DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 03/13/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-15, 17, & 19-20 remain pending. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-15, 17, & 19-20 have been amended. Claims 4, 11-12, 16, & 18 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 line 21-25, filed 03/13/2026, with respect to Claim objections of claims 1, 6, 13, 15, & 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 1, 6, 13, 15, & 19 has been withdrawn.
However, the Objection to claim 8 remains; “a non-transitory memory storing instructions” under the broadest reasonable interpretation includes human brains which is a human organism (see MPEP 2105(III): “If the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention as a whole encompasses a human organism, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and AIA sec. 33(a) must be made indicating that the claimed invention is directed to a human organism and is therefore nonstatutory subject matter.”)
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 11 line 8 to page 12 line 8, filed 03/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 11 lines 11-12):
“Applicant submits that the claims are patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two, because they are integrated into a practical application”
& (page 11 lines 15-18):
“Here, the Specification expressly describes the improvement: the claimed systems and methods allow for “large amount of data from one or more NDT devices [to] be continuously synchronized to a remote system automatically, without the need for user input,” such that “multiple devices [can] publish to the same inspection.”
& (page 12 lines 7-8):
“These recited steps correspond directly to the technical improvement described in the Specification and demonstrate a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106(I): “Because abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon "are the basic tools of scientific and technological work", the Supreme Court has expressed concern that monopolizing these tools by granting patent rights may impede innovation rather than promote it.”
See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A): “The fact that a computer "necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm," is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility "depend simply on the draftsman’s art," Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that "‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133)”
See MPEP 2106.05(b): “When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.”
Analysis:
The basic tools of scientific and technological work (i.e. judicial exceptions) such as “continuously synchronized” (abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, in particular shifting the independent variable of functions or data streams so as to align a feature) are ‘practical’ in the sense of being useful (their broad usefulness is the reason for the existence of judicial exceptions), but allowing patenting of such subject matter “may impede innovation rather than promote it”. Recitation of broad generic limitations such as effectively claiming generic computer elements to perform a judicial exception would monopolize that judicial exception, and the claiming of judicial exceptions would “depend simply on the draftman’s art”. The claimed limitations (judicial exceptions) were determined to not require the use of a particular machine.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the limitations are not sufficient to incorporate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 12 line 9 to page 13 line 2, filed 03/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 12 lines 9-13):
“Moreover, Applicant urges the Office to consider the fact that MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) has been revised, in part, to read: “[T]he specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field.””
& (page 12 lines 16-22):
“Applicant submits that the claims provide an improvement to the technical field of borescope inspection, … synchronized data is present across all connected devices and the remote server.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The borescopes at the recited level of generality are no more than field of art limitations and have no specific embodiment beyond that which is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. The limitations directed towards computing elements such as processors or servers are no more than field of use limitations corresponding to computing elements. Therefore, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details to incorporate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application at revised step 2A Prong Two or at step 2B.
Regarding “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 13 line 3-14, filed 03/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 13 lines 6-9):
“However, without conceding to the rejection and solely to advance prosecution, claim 1 has been amended as discussed during the Interview of March 12, 2026, which the Office has agreed would likely overcome the references as applied in the current rejections of the claims pending further search and consideration.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Regarding amended subject matter (as discussed in the interview of March 12, 2026) relating to whether amendment(s) directed towards ‘the borescope receiving data from the server rather than only sending data to the server’ would overcome the prior art of US 9954908 B2 “Systems and Methods for Collaborating In a Non-destructive Testing System” (Soorianarayanan) in view of US 20160036916 A1 “Synchronous Measurement System” (Takeda). After further consideration and review of 35 USC § 103 with US 9954908 B2 (Soorianarayanan) in view of US 20160036916 A1(Takeda) evidence was found for anticipation of the amended subject matter in the reference of Soorianarayanan. See Fig. 1-14: “borescope” & Fig. 1-24: “the “cloud” as well as Fig. 3-14: “borescope” & Fig. 3-24 and in particular that there is double sided arrow (representing data transfer between the server and the borescope) between the borescope and the cloud. Additionally, Soorianarayanan indicates that there is a mobile device connected to the borescope which can (in addition to connecting to a server) display images or other data (column 5 lines 24-29: “As illustrated, the bore scope 14 and the PTZ camera 16 may be communicatively coupled to a mobile device 22 also having one or more processors 23 and a memory 25. The mobile device 22 may include, for example, a tablet, a cell phone (e.g., smart phone), a notebook, a laptop, or any other mobile computing device.”
