during the first step is used as a lens in modeling the inner surface of the pipe, using Fermat's principle. The inner surface is modeled the same way as the outer surface” [e.g., second geometric representation of the inner surface of the structure generating a plurality of projected points on an inner surface identified from a model of the structure]. Para. 0026, “constructing a first intensity map of the scanning area, comprising a plurality of points within the scanning area having associated intensity values” [a plurality of sample points on an outer surface of the structure]. Para. 0147, “Data recorded by the array 200 is sent to an external data recorder and processor via the data connections 108, where it is stored and processed as further described below” [by a device]. Further see Para. 0026, 0131, and 0147. The examiner has interpreted that modeling the inner and outer surface of the pipe from an intensity map of the surface which comprises of points having associated intensity values that is processed by an external data recorder and processor as generating, by the device, a plurality of sample points on an outer surface of the structure identified from a model of the structure and a corresponding plurality of projected points on an inner surface of the structure identified from the model of the structure using the scan surface, a first geometric representation of the outer surface, and a second geometric representation of the inner surface.)
Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “wherein generating the plurality of sample points on the outer surface further comprises: identifying a plurality of scan points on the scan surface”. (Para. 0144, “By performing a number of such scans at regularly-spaced intervals about the circumference of the pipe slice encompassed by the cuff 106, a model of the entire pipe circumference can be built using the scan data.” Further see Para. 0044. The examiner has interpreted that building a model of the entire pipe circumference using scan data performed by a number of different scans as wherein generating the plurality of sample points on the outer surface further comprises: identifying a plurality of scan points on the scan surface.)
Furthermore, Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “processing, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points [on the convex shape], a relevant surface area to identify a patch of the relevant surface area that is nearest the selected scan point, wherein the patch is a portion or section of the first geometric representation or of the second geometric representation” and “forming, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points, a sample point of the plurality of sample points using a point on the patch, the scan surface, and a location of the selected scan point”. (Para. 0136, “The outer surface may be modeled as multiple surfaces to further improve resolution of the inner surface where the outer surface is highly irregular. In addition, data from multiple adjacent ‘slices’ of the pipe or other volume may be combined and overlaid to improve the continuity of the surface model, or data from two slices of the same area taken at different times may be overlaid to detect changes in the surfaces over time.” [wherein the patch is a portion of the first geometric representation]. Para. 0236, “Taking any vertical slice of the image, the true boundary will intersect this vertical slice just above where it will intersect the maximum intensity pixel in that slice” [processing, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points, a relevant surface area to identify a patch of the relevant surface area that is nearest the selected scan point]. “These observations motivate the first step of the boundary detection algorithm, isolation of the true boundary edges through identification of edges near and above the highest intensity pixels in the vertical direction” [forming, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points, a sample point of the plurality of sample points a point on the patch, the scan surface, and a location of the selected scan point]. Further see Para. 0236. The examiner has interpreted that taking any vertical slice of the outer surface of the image where the true boundary will intersect this vertical slice just above where it will intersect the maximum intensity pixel in that slice and isolating of the true boundary edges through identification of edges near and above the highest intensity pixels in the vertical direction as processing, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points, a relevant surface area to identify a patch of the relevant surface area that is nearest the selected scan point, wherein the patch is a portion or section of the first geometric representation or of the second geometric representation; and forming, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points, a sample point of the plurality of sample points using a point on the patch, the scan surface, and a location of the selected scan point.)
Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “computing, by the device, distance data using the plurality of sample points and the corresponding plurality of projected points”. (Para. 0157, “In ultrasonic applications, absolute distance measurements may be directly calculated” [computing distance data] “from the travel times of acoustic pulses, and hence may be sensitive to the speed of ultrasonic sound in the materials under study. In some embodiments described below pertaining to pipe weld inspection, thickness is defined as the shortest distance from a point on the outer surface to the inner surface” [distance data]. “FIG. 72 illustrates this definition of wall thickness. L1 and L2 are the thicknesses at two different locations” [plurality of sample points and the corresponding plurality of projected points] “on the outer surface of a feeder weld. The inner and outer surface profiles are essential pieces of information used to determine the wall thickness with respect to any location on the outer or inner surface” [plurality of sample points and the corresponding plurality of projected points]. Para. 0147, “Data recorded by the array 200 is sent to an external data recorder and processor via the data connections 108, where it is stored and processed as further described below” [by a device]. Further see Para. 0147, and 0157. The examiner has interpreted that calculating distance measurements at any different location on the outer and inner surface through processing by an external data recorder and processor as computing, by the device, distance data using the plurality of sample points and the corresponding plurality of projected points.)
Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “analyzing, by the device, sensor data generated for the inspection area of the [fuselage] structure using the distance data to detect a presence of an inconsistency in the [fuselage] structure”. (Para. 0149, “These techniques may allow the detection of subtle variations in pipe thickness, defects in pipe walls, and other structural details of arbitrary inner and outer surfaces of a pipe” [to detect a presence of an inconsistency in the structure]. Para. 0545, “Using the OD and ID boundary definitions, it calculates the minimum thickness (TMin) for this pair of OD and ID boundaries” [analyzing sensor data generated for the inspection area of the structure using the distance data]. Para. 0147, “Data recorded by the array 200 is sent to an external data recorder and processor via the data connections 108, where it is stored and processed as further described below” [by a device]. Further see Para. 0147-0149 and 0545. The examiner has interpreted that calculating the minimum thickness for each pair of boundaries (i.e., of the inner and outer surface) to allow for the detection of subtle variations in pipe thickness, defects in pipe walls, and other structural details of arbitrary inner and outer surfaces of a pipe through processing by an external data recorder and processor as analyzing, by the device, sensor data generated for the inspection area of the structure using the distance data to detect a presence of an inconsistency in the structure.)
Ten Grotenhuis does not specifically teach that the structure is a “fuselage structure” and “wherein the outer surface is an outer mold line (OML) of the fuselage structure”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely examining structure surface thicknesses for damage, Holmes teaches a “fuselage structure”. (Para. 0036, “An image 12 produced from a CAD model of a barrel-shaped airplane fuselage section is presented on the display screen 6” [an inspection area of a fuselage structure]. “The 3-D model data loaded into memory inside the NDT instrument 2 comprises relevant thicknesses and material data for the part being inspected, which information can be used (along with other relevant information as described above) to automatically calibrate the NDT instrument. More specifically, the inspector can click on a pixel on the display screen 6 at a position indicated by a cursor 14 in FIG. 3. In response to this selection, relevant thicknesses and material data for a corresponding area on the surface of the fuselage section to be inspected will be retrieved from the file containing the DAD mode” [computing distance data for a fuselage structure]. Further see Para. 0030-0031 and 0035-0036. The examiner has interpreted producing an image for airplane fuselage section to determine relevant thickness of the surface of the fuselage section as an inspection area of a fuselage structure.)
Holmes also teaches “wherein the outer surface is an outer mold line (OML) of the fuselage structure”. (Para. 0036, “In response to this selection, relevant thicknesses and material data for a corresponding area on the surface of the fuselage section to be inspected will be retrieved from the file containing the DAD mode” [the fuselage structure]. Para. 0025, “The laminate structure 100 depicted in FIG. 1 can be part of many different types of structures, such as those found in airplanes, automobiles and other vehicles, or any other structure that can benefit from a light, yet strong material. The laminate structure 100 has a front surface 102 and a back surface 104 and is composed of multiple individual laminate sheets 106” [the outer surface of the fuselage structure]. “The laminate sheets are joined together by a bonding material. In the course of normal use, laminate materials are subject to accidental damage. In some instances the resultant damage will be small while in other instances the damage may be moderate to severe”. Para. 0045, “The camera pan data (angle of rotation of video camera 644 about the azimuth axis) and tilt data (angle of rotation of video camera 644 with respect to the elevation axis) may be used in conjunction with the calculated position and orientation of video camera 644 to determine the (X,Y,Z) position of any point of interest (such as the target position on the skin of an airplane) in the coordinate system of the test object 614” [e.g., the outer mold line (OML)]. Further see Para. 0024-0024, 0036, and 0045. The examiner has interpreted that inspecting the thickness of the surface of the fuselage section for accidental damage of a laminate structure containing a front surface which is the skin of the airplane as wherein the outer surface is an outer mold line (OML) of the fuselage structure.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “fuselage structure” and “wherein the outer surface is an outer mold line (OML) of the fuselage structure” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Holmes, into that of Ten Grotenhuis because this modification of a using a fuselage structure with its respective outer surface for the advantageous purpose of determining defects on airplanes laminate structures which are light materials that can be subject to small instances or hidden accidental damage (Holmes, Para. 0025 & 0028). Further motivation to combine be that Ten Grotenhuis and Holmes are analogous art to the current claim are directed to examining structure surface thicknesses for damage.
Ten Grotenhuis nor Holmes teach “wherein the scan surface that represents the inspection area of the fuselage structure is formed using a convex shape”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely examining structure surface thicknesses for damage, Burgos Gallego teaches “wherein the scan surface that represents the inspection area of the fuselage structure is formed using a convex shape”. (Para. 0052, “If a male tool 33 is used as depicted in FIG. 3 the patterns 13 will be bent over a geometrically convex surface.” Para. 0057, “As shown in FIGS. 5, 6 and 7 the bending lines 23 are determined by the 2D mesh model 11 and a bending surface 31 similar in shape to that of the part forming tool” [generating a convex shape for the initial surface]. Para. 0061-0063, “A tangent to the bending line 23 is drawn through this point. The contour line to be bent 17 is cut by the previously calculated intersection. The result of the cut will be the section of line to be rotated which will rest on the 3D surface 19. A surface of revolution is created taking the tangent as the axis of rotation and the previously cut curve section to be bent as the shape” [forming the surface using the convex shape, e.g., wherein the surface is formed using a convex shape]. Para. 0064-0065, “The said surface of revolution intersects with the 3D surface 19. The result will be the bent contour line 17 resting on the 3D surface 19. Finally, the mesh model contours are adapted to the bent geometry”. Further see Para. 0052, 0577, 0061-0065. The examiner has interpreted that determining bending lines by the 2D mesh model and a bending surface similar in shape to that of the part forming tool (i.e., convex surface) to bend the shape of the surface and adapted the model to the bent geometry as wherein the surface is formed using a convex shape.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the scan surface that represents the inspection area of the fuselage structure is formed using a convex shape” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Burgos Gallego, into that of Ten Grotenhuis and Holmes because this modification of altering the scan into a convex shape for the advantageous purpose of representing the curvature of the model more precisely to yield more accurate differences in the thicknesses of the structure (Burgos Gallego, Para. 7). Further motivation to combine be that Ten Grotenhuis, Holmes, and Burgos Gallego are analogous art to the current claim are direct to examining structure surface thicknesses for damage.
