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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
A telephone call was made to Dr. Sandra Thompson on 12/01/2025 at 949-702-4448 to schedule an interview in response to the submission of Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) filed on 07/14/2025. However, no return call was received.
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 call the examiner NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962 or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 8-10 of Remarks:
(page 8) In Georgeson, the robot is designed to be "very large" and guided on the floor of a large area, such as a hangar. The robot in Georgeson rolls around a target item and scans it from a distance. It is not designed to be in direct physical contact with the structure to be evaluated, and by the very nature of its approach to testing, it will miss spots on the structure that are not accessible from a distance. It is not taught or suggested to make the robot small enough, nimble enough, and powerful enough to have it in direct physical contact with the object it is testing and mapping that object as it traverses it.
(page 9) The Examiner suggests that Vicenti corrects the deficiencies of Georgeson by providing cliff detection, but there is no teaching or suggestion in Georgeson that the Georgeson robot needs to be or should be modified to contain any sort of edge or cliff detection, because it is designed to be "very large" and guided on the floor of a large area, such as a hangar. It is not designed or intended to be in direct physical contact with a structure to be evaluated, and therefore, the idea that one would need to modify it to include edge or cliff detection is not present or suggested by the Georgeson reference. It is not designed or suggested to be designed in a way that cliff detection would be necessary or warranted.
Therefore, this rejection is using Hindsight Construction to arrive at a conclusion that is not suggested by the references.
...
(page 10) In Georgeson, the robot is designed to be "very large" and guided on the floor of a large area, such as a hangar. The robot in Georgeson rolls around a target item and scans it from a distance. It is not taught or suggested to make the robot small enough, nimble enough, and powerful enough to have it in direct physical contact with the object it is testing and mapping that object as it traverses it. The Examiner suggests that Vicenti corrects the deficiencies of Georgeson by providing cliff detection, but there is no teaching or suggestion in Georgeson that the Georgeson robot needs to be or should be modified to contain any sort of edge or cliff detection, because it is designed to be "very large" and guided on the floor of a large area, such as a hangar. It is not designed or suggested to be designed in a way that cliff detection would be necessary or warranted. Therefore, this rejection is using Hindsight Construction to arrive at a conclusion that is not suggested by the references.
However, the robot of Georgeson is able to make physical contact directly with a surface of a structure so as to perform the nondestructive testing method, as shown in Figs. 2-3 and 5 of Georgeoson. Paragraph [0119] of Georgeson further discloses that the robot uses equipment for contact-based nondestructive inspection, e.g., an ultrasonic transducer array or an eddy current probe. Further, Georgeson does not appear to disclose that its robot is very large. Instead, Georgeson discloses its robot is configured for performing nondestructive inspection of large structures by scanning multiple areas of the structures (see at least [0059]; [0060]; [0074]). This does not necessarily indicate that the robot is very large. In addition, the term “very large” is relative and therefore, a degree of how much larger the robot of Georgeson is cannot be presumed such that the size difference significantly distinguishes the claimed robot from the robot of Georgeson.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that the modification of the robot of Georgeson to include a cliff sensor is not proper, Georgeson does not restrict its robot to travel only on flat surfaces and therefore, an addition of a cliff sensor for cliff detection does not modify the nondestructive inspection operations of Georgeson’s robot and is within the level of ordinary skill in the art in order to detect a cliff, such as stairs. Specifically, paragraph [0067] of Georgeson discloses the robot is designed with multiple sensors for object detection to assist with navigation of the robot. Therefore, the addition of a cliff sensor of Vicenti does not conflict with the functionalities of the robot of Georgeson and further allows the robot of Georgeson to navigate throughout the environment in a safe manner by stopping/avoiding the robot when it detects a cliff. The process of robot navigation using known sensors is well known in the art and does not constitute an inventive concept the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson et al. (US 2018/0361571 A1), hereinafter Georgeson, in view of Vicenti (US 2016/0271795), hereinafter Vicenti.