Claim Objections
Claims 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 line 3: "and a non-transitory memory storing instructions". 35 U.S.C. § 101; at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this encompasses 'a brain', which is within the category of "human organism". Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Note: the limitation of “A system comprising: at least one data processor” makes it clear that the memory is a ‘computer readable’ memory since a processor is generally understood to be a manufacture. Examiner recommends amending the limitation to “non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions” with support being found at least in claim 15 line 1 of the originally filed specifications.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6-7, 13, & 19 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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]:
Claims 6, 13, & 19 in line 1-5 (each claim) recites “data comprises: …;…; or …”. The semicolon indicates additional limitations which the invention necessarily includes, but the “or” indicates that the limitations are in the alternative. It is unclear which limitations are necessary parts of the claimed invention and therefore the scope is unclear. For the purposes of examination the limitations are interpreted to have an ‘or’ relation.
Claims 7 in line 1 (each claim) recites the limitation "the synchronized inspection data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for the ‘synchronized set of inspection data’, since this element and phrasing is found within the parent claim 1.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Claims 1, 8, & 15 in lines 7-9, lines 8-11, lines 7-9 (respectively) recites the limitation "receiving, by one or more sensors of ". 1) It is unclear how “the inspection template” could be sent with both the first set of data and the second set of data; if there are two or more inspections then associated templates for each inspection would have different data and be different templates. 2) how synchronization between data from the same “borescope devise” is synchronized, if this means using the borescope to measure the same area for the same measurements at a later time then this would be the standard use of a borescope (to inspect typically means to take measurements and compare them against previously made measurements of the same item).
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim’:
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, & 19-20 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-15, 17, & 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems comprising: receiving” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“comparing, by at least one processor of the borescope device, the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data;”
“identifying, by the at least one processor of the borescope device, differences between the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data;”
“creating, by the at least one processor of the borescope device, a synchronized set of inspection data that includes the inspection template, the first set of inspection data, and the second set of inspection, wherein the synchronized set of inspection data is created automatically during the inspection;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A): “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “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”
Analysis:
Operations (such as “synchronization”) on data which produces data are either mathematical relationships or mental processes. To synchronize data is to set the time values and compare the measured values; i.e. some relation (which produces data) between f(t) & g(t) such that t=t0 for both ‘f’ & ‘g’.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of either mathematical relationships or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional limitations/elements of:
1) “receiving, by a borescope device, a first set of inspection data from a remote server communicatively coupled to the borescope device, wherein the first set of inspection data includes an inspection template, at least one first image or video, and first metadata from an inspection;”
1) “receiving, by one or more sensors of the borescope device, a second set of inspection data acquired by the one or more sensors during the inspection, wherein the second set of inspection data includes the inspection template, at least one image or video, and second metadata;”
2) “providing the synchronized set of inspection data to the remote server such that the synchronized set of inspection is present on both the borescope device and the remote server.”
Regarding 1), Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: …(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
Analysis:
Receiving data is a necessary step for the judicial exception of “synchronizing the first set of data and the second set of data to create a synchronized set of data”. As such the limitations directed towards receiving data are necessarily implied by the judicial exception, and are not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, limitations directed towards receiving data are insignificant extra-solution activity
Conclusion:
Therefore, the limitations directed towards receiving data do not “integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Regarding 2), Explanation:
providing data to a server is extra-solution activity (post-solution) and at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation is necessarily implied by the judicial exception (There would be no point in collection the data if it weren’t stored somewhere such as on a field of art element such as a server).
The “borescope”, “processor”, “server” and are elements which are field of use limitations corresponding at least to the CPC symbol G01N21/00 “Investigating or analysing materials by the use of optical means, i.e. using sub-millimetre waves, infrared, visible or ultraviolet light” or to computer elements.
These elements amount to no “more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”.
Therefore, these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no limitations/elements beyond those addressed in step 2A prong Two (as above).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“comparing, by at least one processor of the second borescope device, the synchronized set of inspection data and the third set of inspection data;”
“synchronizing the synchronized set of inspection data and the third set of inspection data to create a second synchronized set of inspection data, automatically during the inspection;”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards synchronizing data and are determined to recite judicial exceptions for similar reasons to the claim 1 Revised Step 2A Prong One analysis.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of either mathematical relationships or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein the borescope device is a first borescope device and the synchronized set of inspection data is a first synchronized set of inspection data, the method further comprising:”
“receiving, by a second borescope device, the synchronized set of inspection data from the remote server communicatively coupled to the second borescope device;”
“receiving, by one or more sensors of the second borescope device, a third set of inspection data acquired by the one or more sensors during the inspection by the second borescope device, wherein the third set of inspection data includes the inspection template, at least one third image or video, and third metadata;”
“providing the second synchronized set of inspection data to the first borescope device and the remote server such that the second set of synchronized set of inspection data is present on the first borescope device, the second borescope device, and the remote server.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
These limitations are further directed towards the necessary extra-solution activity of pre-solution (data gathering) or post solution (store or share data on elements which are not significantly more than field of use limitations).
