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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are:
The “means to generate a digital structural model of a piece of infrastructure” of Claim 1 (and Claims 2-4 as dependent on Claim 1)
The means to generate a digital structural model of a piece of infrastructure are discussed in paragraph [0030] of Applicant’s specification and are recited as a LiDAR sensor, photo-grammetric sensor, or a set of such sensors.
The “means to configure an inspection route” of Claim 1 (and Claims 2-4 as dependent on Claim 1)
The means to configure an inspection route are discussed in paragraph [0032] of Applicant’s specification and are recited as a generic computer program.
The following is a quotation of MPEP § 2181, subsection II. B., first paragraph:
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 there is an antecedent basis error shown below
“in points of a point cloud associated”
In Claim 5, there is an antecedent basis error shown below
“in points of a point cloud associated”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 (and Claims 2-4 as dependent on 1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites means to configure an inspection route and at least an inspection vehicle, characterized in that the means to configure an inspection route are configured to calculate stopping points for the at least one inspection vehicle in points of the point cloud associated to critical elements of the piece of infrastructure; converting the stopping points in a sequence of spatial positioning points; programming at least one data-acquisition action on each of the at least one inspection vehicle's stopping points and configuring an inspection route by linking the sequence of spatial positioning points.” As per paragraph 32 of the specification, “The system for infrastructure inspection likewise comprises means to configure an inspection route. In a preferred embodiment, said means comprise a computer program which is utilized in connection with the following functions: detecting the scanned infrastructure, for which purpose the point cloud is taken as a basis; calculating the inspection vehicle's stopping points at critical elements of the infrastructure, converting the stopping points in a sequence of spatial positioning points or waypoints, setting specific data acquisition actions associated to those waypoints and linking the waypoints in a route programmable to an inspection vehicle.” However, paragraph 37 of the specification says “the method comprises configuring an inspection route. This step is preferably carried out with the personal intervention of an operator, who uses the computer program comprised in the means to configure an inspection route, as has been mentioned above.”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “means to configure an inspection route” is any computer program capable of performing these functions with or without human operator input. The specification discloses “a computer program which is utilized in connection with the following functions” and “configuring an inspection route…preferably carried out with the personal intervention of an operator.” However, no specific algorithm is recited nor is a working example provided and it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to make the computer program. If the system requires a human to do the detecting and the configuring, the applicant has not adequately described a fully automated means to perform those functions. Therefore, it is not clear that the inventors had possession of the means to configure an inspection route. For this reason, Claim 1, and its dependent claims, fail to satisfy the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (and Claims 2-4 as dependent on 1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “means to configure an inspection route” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification (see [0032]) recites a computer program with functional language and no specific algorithm. Because the specification fails to disclose an algorithm for the “means to configure an inspection route,” and the function is not one that can be performed by a general -purpose computer without specialized programming, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the bounds of the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollero Baturone et al. (ES 2366717 A1, see provided translated copy) in view of Moster et al. (US 2018/0204469 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ollero Baturone teaches a system for infrastructure inspection ([Abstract] obtaining information on work and infrastructure) comprising
means to generate a digital structural model of a piece of infrastructure ([P. 7, ll. 17-18] the camera will be fixed… horizontally for construction of detailed models of buildings),
means to configure an inspection route and at least an inspection vehicle ([P. 4, ll. 53-54] The waypoints are calculated taking into Account the model of the optical system on board the vehicle and a map... It can also be used a path generator that will interpolate between waypoints), characterized in that the means to configure an inspection route are configured to
converting the stopping points in a sequence of spatial positioning points ([P.3, line 39]-[P. 4, line 53] laser scanner (LIDAR) to obtain the coordinates of the points that intersect the sweeping plane with the terrain… the waypoints are calculated taking into Account the model of the optical system on board the vehicle and a map Approximate low resolution terrain.); and
configuring an inspection route by linking the sequence of spatial positioning points ([P. 4, ll. 54] It can also be used a path generator that will interpolate between waypoints).