Regarding claim 1, Georgeson teaches:
A robotic platform (Fig. 2, [0062] “a ground-based robotic NDI mobile platform 200”), comprising:
at least one robot or robotic device (Fig. 2, [0062] “This platform comprises a holonomic-motion base platform 204”), ...,
at least one computer-based control system ([0073] “The computer 16 is configured (e.g., programmed) to determine movements” or [0074] “automated controller”), ...,
at least one communications system ([0073] “computer 16”), wherein the communications system is designed to communicate between the computer-based control system and the at least one robot ([0073] “The computer 16 sends command signals to selected motor controllers 18 to activate the robotic movements”), and
at least one evaluation system (Fig. 2, [0062] “an infrared thermography (IRT) scanner 214”) that is designed to implement and process at least one nondestructive testing method ([0060] “a non-destructive inspection system may comprise means for scanning the skin of the fuselage section from a vantage point external to the fuselage section.”; Fig. 11; [0078]) when the at least one robotic device is in direct physical contact with a structure to be evaluated (Figs. 2-3, 5, shows the robot 200 being in direct contact with the curved surface of the workpiece 202 at the shroud 216; [0119] further discloses contact-based NDI for improving stabilization of the robot arm “In cases where the shroud is not needed, additional equipment for contact-based NDI (e.g., an ultrasonic transducer array or an eddy current probe) can be attached to the IRT scanner 214. Such embodiments can be enhanced by the provision of means for stabilizing the distal end of the arm of the automated apparatus ... When the stabilizers are actuated, the contactors are translated toward and into contact with the surface of the workpiece and then locked in place to stabilize the distal end of the arm and the end effector coupled thereto.”), wherein the at least one evaluation system evaluates the structure to be evaluated (Fig. 2; [0063] “a curved workpiece 202 (e.g., a fuselage section)”) for at least one damaged area ([0053] “internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects”) that cannot be visually detected from a surface of the structure to be evaluated, at least one defect ([0053] “internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects”) that cannot be visually detected from the surface of the structure to be evaluated, or at least one additional structural problem ([0053] “internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects”) that cannot be visually detected from the surface of the structure to be evaluated ([0053] “Infrared imaging can detect local variations in thermal diffusivity or thermal conductivity at or beneath the surface of the material.”; [0054] “Active thermography is used to nondestructively evaluate samples for sub-surface defects. It is effective for uncovering internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects that are not detectable by visual inspection of the sample.”; [0059]).
Georgeson fails to specifically teach wherein the at least one robot or robotic device comprises a sensor for cliff detection, and wherein the computer-based control system is at least in part located on the at least one robot.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vicenti teaches wherein the at least one robot or robotic device comprises a sensor for cliff detection ([0034], “The robot 100 includes multiple cliff sensors 135a-d located near the forward and rear edges of the robot body 102, behind the drive wheels 110a-b at a distance that enables the robot 100 to receive a cliff sensor signal and have time to stop the wheels 110a-b before moving off a sensed drop … Each cliff sensor 135a-d is disposed near one of the side surfaces so that the robot 100 can detect an incoming drop or cliff from either side of its body 102.”; [0038]); and wherein a computer-based control system is at least in part located on the at least one robot (Fig. 1C; [0036] “the body 102 of the robot 100 houses a control system 149 that includes ... a controller circuit 190 (herein also referred to as “controller 190”)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the robotic platform of Georgeson to comprise a sensor for cliff detection and locate the computer-based control system on the robot, as taught by Vicenti, in order to detect an incoming drop or cliff, thereby allow the robot to make intelligent decisions about actions (e.g., navigation actions, drive actions) to take within the environment of the robot, as stated by Vicenti in [0038]. Further, locating the computer-based control system on the robot allows the robot to perform data processing without transmitting and/or receiving data to and from a server or a remote device and therefore reduces operation time.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Georgeson to locate the computer-based control system on the robot, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Georgeson further teaches:
wherein the at least one communications system is designed to communicate remotely between the at least one robot and a home base component, a user, or a combination thereof (Fig. 17 shows communication between robot 10, robot control computer 80, and expert workstation 74; [0117] “All of these computers can be in wireline or wireless communication with a master computer at an expert workstation 74.”).
Regarding claim 3, Georgeson further teaches the structure that is separate and independent from the robotic platform (Fig. 2; [0063] “a curved workpiece 202 (e.g., a fuselage section)”), wherein the structure has at least one surface (Fig. 2 shows the robotic platform inspecting the surface of the workpiece 202).
Regarding claim 4, Georgeson further teaches the at least one computer-based control system comprises at least one path-planning algorithm (Fig. 10; [0073] “The computer 16 is configured (e.g., programmed) to determine movements that will align the end effector 224 with the surface of the target object based on the distance information received from the distance sensors 14.”; [0074] “The scan path 28 of the IRT scanner during this process is indicated by arrows in FIG. 10.”; [0086] “The automated grid scanning feature of the motion control algorithm involves feedback of distance data from three laser range meters 236, 238 and 240 to the motion control algorithm”).
Regarding claim 5, Georgeson teaches wherein the at least one path-planning algorithm directs the at least one computer-based control system to drive the at least one robot or robotic device autonomously (Fig. 10; [0074] “Another form of control enabled by this process is fully automated motion control, where the operator specifies a high-level goal, such as an m×n grid pattern, and then the automated controller does the motion planning based on the high-level goal and feedback from the alignment system ... The scan path 28 of the IRT scanner during this process is indicated by arrows in FIG. 10.”).