And the limitations/elements do no amount to significantly more than linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”.
Therefore these the additional limitations/elements are analyzed similarly to the analysis for claim 1 Revised Step 2A Prong Two (as above).
Conclusion:
Therefore, these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no limitations/elements beyond those addressed in step 2A prong Two (as above).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein synchronizing the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data comprises: providing, by the device, the second set of inspection data to the remote server.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
These limitations are further directed towards the necessary extra-solution activity of data gathering
And/or linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”.
Therefore these the additional limitations/elements are analyzed similarly to the analysis for claim 1 Revised Step 2A Prong Two (as above).
Conclusion:
Therefore, these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no limitations/elements beyond those addressed in step 2A prong Two (as above).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“further comprising: performing an inspection using the borescope device to acquire the second set of inspection data.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: …(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".”
Analysis:
These limitations amount to no more than either insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of necessary data gathering or insignificant post-solution activity in the form of “apply it” (or equivalent) regarding the judicial exception(s). Non destructive testing necessarily requires “receiving data” & “performing an inspection”
Conclusion:
Therefore, these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no limitations/elements beyond those addressed in step 2A prong Two (as above).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein the synchronized set of inspection data comprises: images or videos; metadata; annotations made by an inspector; or measurements.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
These limitations amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of necessary data gathering.
Conclusion:
Therefore, these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no limitations/elements beyond those addressed in step 2A prong Two (as above).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“wherein the synchronized inspection data comprises a specified file naming nomenclature.”
Explanation:
Analysis:
These limitations amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of necessary data gathering. Computerized data files require naming nomenclature.
Conclusion:
Therefore, these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no limitations/elements beyond those addressed in step 2A prong Two (as above).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 8-10, 13-15, 17, & 19- 20 are rejected for analogous reasons as claims 1-3, & 5-7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-10, 13-15, 17, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160036916 A1 "Synchronous Measurement System" (Takeda) in view of US 9954908 B2 "Systems And Methods For Collaborating In A Non-destructive Testing System" (Soorianarayanan).
Regarding claim 1, Takeda teaches a method for synchronizing inspection data (Fig. 1-1: “synchronous measurement system”, para 0023: “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a synchronous measurement system according to an embodiment of the invention”) [across borescope systems] comprising:
Takeda does not as explicitly teach receiving, by a borescope device, a first set of inspection data from a remote server communicatively coupled to the borescope device, wherein the first set of inspection data includes an inspection template, at least one first image or video, and first metadata from an inspection; receiving, by one or more sensors of the borescope device, a second set of inspection data acquired by the one or more sensors during the inspection, wherein the second set of inspection data includes the inspection template, at least one second image or video, and second metadata; comparing, by at least one processor of the borescope device, the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data; identifying, by the at least one processor of the borescope device, differences between the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data; creating. by the at least one processor of the borescope device, a synchronized set of inspection data that includes the inspection template, the first set of inspection data, and the second set of inspection data, wherein the synchronized set of inspection data is created automatically during the inspection; and; providing the synchronized set of inspection data to the remote server such that the synchronized set of inspection data is present on both the borescope device and the remote server.