As per claim 2, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “generating a visualization output of the distance data”. (Para. 0576, “The 3D window is based on the main window and it is a singleton window. The main usage of this window is to provide the 3D representation of the scan. It contains the developmental view and 3D view. The developmental view displays all the profiles of data” [generating a visualization output of the distance data]. Further see Para. 0576. The examiner has interpreted that display all profiles of data in a development view window as generating a visualization output of the distance data.)
As per claim 3, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “displaying the visualization output on a display device, the visualization output including a color-coded thickness map that represents at least a portion of the distance data”. (Para. 0576, “The 3D window is based on the main window and it is a singleton window. The main usage of this window is to provide the 3D representation of the scan. It contains the developmental view and 3D view. The developmental view displays all the profiles of data” [displaying the visualization output (i.e., the intensity map) on a display device]. Para. 0577, “Both views can be displayed as `surf` or `mesh` objects in MATLAB.TM. drawing. For `surf`, color can be used to represent the thickness of the feeder” [the visualization output including a color-coded thickness map that represents at least a portion of the distance data]. Further see Para. 0576-0577. The examiner has interpreted that displaying all profiles of the data (i.e., the intensity map) and represent the thickness in color as displaying the visualization output on a display device, the visualization output including a color-coded thickness map that represents at least a portion of the distance data.)
As per claim 4, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “generating a function using the distance data that enables a distance between the outer surface and the inner surface to be computed via the function at any selected point along the outer surface”. (Para. 0157, “In ultrasonic applications, absolute distance measurements may be directly calculated” [generating a function using the distance data] “from the travel times of acoustic pulses, and hence may be sensitive to the speed of ultrasonic sound in the materials under study. In some embodiments described below pertaining to pipe weld inspection, thickness is defined as the shortest distance from a point on the outer surface to the inner surface” [distance data]. “FIG. 72 illustrates this definition of wall thickness. L1 and L2 are the thicknesses at two different locations” [plurality of sample points and the corresponding plurality of projected points] “on the outer surface of a feeder weld. The inner and outer surface profiles are essential pieces of information used to determine the wall thickness with respect to any location on the outer or inner surface” [enables a distance between the outer surface and the inner surface to be computed via the function at any selected point along the outer surface]. Further see Para. 0157. The examiner has interpreted that calculating distance measurements at any different location on the outer surface as generating a function using the distance data that enables a distance between the outer surface and the inner surface to be computed via the function at any selected point along the outer surface.)
As per claim 5, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “wherein identifying the scan surface comprises: identifying coordinates for the inspection area of the [fuselage] structure”. (Para. 0186, “a process which may take into account intensity coordinates calculated at step 2016 based on OD imaging parameters 2002”. Further see Para. 0186. The examiner has interpreted that taking into account the intensity based on OD imaging parameters as wherein identifying the scan surface comprises: identifying coordinates for the inspection area of the structure.)
Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “creating an initial surface of the [fuselage] structure using the coordinates”. (Para. 0186, “At step 2018, the intensities at the current inspection coordinates are calculated. At step 2020, the inspection coordinates and their respective intensities are stored. At step 2022, the algorithm may focus further around high intensity coordinates; if it does, the intensity coordinates are calculated at step 2016, creating an iterative loop for steps 2014 to 2022. When the algorithm has iterated through this process one or more times, it stops re-focusing and outputs an OD intensity map 2008.” Further see Para. 0186. The examiner has interpreted that using calculated coordinates to output an outer surface intensity map as creating an initial surface of the structure using the coordinates.)
Ten Grotenhuis does not specifically teach that the structure is a “fuselage structure”.