Regarding claim 6, Georgeson further teaches the at least one evaluation system collects measurements on the structure ([0074] “First the IRT scanner acquires IRT data for scan area 26a. Then the IRT scanner is moved upward and stopped at a location where it acquires IRT data for scan area 26b. Preferably scan area 26b overlaps scan area 26a slightly to facilitate stitching the scans together and ensure that there are no gaps in the coverage. Next the IRT scanner is moved rightward and stopped at a location where it acquires IRT data for scan area 26c. Then the IRT scanner is moved downward and stopped at a location where it acquires IRT data for scan area 26d, followed by a move rightward to acquire IRT data for scan area 26e, and then a move upward to acquire IRT data for scan area 26f. The scan path 28 of the IRT scanner during this process is indicated by arrows in FIG. 10.”).
Regarding claim 7, Georgeson further teaches the at least one evaluation system conducts nondestructive tests on the structure ([0060] “a non-destructive inspection system may comprise means for scanning the skin of the fuselage section from a vantage point external to the fuselage section.”; Fig. 11; [0078]).
Regarding claim 8, Georgeson further teaches wherein the at least one evaluation system collects at least one data point ([0118] “imaging data”) that will be used to produce a map ([0118] “direct overlay of infrared imaging data on the 3-D model”) of the structure [0118] “In the case of a barrel-shaped fuselage section, the infrared imaging data can be mapped directly onto a 3-D model of the fuselage section. The overlay of infrared imaging data with the 3-D model data enables improved data analysis and potential automated data analysis as well. For example, features/flaw indications can be directly correlated to the fuselage structure by direct overlay of infrared imaging data on the 3-D model.).
Regarding claim 9, Georgeson further teaches wherein the map of the structure shows at least one edge, at least one defect, at least on damaged area, at least one additional structural problem, or a combination thereof ([0118] “For example, features/flaw indications can be directly correlated to the fuselage structure by direct overlay of infrared imaging data on the 3-D model.”).
Regarding claim 11, Georgeson further teaches wherein the at least one additional structural problem comprises a structurally weak area ([0054] “... uncovering internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects that are not detectable by visual inspection of the sample.”) or an area that comprises an undesirable or unsuitable material ([0058] “The infrared thermography computer 8 is programmed to process infrared imaging data to detect and locate ... other material anomalies, such as delaminations and out-of-tolerance porosity.”).
Regarding claim 12, Georgeson further teaches the at least one robot comprises a wheeled robot (Fig. 2 shows Mecanum wheels for moving the robot 200; [0066] “the holonomic-motion base platform 204 employs four Mecanum wheels arranged with a Type A pair on one diagonal and a Type B pair on the other.”).
Regarding claim 13, Georgeson further teaches the at least one robot comprises at least one sensor (Fig. 2, [0062] “an infrared thermography (IRT) scanner 214”).
Regarding claim 14, Georgeson teaches a method of evaluating a surface, the method comprising:
providing a robotic platform (Fig. 2, [0062] “a ground-based robotic NDI mobile platform 200”) that comprises:
at least one robot or robotic device (Fig. 2, [0062] “This platform comprises a holonomic-motion base platform 204”),...