Soorianarayanan teaches receiving, by a borescope device, a first set of inspection data from a remote servers and/or services in the cloud 24 to analyze data, the NDT inspector 276 and/or the NDT inspector 278 may analyze data captured by NDT inspection devices 12 using the processing capabilities of the cloud 24”) communicatively coupled to the borescope device, wherein the first set of inspection data includes an inspection template (column 15 lines 15-19: “Along with the sharing process or format, the application may receive an indication of a template that may be used to present the data. In this case, prior to sending the data, the application may apply the template, generate a report using the template, and send the report.”), at least one first image or video, and first metadata from an inspection (column 8 lines 55-58: “the communication of a variety of data from the borescope 14 to the mobile device 22, including but not limited to images, video, and sensor measurements,”); receiving, by one or more sensors of the borescope device, a second set of inspection data acquired by the one or more sensors during the inspection, wherein the second set of inspection data includes the inspection template, at least one second image or video, and second metadata (it is inherent to an inspection to collect analogous data corresponding to the item being inspected but at a different time so as to be able to make comparisons); comparing, by at least one processor of the borescope device, the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data (it is inherent to an inspection to compare data); identifying, by the at least one processor of the borescope device, differences between the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data (it is inherent to an inspection to compare data); creating. by the at least one processor of the borescope device, a synchronized set of inspection data that includes the inspection template, the first set of inspection data, and the second set of inspection data, wherein the synchronized set of inspection data is created (Fig 6-172: “synchronization signal”, column 12 lines 31-35: “The data stream 168 may include only overlays, while the data stream 170 may include images or video. In one embodiment, the images or video 170 may be synchronized with the overlays 168 by using a synchronization signal 172.”) automatically during the inspection (Fig. 10: “”column 18 lines 41-46: “the application may also employ a process 260 for automatically sharing data acquired from the NDT system 10, as shown in FIG. 10.”); and; providing the synchronized set of inspection data to the remote server such that the synchronized set of inspection data is present on both the borescope device and the remote server (Fig. 3-14: “borescope” & Fig. 3-24: “the cloud”,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Takeda with the teachings of Soorianarayanan. One would have added to the “Synchronous Measurement System” of Takeda the “Systems And Methods For Collaborating In A Non-destructive Testing System” which includes NDT devices of Soorianarayanan. The motivation would have been that the combination would better enable the more efficient collection, comparing, and sharing of data about inspections (see Soorianarayanan column 1 lines 25-27: “Accordingly, it would be beneficial to improve the data sharing capabilities of the NDT system, for example, to more efficiently test and inspect a variety of systems and equipment.” & see Takeda para 0020: “it is possible to measure various kinds of information such as the movements, the postures, and the distortions in a plurality of places of an object to be detected (a human body, a mobile body, an immobile property, etc.) in synchronization.”)
Regarding claim 2, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems of claim 1,
Takeda further teaches wherein the borescope device is a first borescope device and the synchronized set of inspection data is a first synchronized set of inspection data (Fig. 4- 301 & Fig. 4-302 are both NDT devices which are synchronized), the method further comprising: receiving, by a second borescope device, the synchronized set of inspection data from the remote server communicatively coupled to the second borescope device (Fig. 1-11: “a personal computer and includes a main body”, para 0034: “The main controller 10 is, for example, a personal computer and includes a main body 11, a display section 12, a keyboard 13, and an Ethernet hub 14. The main controller 10 is installed with a synchronous measurement system execution program and controls synchronous measurement”, it would be obvious to a POSITA that the measuring systems (borescopes of Soorianarayanan) could be synchronized over a server instead of a personal computer); receiving, by one or more sensors of the second borescope device, a third set of inspection data acquired by the one or more sensors during the inspection by the second borescope device, wherein the third set of inspection data includes the inspection template, at least one third image or video, and third metadata (Fig. 1-20: “a plurality of sub-controllers 20A to 20E” , para 0049: “Each of the sub-controllers 20A to 20E transmits the synchronization command to the plurality of sensor units 30 from the second communication section 210 via the CAN ports 22 by broadcasting.”, the borescopes of Soorianarayanan would be synchronized through the controllers of Takeda); comparing, by at least one processor of the second borescope device, the synchronized set of inspection date and the third set of inspection data (Fig. 1-1: “synchronous measurement system”, synchronous measurement system enables the comparison of data from multiple NDT devices such as the borescopes of Soorianarayanan); synchronizing the synchronized set of inspection data, and the third set of inspection data to create a second synchronized set of inspection data, automatically during the inspection (Fig. 5, a “Trigger” automatically synchronizes the data sets);
Soorianarayanan further teaches and, providing the second synchronized set of inspection data to the first borescope device and the remote server such that the second set of synchronized set of inspection data is present on the first borescope device, the second borescope device, and the remote server (Fig. 1-14: “borescope system” & Fig. 1-22: “mobile device” & Fig. 1-24: “cloud”, column 5 lines 52-54: “mobile device 22 may be communicatively coupled to the NDT inspection devices 12, such as the borescope 14 and/or the PTZ camera 16, through the “cloud” 24”, double arrows between these devices indicate that data can go to and from the borescopes).
Regarding claim 3, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems of claim 1,
Takeda further teaches wherein synchronizing the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data comprises: providing, by the at least one processor of the borescope device, the second set of inspection data to the remote server (Fig. 4 – 307: “Communication Section”, the data is sent to another device and so data is present on multiple devices, A POSITA would see that the system of Takeda could be used to synchronize inspection data such as from borescopes of Soorianarayanan).