Holmes also teaches “fuselage structure”. (Para. 0036, “In response to this selection, relevant thicknesses and material data for a corresponding area on the surface of the fuselage section to be inspected will be retrieved from the file containing the DAD mode” [the fuselage structure]. Para. 0025, “The laminate structure 100 depicted in FIG. 1 can be part of many different types of structures, such as those found in airplanes, automobiles and other vehicles, or any other structure that can benefit from a light, yet strong material. The laminate structure 100 has a front surface 102 and a back surface 104 and is composed of multiple individual laminate sheets 106” [creating an initial surface of the fuselage structure]. Para. 0045, “The camera pan data (angle of rotation of video camera 644 about the azimuth axis) and tilt data (angle of rotation of video camera 644 with respect to the elevation axis) may be used in conjunction with the calculated position and orientation of video camera 644 to determine the (X,Y,Z) position of any point of interest (such as the target position on the skin of an airplane) in the coordinate system of the test object 614” [e.g., identifying coordinates for the inspection area of the fuselage structure and creating the initial surface of the fuselage structure]. Further see Para. 0024-0024, 0036, and 0045. The examiner has interpreted that inspecting the thickness of the surface of the fuselage section containing a front surface and a back surface with respect to a front surface which is the skin of the airplane in the coordinate system of the test object as wherein identifying the scan surface comprises: identifying coordinates for the inspection area of the fuselage structure and creating an initial surface of the fuselage structure using the coordinates.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “identifying coordinates for the inspection area of the fuselage structure and creating an initial surface of the fuselage structure using the coordinates” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Holmes, into that of Ten Grotenhuis because this modification of a using a fuselage structure with its respective outer surface for the advantageous purpose of determining defects on airplanes laminate structures which are light materials that can be subject to small instances or hidden accidental damage (Holmes, Para. 0025 & 0028). Further motivation to combine be that Ten Grotenhuis and Holmes are analogous art to the current claim are directed to examining structure surface thicknesses for damage.
Ten Grotenhuis nor Holmes teach “generating a convex shape for the initial surface; and forming the scan surface using the convex shape such that the scan surface has a substantially convex shape”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely examining structure surface thicknesses for damage, Burgos Gallego teaches “generating a convex shape for the initial surface; and forming the scan surface using the convex shape such that the scan surface has a substantially convex shape”. (Para. 0052, “If a male tool 33 is used as depicted in FIG. 3 the patterns 13 will be bent over a geometrically convex surface.” Para. 0057, “As shown in FIGS. 5, 6 and 7 the bending lines 23 are determined by the 2D mesh model 11 and a bending surface 31 similar in shape to that of the part forming tool” [generating a convex shape for the initial surface]. Para. 0061-0063, “A tangent to the bending line 23 is drawn through this point. The contour line to be bent 17 is cut by the previously calculated intersection. The result of the cut will be the section of line to be rotated which will rest on the 3D surface 19. A surface of revolution is created taking the tangent as the axis of rotation and the previously cut curve section to be bent as the shape” [forming the scan surface using the convex shape]. Para. 0064-0065, “The said surface of revolution intersects with the 3D surface 19. The result will be the bent contour line 17 resting on the 3D surface 19. Finally, the mesh model contours are adapted to the bent geometry” [such that the scan surface has a substantially convex shape]. Further see Para. 0052, 0577, 0061-0065. The examiner has interpreted that determining bending lines by the 2D mesh model and a bending surface similar in shape to that of the part forming tool (i.e., convex surface) to bend the shape of the surface and adapted the model to the bent geometry as generating a convex shape for the initial surface; and forming the scan surface using the convex shape such that the scan surface has a substantially convex shape.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “generating a convex shape for the initial surface; and forming the scan surface using the convex shape such that the scan surface has a substantially convex shape” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Burgos Gallego, into that of Ten Grotenhuis and Holmes because this modification of altering the scan into a convex shape for the advantageous purpose of representing the curvature of the model more precisely to yield more accurate differences in the thicknesses of the structure (Burgos Gallego, Para. 7). Further motivation to combine be that Ten Grotenhuis, Holmes, and Burgos Gallego are analogous art to the current claim are direct to examining structure surface thicknesses for damage.
As per claim 6, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “wherein generating the plurality of sample points on the outer surface comprises: identifying a relevant surface area of the [fuselage] surface that represents a portion of the outer surface corresponding to the scan surface”. (Para. 0036, “filtering the first intensity map and filtering the second intensity map each further comprise selecting a single component from each vertical slice of the intensity map.” Further see Para. 0036. The examiner has interpreted that filtering the maps by selecting a single component from each vertical slice of the intensity map as wherein generating the plurality of sample points on the outer surface comprises: identifying a relevant surface area of the surface that represents a portion of the outer surface corresponding to the scan surface.)
Ten Grotenhuis does not specifically teach that the structure is a “fuselage structure”.
However, Holmes teaches a “fuselage structure”. (Para. 0036, “An image 12 produced from a CAD model of a barrel-shaped airplane fuselage section is presented on the display screen 6” [an inspection area of a fuselage structure]. “The 3-D model data loaded into memory inside the NDT instrument 2 comprises relevant thicknesses and material data for the part being inspected, which information can be used (along with other relevant information as described above) to automatically calibrate the NDT instrument. More specifically, the inspector can click on a pixel on the display screen 6 at a position indicated by a cursor 14 in FIG. 3. In response to this selection, relevant thicknesses and material data for a corresponding area on the surface of the fuselage section to be inspected will be retrieved from the file containing the DAD mode” [computing distance data for a fuselage structure, e.g., identifying a relevant surface area of the fuselage structure]. Further see Para. 0030-0031 and 0035-0036. The examiner has interpreted producing an image for airplane fuselage section to determine relevant thickness of the surface of the fuselage section as an inspection area of a fuselage structure.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “fuselage structure” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Holmes, into that of Ten Grotenhuis because this modification of a using a fuselage structure with its respective outer surface for the advantageous purpose of determining defects on airplanes laminate structures which are light materials that can be subject to small instances or hidden accidental damage (Holmes, Para. 0025 & 0028). Further motivation to combine be that Ten Grotenhuis and Holmes are analogous art to the current claim are directed to examining structure surface thicknesses for damage.