at least one computer-based control system ([0073] “The computer 16 is configured (e.g., programmed) to determine movements” or [0074] “automated controller”),
at least one communications system, wherein the communications system is designed to communicate between the computer-based control system 80 and the at least one robot ([0073] “The computer 16 sends command signals to selected motor controllers 18 to activate the robotic movements”), and
at least one evaluation system (Fig. 2, [0062] “an infrared thermography (IRT) scanner 214”) that is designed to implement and process at least one nondestructive testing method ([0060] “a non-destructive inspection system may comprise means for scanning the skin of the fuselage section from a vantage point external to the fuselage section.”; Fig. 11; [0078]) when the at least one robotic device is in direct physical contact with a structure to be evaluated (Figs. 2-3, 5, shows the robot 200 being in direct contact with the curved surface of the workpiece 202 at the shroud 216; [0119] further discloses contact-based NDI for improving stabilization of the robot arm “In cases where the shroud is not needed, additional equipment for contact-based NDI (e.g., an ultrasonic transducer array or an eddy current probe) can be attached to the IRT scanner 214. Such embodiments can be enhanced by the provision of means for stabilizing the distal end of the arm of the automated apparatus ... When the stabilizers are actuated, the contactors are translated toward and into contact with the surface of the workpiece and then locked in place to stabilize the distal end of the arm and the end effector coupled thereto.”), wherein the at least one evaluation system evaluates a structure to be evaluated(Fig. 2; [0063] “a curved workpiece 202 (e.g., a fuselage section)”) for at least one damaged area ([0053] “internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects”) that cannot be visually detected from a surface of the structure to be evaluated, at least one defect ([0053] “internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects”) that cannot be visually detected from the surface of the structure to be evaluated, or at least one additional structural problem ([0053] “internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects”) that cannot be visually detected from the surface of the structure to be evaluated([0053] “Infrared imaging can detect local variations in thermal diffusivity or thermal conductivity at or beneath the surface of the material.”; [0054] “Active thermography is used to nondestructively evaluate samples for sub-surface defects. It is effective for uncovering internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects that are not detectable by visual inspection of the sample.”; [0059]);
providing the structure to be tested or evaluated ((Fig. 2; [0063] “a curved workpiece 202 (e.g., a fuselage section)”); and
utilizing the robotic platform in direct contact with the surface to evaluate the structure through the implementation of the at least one nondestructive testing method (Fig. 2 demonstrates that the shroud 216 of the robotic platform 200 is in direct contact with the surface of the workpiece 202; [0119] “In cases where the shroud is not needed, additional equipment for contact-based NDI (e.g., an ultrasonic transducer array or an eddy current probe) can be attached to the IRT scanner 214 ... When the stabilizers are actuated, the contactors are translated toward and into contact with the surface of the workpiece and then locked in place to stabilize the distal end of the arm and the end effector coupled thereto.”)
Georgeson fails to specifically teach wherein the at least one robot or robotic device comprises a sensor for cliff detection; and wherein a computer-based control system is at least in part located on the at least one robot.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vicenti teaches wherein the at least one robot or robotic device comprises a sensor for cliff detection ([0034], “The robot 100 includes multiple cliff sensors 135a-d located near the forward and rear edges of the robot body 102, behind the drive wheels 110a-b at a distance that enables the robot 100 to receive a cliff sensor signal and have time to stop the wheels 110a-b before moving off a sensed drop … Each cliff sensor 135a-d is disposed near one of the side surfaces so that the robot 100 can detect an incoming drop or cliff from either side of its body 102.”); and wherein a computer-based control system is at least in part located on the at least one robot (Fig. 1C; [0036] “the body 102 of the robot 100 houses a control system 149 that includes ... a controller circuit 190 (herein also referred to as “controller 190”)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the robotic platform of Georgeson to comprise a sensor for cliff detection and locate the computer-based control system on the robot, as taught by Vicenti, in order to detect an incoming drop or cliff, thereby allow the robot to make intelligent decisions about actions (e.g., navigation actions, drive actions) to take within the environment of the robot, as stated by Vicenti in [0038]. Further, locating the computer-based control system on the robot allows the robot to perform data processing without transmitting and/or receiving data to and from a server or a remote device and therefore reduces operation time.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Georgeson to locate the computer-based control system on the robot, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 15, Georgeson further teaches:
wherein the at least one communications system is designed to communicate remotely between the at least one robot and a home base component, a user, or a combination thereof (Fig. 17 shows communication between robot 10, robot control computer 80, and expert workstation 74; [0117] “All of these computers can be in wireline or wireless communication with a master computer at an expert workstation 74.” – Wireless communication indicates remote communication).
Regarding claim 16, Georgeson further teaches wherein the structure that is separate and independent from the robotic platform (Fig. 2; [0063] “a curved workpiece 202 (e.g., a fuselage section)”), and wherein the structure has at least one surface (Fig. 2 shows the robotic platform inspecting the surface of the workpiece 202).
Regarding claim 17, Georgeson further teaches the at least one computer-based control system comprises at least one path-planning algorithm (Fig. 10; [0073] “The computer 16 is configured (e.g., programmed) to determine movements that will align the end effector 224 with the surface of the target object based on the distance information received from the distance sensors 14.”; [0074] “The scan path 28 of the IRT scanner during this process is indicated by arrows in FIG. 10.”; [0086] “The automated grid scanning feature of the motion control algorithm involves feedback of distance data from three laser range meters 236, 238 and 240 to the motion control algorithm”).
Regarding claim 18, Georgeson teaches wherein the at least one path-planning algorithm directs the at least one computer-based control system to drive the at least one robot or robotic device autonomously (Fig. 10; [0074] “Another form of control enabled by this process is fully automated motion control, where the operator specifies a high-level goal, such as an m×n grid pattern, and then the automated controller does the motion planning based on the high-level goal and feedback from the alignment system ... The scan path 28 of the IRT scanner during this process is indicated by arrows in FIG. 10.”).