Regarding claim 5, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems of claim 1,
Soorianarayanan further teaches further comprising :performing an inspection using the borescope device to acquire the second set of inspection data (it is inherent to an inspection to collect analogous data corresponding to the item being inspected but at a different time so as to be able to make comparisons).
Regarding claim 6, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems of claim 1,
Takeda further teaches wherein the synchronized set of inspection data comprises: images or videos; metadata; annotations made by an inspector; or measurements (Fig. 5: “measurement data”, measurements/(“measurement data”)).
Regarding claim 7, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the method for synchronizing inspection data across borescope systems of claim 1,
Takeda further teaches wherein the synchronized inspection data comprises a specified file naming nomenclature (inherently files created and read by computers have specified naming nomenclature so that the computers know how to find and interpret them).
Regarding claim 8, Takeda teaches a [borescope] system comprising: … in response to receiving the second set of inspection data, synchronizing the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data to create a synchronized set of inspection data (Fig. 1-1: “synchronous measurement system”, para 0023: “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a synchronous measurement system according to an embodiment of the invention”);
Takeda does not as explicitly teach a borescope device comprising one or more sensors, at least one data processors and a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one data processor causes the at least one data processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a first set of inspection data from a remote server, wherein the first set of inspection data includes an inspection template, at least one first image or video, and first metadata from an inspection; receiving a second set of inspection data from the one or more a-sensors of the borescope device acquired by the one or more sensors during the inspection, wherein the second set of inspection data includes the inspection template, at least one second image or video, and second metadata; …; by comparing the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data; identifying differences between the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data, and wherein the synchronized set of inspection data includes the inspection template, the first set of inspection data, and the second set of inspection data, wherein synchronizing occurs; and providing the synchronized set of inspection data to the remote server such that the synchronized set of inspection data is present on both the borescope device and the remote server.
Soorianarayanan teaches a borescope device comprising one or more sensors, at least one data processors and a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one data processor causes the at least one data processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a first set of inspection data from a remote server(Fig. 3-14: “borescope” & Fig. 3-24: “the cloud”, column 26 lines 55-58: “By employing servers and/or services in the cloud 24 to analyze data, the NDT inspector 276 and/or the NDT inspector 278 may analyze data captured by NDT inspection devices 12 using the processing capabilities of the cloud 24”), wherein the first set of inspection data includes an inspection template (column 15 lines 15-19: “Along with the sharing process or format, the application may receive an indication of a template that may be used to present the data. In this case, prior to sending the data, the application may apply the template, generate a report using the template, and send the report.”), at least one first image or video, and first metadata from an inspection (column 8 lines 55-58: “the communication of a variety of data from the borescope 14 to the mobile device 22, including but not limited to images, video, and sensor measurements,”); receiving a second set of inspection data from the one or more sensors of the borescope device acquired by the one or more sensors during the inspection, wherein the second set of inspection data includes the inspection template, at least one second image or video, and second metadata(it is inherent to an inspection to collect analogous data corresponding to the item being inspected but at a different time so as to be able to make comparisons) ; …; by comparing the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data (it is inherent to an inspection to compare data); identifying differences between the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data, and wherein the synchronized set of inspection data includes the inspection template, the first set of inspection data, and the second set of inspection data, wherein synchronizing occurs(Fig 6-172: “synchronization signal”, column 12 lines 31-35: “The data stream 168 may include only overlays, while the data stream 170 may include images or video. In one embodiment, the images or video 170 may be synchronized with the overlays 168 by using a synchronization signal 172.”) automatically during the inspection (Fig. 10: “”column 18 lines 41-46: “the application may also employ a process 260 for automatically sharing data acquired from the NDT system 10, as shown in FIG. 10.”) ; and providing the synchronized set of inspection data to the remote server such that the synchronized set of inspection data is present on both the borescope device and the remote server (Fig. 3-14: “borescope” & Fig. 3-24: “the cloud”,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Takeda with the teachings of Soorianarayanan. One would have added to the “Synchronous Measurement System” of Takeda the “Systems And Methods For Collaborating In A Non-destructive Testing System” which includes NDT devices of Soorianarayanan. The motivation would have been that the combination would better enable the more efficient collection, comparing, and sharing of data about inspections (see Soorianarayanan column 1 lines 25-27: “Accordingly, it would be beneficial to improve the data sharing capabilities of the NDT system, for example, to more efficiently test and inspect a variety of systems and equipment.” & see Takeda para 0020: “it is possible to measure various kinds of information such as the movements, the postures, and the distortions in a plurality of places of an object to be detected (a human body, a mobile body, an immobile property, etc.) in synchronization.”)