Ollero Baturone is not relied upon as teaching that the means to configure an inspection route are configured to calculate stopping points for the at least one inspection vehicle in points of the point cloud associated to critical elements of the piece of infrastructure; and programming at least one data-acquisition action on each of the at least one inspection vehicle's stopping point.
However, Moster teaches that the means to configure an inspection route are configured to
calculate stopping points for the at least one inspection vehicle in points of the point cloud associated to critical elements of the piece of infrastructure ([0133] the system can utilize the point cloud to determine points on the structure that are to be captured by the UAV at each inspection location); and
programming at least one data-acquisition action on each of the at least one inspection vehicle's stopping point ([0133] points on the structure that are to be captured by the UAV at each inspection location… include an area of the structure that would be included in… an image obtained by the UAV).
Ollero Baturone and Moster are considered to be analogous to the cliamed invention because they are both in the same field of autonomous infrastructure inspection and path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inspection route configuration means of Ollero Baturone to include calculating stopping points based on point cloud data and programming specific data-acquisition actions of Moster with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve the precision and relevance of inspection data collection. By integrating Moster’s teaching of associating stopping points with critical elements identified in a point cloud into Ollero Baturone’s waypoint-based path generation, the system can ensure that the inspection vehicle captures high-fidelity data at the most structurally significant locations rather than just following a generic geometric path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using point cloud analysis to trigger specific acquisition actions would yield the predictable result of a more comprehensive and efficient structural health monitoring system.
Regarding Claim 2, Ollero Baturone teaches that the means to generate a structural model of an infrastructure comprise a LiDAR sensor ([P. 2, ll. 2-5] obtained with the sensors on board the unmanned vehicle… A third sensory mode comprising a laser scanner (LIDAR)).
Regarding Claim 3, Ollero Baturone teaches that the means to generate a structural model of an infrastructure comprise at least a photogrammetric sensor ([P. 2, ll. 2-4] obtained with the sensors on board the unmanned vehicle… a stereo system with two cameras whose images must be taken correspond).
Regarding Claim 4, Ollero Baturone teaches that the at least one inspection vehicle is a multirotor unmanned aircraft vehicle ([Abstract]-[P. 6, line 5] Information gathering team in works and infrastructure based on unmanned aerial vehicle, (UAV)… air vehicles equipped with rotors).
Regarding Claim 5, Ollero Baturone teaches a method for infrastructure inspection ([Abstract] obtaining information on work and infrastructure) comprising the steps of:
a) Generating a digital structural model of a piece of infrastructure ([P. 7, ll. 17-18] the camera will be fixed… horizontally for construction of detailed models of buildings),
b) Configuring an inspection route ([P. 4, ll. 53-54] The waypoints are calculated taking into Account the model of the optical system on board the vehicle and a map... It can also be used a path generator that will interpolate between waypoints),
c) Programming the inspection route in at least one inspection vehicle ([P. 4, ll. 51-21] an aerial vehicle equipped with a control system that allows automatic stabilization and monitoring of paths defined by waypoints that may be registered in memory),
d) Processing the data acquired by the at least one inspection vehicle ([P. 4, line 41] The other way to get a rebuild 3D is the LIDAR, along with position and orientation estimates of the vehicle),
characterized in that step b) comprises the following substeps:
ii. Converting the stopping points in a sequence of spatial positioning points ([P.3, line 39]-[P. 4, line 53] laser scanner (LIDAR) to obtain the coordinates of the points that intersect the sweeping plane with the terrain… the waypoints are calculated taking into Account the model of the optical system on board the vehicle and a map Approximate low resolution terrain.).
iv. Configuring an inspection route by linking the sequence of spatial positioning points ([P. 4, ll. 54] It can also be used a path generator that will interpolate between waypoints).