As per claim 8, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “wherein identifying the plurality of scan points comprises: identifying a plurality of reference curves for the scan surface corresponding to a plurality of paths used by a sensor system to scan the inspection area of the [fuselage] structure”. (Para. 0144, “In operation, the linear array 200 attached to the carrier 102 is aligned parallel to the longitudinal axis 4 of the pipe 2 being scanned” [reference curve for the scan surface corresponding to a path used by a sensor system to scan the inspection area of the structure]. “The pipe 2 is scanned by the full array 200 using the Full Matrix Capture technique described below, then the carrier is moved about the circumference of the pipe 2 by a motor included in the manipulator 100, after which the scanning process is repeated for the new circumferential coordinates of the carrier's new position” [a plurality of paths]. Further see Para. 0144. The examiner has interpreted that aligning the liner array parallel to the longitudinal axis of the pipe being scanned and repeating for new positions as wherein identifying the plurality of scan points comprises: identifying a plurality of reference curves for the scan surface corresponding to a plurality of paths used by a sensor system to scan the inspection area of the structure.)
Furthermore, Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “forming the plurality of scan points using the plurality of reference curves and a spacing distance used by the sensor system”. (Para. 0144, “By performing a number of such scans at regularly-spaced intervals about the circumference of the pipe slice encompassed by the cuff 106, a model of the entire pipe circumference can be built using the scan data.” Further see Para. 0144. The examiner has interpreted that performing a number of such scans at regularly-spaced intervals about the circumference of the pipe slice as forming the plurality of scan points using the plurality of reference curves and a spacing distance used by the sensor system.)
Ten Grotenhuis does not specifically teach that the structure is a “fuselage structure”.
However, Holmes teaches a “fuselage structure”. (Para. 0036, “An image 12 produced from a CAD model of a barrel-shaped airplane fuselage section is presented on the display screen 6” [an inspection area of a fuselage structure]. “The 3-D model data loaded into memory inside the NDT instrument 2 comprises relevant thicknesses and material data for the part being inspected, which information can be used (along with other relevant information as described above) to automatically calibrate the NDT instrument. More specifically, the inspector can click on a pixel on the display screen 6 at a position indicated by a cursor 14 in FIG. 3. In response to this selection, relevant thicknesses and material data for a corresponding area on the surface of the fuselage section to be inspected will be retrieved from the file containing the DAD mode” [sensor system to scan the inspection area of the fuselage structure]. Further see Para. 0030-0031 and 0035-0036. The examiner has interpreted producing an image for airplane fuselage section to determine relevant thickness of the surface of the fuselage section as an inspection area of a fuselage structure.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “fuselage structure” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Holmes, into that of Ten Grotenhuis because this modification of a using a fuselage structure with its respective outer surface for the advantageous purpose of determining defects on airplanes laminate structures which are light materials that can be subject to small instances or hidden accidental damage (Holmes, Para. 0025 & 0028). Further motivation to combine be that Ten Grotenhuis and Holmes are analogous art to the current claim are directed to examining structure surface thicknesses for damage.
As per claim 9, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “wherein forming the plurality of scan points comprises: identifying points along each reference curve of the plurality of reference curves based on the spacing distance to form a collection of points”. (Para. 0144, “By performing a number of such scans at regularly-spaced intervals about the circumference of the pipe slice encompassed by the cuff 106, a model of the entire pipe circumference can be built using the scan data.” Further see Para. 0144. The examiner has interpreted that performing a number of such scans at regularly-spaced intervals about the circumference of the pipe slice as wherein forming the plurality of scan points comprises: identifying points along each reference curve of the plurality of reference curves based on the spacing distance to form a collection of points.)
Furthermore, Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “selecting a portion of the collection of points that falls within a boundary corresponding to the inspection area to form the plurality of scan points”. (Para. 0033, “filtering the first intensity map comprises passing the intensity map through an edge-detection filter”. Further see Para. 0033. The examiner has interpreted that filtering the first intensity map comprises passing the intensity map through an edge-detection filter as selecting a portion of the collection of points that falls within a boundary corresponding to the inspection area to form the plurality of scan points.)
As per claim 10, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “wherein identifying the relevant surface area of the [fuselage] structure comprises: generating the first geometric representation of the outer surface, the first geometric representation comprising a plurality of patches”. (Para. 0136, “The outer surface may be modeled as multiple surfaces to further improve resolution of the inner surface where the outer surface is highly irregular.” Further see Para. 0136. The examiner has interpreted that modeling the outer surface as multiple surfaces as wherein identifying the relevant surface area comprises: generating the first geometric representation of the outer surface, the first geometric representation comprising a plurality of patches.)