Regarding claim 19, Georgeson teaches:
A robotic platform (Fig. 2, [0062] “a ground-based robotic NDI mobile platform 200”), comprising:
at least one robot or robotic device (Fig. 2, [0062] “This platform comprises a holonomic-motion base platform 204”),
at least one computer-based control system ([0073] “The computer 16 is configured (e.g., programmed) to determine movements” or [0074] “automated controller”), ...,
at least one communications system ([0073] “computer 16”), wherein the communications system is designed to communicate between the computer-based control system and the at least one robot ([0073] “The computer 16 sends command signals to selected motor controllers 18 to activate the robotic movements”), and
at least one evaluation system (Fig. 2, [0062] “an infrared thermography (IRT) scanner 214”) that is designed to implement and process at least one nondestructive testing method ([0060] “a non-destructive inspection system may comprise means for scanning the skin of the fuselage section from a vantage point external to the fuselage section.”; Fig. 11; [0078]) when the at least one robotic device is in direct physical contact with a structure to be evaluated (Figs. 2-3, 5, shows the robot 200 being in direct contact with the curved surface of the workpiece 202 at the shroud 216; [0119] further discloses contact-based NDI for improving stabilization of the robot arm “In cases where the shroud is not needed, additional equipment for contact-based NDI (e.g., an ultrasonic transducer array or an eddy current probe) can be attached to the IRT scanner 214. Such embodiments can be enhanced by the provision of means for stabilizing the distal end of the arm of the automated apparatus ... When the stabilizers are actuated, the contactors are translated toward and into contact with the surface of the workpiece and then locked in place to stabilize the distal end of the arm and the end effector coupled thereto.”), wherein the at least one evaluation system evaluates a structure to be evaluated (Fig. 2; [0063] “a curved workpiece 202 (e.g., a fuselage section)”) for at least one damaged area ([0053] “internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects”) that cannot be visually detected from a surface of the structure to be evaluated, at least one defect ([0053] “internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects”) that cannot be visually detected from the surface of the structure to be evaluated, or at least one additional structural problem ([0053] “internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects”) that cannot be visually detected from the surface of the structure to be evaluated ([0053] “Infrared imaging can detect local variations in thermal diffusivity or thermal conductivity at or beneath the surface of the material.”; [0054] “Active thermography is used to nondestructively evaluate samples for sub-surface defects. It is effective for uncovering internal bond discontinuities, delaminations, voids, inclusions, and other structural defects that are not detectable by visual inspection of the sample.”; [0059]).
Georgeson fails to specifically teach wherein the computer-based control system is at least in part located on the at least one robot.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vicenti teaches wherein a computer-based control system is at least in part located on the at least one robot (Fig. 1C; [0036] “the body 102 of the robot 100 houses a control system 149 that includes ... a controller circuit 190 (herein also referred to as “controller 190”)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the robotic platform of Georgeson to comprise a sensor for cliff detection and locate the computer-based control system on the robot, as taught by Vicenti, in order to allow the robot to perform data processing without transmitting and/or receiving data to and from a server or a remote device and therefore reduces operation time.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Georgeson to locate the computer-based control system on the robot, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 20, Georgeson further teaches:
wherein the at least one communications system is designed to communicate remotely between the at least one robot and a home base component, a user, or a combination thereof (Fig. 17 shows communication between robot 10, robot control computer 80, and expert workstation 74; [0117] “All of these computers can be in wireline or wireless communication with a master computer at an expert workstation 74.”).
6. Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson Georgeson, in view of Vicenti, and further in view of Troy et al. (US 2016/0239013 A1), hereinafter Troy.
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of Georgeson in view of Vicenti have been discussed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Georgeson nor Vicenti specifically teaches the at least one evaluation system collects at least one data point that will be used for stiffener detection on the surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Troy further teaches the at least one evaluation system collects at least one data point that will be used for stiffener detection on the surface (Fig. 3, [0064] “The robot 10 may be designed and programmed to perform non-destructive inspection of stiffeners 16a-16c and other stiffeners not visible in FIG. 3 (see stiffeners 16a-16m in FIG. 6) of a half-barrel fuselage section 2.”; [0066] discloses producing data representing position of the stiffener).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Georgeson, in view of Vicenti, to collect at least one data point that will be used for stiffener detection on the surface, as taught by Troy, in order to acquire information for performing inspection on stiffeners, as suggested by Troy in [0066].
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ouellette et al. (US 2019/0049962 A1) teaches autonomous robotic technologies for industrial inspection.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/NHI Q BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3656