Ollero Baturone is not relied upon as teaching that processing the data acquired by the at least one inspection vehicle comprises the following substeps:
i. Calculating stopping points for the at least one inspection vehicle in points of the point cloud associated to critical elements of the piece of infrastructure and
iii. Programming at least one data-acquisition action on each of the at least one inspection vehicle's stopping points
However Moster teaches that processing the data acquired by the at least one inspection vehicle comprises the following substeps:
i. Calculating stopping points for the at least one inspection vehicle in points of the point cloud associated to critical elements of the piece of infrastructure ([0133] the system can utilize the point cloud to determine points on the structure that are to be captured by the UAV at each inspection location) and
iii. Programming at least one data-acquisition action on each of the at least one inspection vehicle's stopping points ([0133] points on the structure that are to be captured by the UAV at each inspection location… include an area of the structure that would be included in… an image obtained by the UAV)
Ollero Baturone and Moster are considered to be analogous to the cliamed invention because they are both in the same field of autonomous infrastructure inspection and path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method steps for configuring an inspection route of Ollero Baturone to include calculating stopping points based on point cloud data and programming specific data-acquisition actions of Moster with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve the precision and relevance of inspection data collection. By integrating Moster’s teaching of associating stopping points with critical elements identified in a point cloud into Ollero Baturone’s method of processing acquired data to generate paths, the system can ensure that the inspection vehicle captures high-fidelity data at the most structurally significant locations rather than just following a generic geometric path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using point cloud analysis to trigger specific acquisition actions would yield the predictable result of a more comprehensive and efficient structural health monitoring method.
Regarding Claim 6, Ollero Baturone is not relied upon as teaching that step a) comprises a first substep of scanning the piece of infrastructure, a second substep of generating a point cloud and a third substep of processing the point cloud.
However, Moster teaches that step a) comprises a first substep of scanning the piece of infrastructure ([0028] the UAV can inspect the structure for damage, and can navigate about the structure capturing images of the structure via one or more cameras, sensors, and so on, accessible to the UAV. Upon completion of the initial flight plan, the images can be obtained by a system and a three-dimensional representation of the geographic area can be generated), a second substep of generating a point cloud ([0028] generating point clouds of structures) and a third substep of processing the point cloud ([0030] can utilize the generated point cloud to inform whether a described flight plan is feasible to be performed by a UAV).
Ollero Baturone and Moster are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of autonomous infrastructure inspection and path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified step a) of generating a digital structural model of Ollero Baturone to include the substeps of scanning the infrastructure, generating a point cloud, and processing said point cloud of Moster with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve the precision and relevance of inspection data collection. By integrating Moster’s teaching of systematically processing a generated point cloud to inform flight plan feasibility into Ollero Baturone’s model generation process, the system can ensure that the inspection vehicle captures high-fidelity data at the most structurally significant locations rather than just following a generic geometric path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing a multi-step point cloud processing workflow would yield the predictable result of a more comprehensive and efficient structural health monitoring method with a highly accurate digital foundation.
Regarding Claim 7, Ollero Baturone is not relied upon as teaching that step b) comprises an additional substep of detecting the infrastructure using the point cloud as basis
However, Moster teaches that step b) comprises an additional substep of detecting the infrastructure using the point cloud as a basis ([0036] as another example, the UAV can utilize, at least in part, the point cloud to determine a slope of a roof, as described below with respect to FIG. 14. The determined slope can be utilized to modify a gimbal associated with a camera, such that images can of the structure can be obtained from a normal (e.g., perpendicular) field of view).
Ollero Baturone and Moster are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of autonomous infrastructure inspection and path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified step b) of configuring an inspection route of Ollero Baturone to include an additional substep of detecting the infrastructure using the point cloud as a basis of Moster with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve the precision and relevance of inspection data collection. By integrating Moster’s teaching of utilizing point cloud data to determine the specific geometry of a structure (such as a roof slope) to modify sensor angles into Ollero Baturone’s route configuration, the system can ensure that the inspection vehicle captuers high-fidelity data at the most structurally significant locations rather than just following a generic geometric path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using structural detection to adjust data acquisition in real-time would yield the predictable result of a more comprehensive and efficient structural health monitoring method with optimized viewing angles for sensor data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 272-9358. 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.
/E.H.H./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645