Furthermore, Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “sampling the first geometric representation to generate sampling points”. (Para. 0136. “In addition, data from multiple adjacent ‘slices’ of the pipe or other volume may be combined and overlaid to improve the continuity of the surface model, or data from two slices of the same area taken at different times may be overlaid to detect changes in the surfaces over time.” Further see Para. 0136. The examiner has interpreted that combing and overlaying data from multiple adjust slices (i.e., multiple surfaces) of the surface model as sampling the first geometric representation to generate sampling points.)
Furthermore, Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “narrowing the sampling points to a focused collection of sampling points using a spatial indexing algorithm; and forming the relevant surface area of the [fuselage] structure based on the focused collection of sampling points, the relevant surface area of the [fuselage] structure comprising a selected portion of the plurality of patches”. (Para. 0036, “filtering the first intensity map and filtering the second intensity map each further comprise selecting a single component from each vertical slice of the intensity map and removing all other components in that slice” [narrowing the sampling points to a focused collection of sampling points and forming the relevant surface area based on the focused collection of sampling points, the relevant surface area comprising a selected portion of the plurality of patches]. Para. 0236, “Taking any vertical slice of the image, the true boundary will intersect this vertical slice just above where it will intersect the maximum intensity pixel in that slice. These observations motivate the first step of the boundary detection algorithm, isolation of the true boundary edges through identification of edges near and above the highest intensity pixels in the vertical direction” [describing a function of a spatial indexing algorithm]. Further see Para. 0036 and 0236. The examiner has interpreted that filtering the intensity maps by selecting a single component from each vertical slice of the intensity map of points that intersect only in a certain boundary and removing all other components in that slice as narrowing the sampling points to a focused collection of sampling points using a spatial indexing algorithm; and forming the relevant surface area based on the focused collection of sampling points, the relevant surface area comprising a selected portion of the plurality of patches.)
Ten Grotenhuis does not specifically teach that the structure is a “fuselage structure”.
However, Holmes teaches a “fuselage structure”. (Para. 0036, “An image 12 produced from a CAD model of a barrel-shaped airplane fuselage section is presented on the display screen 6” [an inspection area of a fuselage structure]. “The 3-D model data loaded into memory inside the NDT instrument 2 comprises relevant thicknesses and material data for the part being inspected, which information can be used (along with other relevant information as described above) to automatically calibrate the NDT instrument. More specifically, the inspector can click on a pixel on the display screen 6 at a position indicated by a cursor 14 in FIG. 3. In response to this selection, relevant thicknesses and material data for a corresponding area on the surface of the fuselage section to be inspected will be retrieved from the file containing the DAD mode” [computing distance data for a fuselage structure, e.g., identifying and forming a relevant surface area of the fuselage structure]. Further see Para. 0030-0031 and 0035-0036. The examiner has interpreted producing an image for airplane fuselage section to determine relevant thickness of the surface of the fuselage section as an inspection area of a fuselage structure.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “fuselage structure” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Holmes, into that of Ten Grotenhuis because this modification of a using a fuselage structure with its respective outer surface for the advantageous purpose of determining defects on airplanes laminate structures which are light materials that can be subject to small instances or hidden accidental damage (Holmes, Para. 0025 & 0028). Further motivation to combine be that Ten Grotenhuis and Holmes are analogous art to the current claim are directed to examining structure surface thicknesses for damage.
As per claim 11, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “wherein generating the corresponding plurality of projected points on the inner surface comprises: identifying a relevant surface area that represents a portion of the inner surface corresponding to the scan surface”. (Para. 0036, “filtering the first intensity map and filtering the second intensity map each further comprise selecting a single component from each vertical slice of the intensity map.” Further see Para. 0036. The examiner has interpreted that filtering the maps by selecting a single component from each vertical slice of the intensity map as wherein generating the corresponding plurality of projected points on the inner surface: identifying a relevant surface area that represents a portion of the inner surface corresponding to the scan surface.)
As per claim 12, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “wherein generating the corresponding plurality of projected points on the inner surface further comprises: processing, for each selected sample point of the plurality of sample points, the relevant surface area to identify a patch of the relevant surface area that is nearest the selected sample point; and forming, for each selected sample point of the plurality of sample points, a projected point using a point on the patch that intersects with a vector that is substantially normal to the outer surface at a location of the selected sample point.” (Para. 0236, “Taking any vertical slice of the image, the true boundary will intersect this vertical slice just above where it will intersect the maximum intensity pixel in that slice” [processing, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points, the relevant surface area to identify a patch of the relevant surface area that is nearest the selected scan point]. “These observations motivate the first step of the boundary detection algorithm, isolation of the true boundary edges through identification of edges near and above the highest intensity pixels in the vertical direction” [forming, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points, a sample point of the plurality of sample points using a point on the patch that intersects with a vector that is substantially normal to the scan surface at a location of the selected scan point]. Para. 0131, “The inner surface is modeled the same way as the outer surface.” Further see Para. 0131 and 0236. The examiner has interpreted that taking any vertical slice of the image where the true boundary will intersect this vertical slice just above where it will intersect the maximum intensity pixel in that slice and isolating of the true boundary edges through identification of edges near and above the highest intensity pixels in the vertical direction as processing, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points, the relevant surface area to identify a patch of the relevant surface area that is nearest the selected scan point; and forming, for each selected scan point of the plurality of scan points, a sample point of the plurality of sample points using a point on the patch that intersects with a vector that is substantially normal to the scan surface at a location of the selected scan point.)
As per claim 13, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “wherein identifying the relevant surface area comprises: generating the second geometric representation of the inner surface, the second geometric representation comprising a plurality of patches”. (Para. 0136, “The outer surface may be modeled as multiple surfaces to further improve resolution of the inner surface where the outer surface is highly irregular.” Further see Para. 0136. The examiner has interpreted that modeling the outer surface as multiple surfaces as wherein identifying the relevant surface area comprises: generating the second geometric representation of the inner surface, the second geometric representation comprising a plurality of patches.)
Furthermore, Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “sampling the second geometric representation to generate sampling points”. (Para. 0136. “In addition, data from multiple adjacent ‘slices’ of the pipe or other volume may be combined and overlaid to improve the continuity of the surface model, or data from two slices of the same area taken at different times may be overlaid to detect changes in the surfaces over time.” Further see Para. 0136. The examiner has interpreted that combing and overlaying data from multiple adjust slices (i.e., multiple surfaces) of the surface model as sampling the second geometric representation to generate sampling points.)
Furthermore, Ten Grotenhuis also teaches “narrowing the sampling points to a focused collection of sampling points using a spatial indexing algorithm; and forming the relevant surface area based on the focused collection of sampling points, the relevant surface area comprising a selected portion of the plurality of patches”. (Para. 0036, “filtering the first intensity map and filtering the second intensity map each further comprise selecting a single component from each vertical slice of the intensity map and removing all other components in that slice” [narrowing the sampling points to a focused collection of sampling points and forming the relevant surface area based on the focused collection of sampling points, the relevant surface area comprising a selected portion of the plurality of patches]. Para. 0236, “Taking any vertical slice of the image, the true boundary will intersect this vertical slice just above where it will intersect the maximum intensity pixel in that slice. These observations motivate the first step of the boundary detection algorithm, isolation of the true boundary edges through identification of edges near and above the highest intensity pixels in the vertical direction” [describing a function of a spatial indexing algorithm]. Para. 0131, “The inner surface is modeled the same way as the outer surface.” Further see Para. 0036, 0131, and 0236. The examiner has interpreted that filtering the intensity maps by selecting a single component from each vertical slice of the intensity map of points that intersect only in a certain boundary and removing all other components in that slice as narrowing the sampling points to a focused collection of sampling points using a spatial indexing algorithm; and forming the relevant surface area based on the focused collection of sampling points, the relevant surface area comprising a selected portion of the plurality of patches.)
As per claim 14, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “wherein the plurality of sampling points and the corresponding plurality of projected points form a plurality of point pairs and wherein computing the distance data comprises: computing a distance between each point pair of the plurality of point pairs”. (Para. 0157, “In ultrasonic applications, absolute distance measurements may be directly calculated” [computing distance data] “from the travel times of acoustic pulses, and hence may be sensitive to the speed of ultrasonic sound in the materials under study. In some embodiments described below pertaining to pipe weld inspection, thickness is defined as the shortest distance from a point on the outer surface to the inner surface” [distance data]. “FIG. 72 illustrates this definition of wall thickness. L1 and L2 are the thicknesses at two different locations” [plurality of sample points and the corresponding plurality of projected points] “on the outer surface of a feeder weld.” Fig. 72 shows L1 being the distance between a point on the outer and corresponding inner surface (i.e., a point pair). Similar, L2 is another distance at another point pair location. Further see Para. 0157 and Fig. 72. The examiner has interpreted that measuring the distance between a point on the outer surface to a corresponding point on the inner surface as shown in Fig. 72 for different locations as wherein the plurality of sampling points and the corresponding plurality of projected points form a plurality of point pairs and wherein computing the distance data comprises: computing a distance between each point pair of the plurality of point pairs.)
Re Claim 15, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claims 1 and 14. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 1 and 14.
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “a system comprising: a memory and a processor coupled to the memory and to cause the processor to implement an analysis tool”. (Para. 0026, “the application is directed to a method of modeling the near and far surfaces of an object within a scanning plane passing through the near and far surfaces of the object, comprising providing a set of full-matrix-capture ultrasound scanning data corresponding to a scanning area within the scanning plane” [identifying a scan surface that represents an inspection area of the structure]. Para. 0043, “three-dimensional localization software is loaded into computer memory 630 of the computer 632” [a system comprising: a memory and to implement an analysis tool]. Para. 0147, “Data recorded by the array 200 is sent to an external data recorder and processor via the data connections 108, where it is stored and processed as further described below” [a processor coupled to the memory and to cause the processor]. Further see Para. 0026, 0043, and 0147. The examiner has interpreted that a method that provides through an external data recorder, processor. and memory of a computer with scanning data corresponding to a scanning area within a scanning plane of an object through three-dimensional localization software as a system comprising: a memory and a processor coupled to the memory and to cause the processor to implement an analysis tool.)
Re Claim 16, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 17, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 18, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 19, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 21, it is a articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 21, Ten Grotenhuis teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors of a first node to”. (Para. 0026, “the application is directed to a method of modeling the near and far surfaces of an object within a scanning plane passing through the near and far surfaces of the object, comprising providing a set of full-matrix-capture ultrasound scanning data corresponding to a scanning area within the scanning plane” [identifying a scan surface that represents an inspection area of the structure]. Para. 0043, “three-dimensional localization software is loaded into computer memory 630 of the computer 632” [a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions l]. Para. 0147, “Data recorded by the array 200 is sent to an external data recorder and processor via the data connections 108, where it is stored and processed as further described below” [e.g., executed by one or more processors of a first node]. Further see Para. 0026, 0043, and 0147. The examiner has interpreted that a method that provides through an external data recorder, processor. and memory of a computer with scanning data corresponding to a scanning area within a scanning plane of an object through three-dimensional localization software as a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors of a first node to.)
Re Claim 22, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claims 2 and 3. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 2 and 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims do not recite an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing activity. (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 12).
While the applicant has correctly cited MPEP § 2106.04(a) identifies groups of abstract idea including certain methods of organizing activity, the applicant has incorrectly stated that the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 14, 2025 asserts that the claims recite this grouping of an abstract idea, certain methods of organizing activity, is used in its rejection. The groups of abstract idea relied upon in the 101 rejection(s) are mathematical concepts and mental processes. (See Non-Final Office Action Pg. 3-6 for the analysis of claim 1 abstract idea group and Final Office Action Pg. 4-8 mailed September 3, 2025).
While this may be a clerical error since the applicant goes to mention that claims are not mental process and is most likely carried over from the previously filed arguments on July 10, 2025, the correct grouping of an abstract idea relied upon, as later in this portion of the arguments (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 12-14) is a mental process and mathematical concept. The examiner wanted to make the record clear as to what the correct abstract idea grouping is relied upon in the rejection.
The examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a mental concept or mathematical concept as provided in the rejection above is proper under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The claims are directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that claim 1 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims do not recite mental processes as since they cannot be performed in the human mind. (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 12-14).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) recites “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions”, “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”, and “in evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
The examiner has provided the rational for the claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the Final Office Action mailed September 3, 2025 and above in the rejection included in this office action. For example, the limitations of amended claims 1 can be accomplished by a person in the human mind or with the aid or pen and paper such as a person can mentally create or draw with a pen and paper a model of a fuselage structure having an outer and inner surface in a convex shape. A person can mentally create or draw points on the outer surface and points on the inner surface that correspond to the outer surface such as positioned normal to it. A person can mentally identify or draw with pen and paper the portion of the outer surface area that is closest to each respective scan point, and can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a vector that is normal to the scan surface and intersects at a point on the portion of the outer surface area. A person can mentally determine or calculate using pen and paper the distance between the points on the fuselage outer surface (the outer mold line) and corresponding points on the inner surface (inner mold line) using the Pythagorean theorem. Lastly, a person can mentally determine that the distances which are calculated that are outside the specified tolerance of specified design are inconsistencies with the fuselage structure. Therefore, the all the claim limitations can be performed in the mind. While claims do recite that the limitation are implemented “by a device”, the applicant is merely claiming that the abstract idea uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Further, the new claim is merely person can mentally create or drawing a graph of the distance data as a model with respect to the outer and inner surface and their deviations in space and an insignificant extra solution data outputting activity which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a mental concept as provided in the rejection above is proper under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The claims are directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that claim 1 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application as claim features recite an improvement to a technology solution to a problem in the field (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 14-17).
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) recites “examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”. MPES § 2106.05(a) also recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
The examiner has provided the rational for the independent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process and mathematic concept for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action mailed September 3, 2025. The additional elements are “by a device”, “a system comprising: a memory and a processor coupled to the memory and to cause the processor to implement an analysis tool”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors of a first node” which are merely using the generic computer components and functions being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, there are no additional element limitations in the independent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application through improvements to another technology or technical field and provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment as listed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the examiner has also provided the rational for the dependent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process or a mathematical concept in the rejection above. With the exception of the additional element limitations in the dependent claims such as “on a display device” and “wherein the analysis tool is further configured” which are merely, again, using the generic computer components and functions being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea and an insignificant extra-solution data outputting activities, there are no additional limitations in the dependent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology or through the use of meaningful limitations.
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts and the additional elements that merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution data outputting activities.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 17-19, filed October 31, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amended claims and previously cited art, necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pu, Shi, and George Vosselman. "Knowledge based reconstruction of building models from terrestrial laser scanning data." ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 64, no. 6 (2009): 575-584 teaches fitting convex polygons to scanning data to reconstruct its respective model.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188