Regarding claim 9, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the borescope system of claim 8,
Takeda further teaches wherein the borescope device is a first borescope (Fig. 4- 301 & Fig. 4-302 are both NDT devices which are synchronized), the system further comprising: a second borescope device comprising one or more sensors, at least one data processor, and anon-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one data processor causes the at least one data processor to perform operations comprising: the synchronized set of inspection data from the remote server (Fig. 1-11: “a personal computer and includes a main body”, para 0034: “The main controller 10 is, for example, a personal computer and includes a main body 11, a display section 12, a keyboard 13, and an Ethernet hub 14. The main controller 10 is installed with a synchronous measurement system execution program and controls synchronous measurement”, it would be obvious to a POSITA that the measuring systems (borescopes of Soorianarayanan) could be synchronized over a server instead of a personal computer); a third set of inspection data from the one or more sensors of the second borescope device acquired by the one or more sensors during the inspection, wherein the third set of inspection data includes the inspection template, at least one third image or video, and third metadata(Fig. 1-20: “a plurality of sub-controllers 20A to 20E” , para 0049: “Each of the sub-controllers 20A to 20E transmits the synchronization command to the plurality of sensor units 30 from the second communication section 210 via the CAN ports 22 by broadcasting.”, the borescopes of Soorianarayanan would be synchronized through the controllers of Takeda); in response to receiving the third set of inspection data, synchronizing the synchronized set of inspection data (Fig. 1-1: “synchronous measurement system”, synchronous measurement system enables the comparison of data from multiple NDT devices such as the borescopes of Soorianarayanan) and the third set of inspection data to create a second synchronized set of inspection data, automatically during the inspection(Fig. 5, a “Trigger” automatically synchronizes the data sets);
Soorianarayanan further teaches and, providing the second synchronized set of inspection data to the first borescope device and the remote server such that the second synchronized set of inspection data is present on the first borescope device, the second borescope device, and the remote server(Fig. 1-14: “borescope system” & Fig. 1-22: “mobile device” & Fig. 1-24: “cloud”, column 5 lines 52-54: “mobile device 22 may be communicatively coupled to the NDT inspection devices 12, such as the borescope 14 and/or the PTZ camera 16, through the “cloud” 24”, double arrows between these devices indicate that data can go to and from the borescopes).
Regarding claim 10, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the borescope system of claim 8,
Takeda further teaches wherein the operations performed by the at least one processor further comprise: providing, the second set of inspection data , to the remote server (Fig. 4 – 307: “Communication Section”, the data is sent to another device and so data is present on multiple devices, A POSITA would see that the system of Takeda could be used to synchronize inspection data such as from borescopes of Soorianarayanan).
Regarding claim 13, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the borescope system of claim 8,
Takeda further teaches wherein the synchronized set of inspection data comprises: images or videos; metadata; annotations made by an inspector; or measurements (Fig. 5: “measurement data”, measurements/(“measurement data”)).
Regarding claim 14, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the borescope system of claim 8,
Takeda further teaches wherein the synchronized set of inspection data comprises a specified file naming nomenclature (inherently files created and read by computers have specified naming nomenclature so that the computers know how to find and interpret them).
Regarding claim 15, Takeda teaches a non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions (para 0034: “The main controller 10 is, for example, a personal computer and includes a main body 11”, computer includes memory storing instructions) which, when executed by at least one data processor forming part of at least one computing system… synchronizing the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data (Fig. 1-1: “synchronous measurement system”, para 0023: “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a synchronous measurement system according to an embodiment of the invention”).
Takeda does not as explicitly teach causes the at least one data processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a first set of inspection data from a remote server, wherein the first set of inspection data includes an inspection template, at least one first image or video, and first metadata from an inspection; receiving a second set of inspection data from one or more a sensors of a borescope device, wherein the second set of inspection data includes the inspection template, at least one second image or video, and second metadata; comparing the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data; differences between the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data; … to create a synchronized set of inspection data, that includes the inspection template, the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data, wherein synchronizing occurs automatically during an inspection; and providing the synchronized set of inspection data to the remote server such that the synchronized set of data is present on both the borescope device and the remote system.
Soorianarayanan teaches causes the at least one data processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a first set of inspection data from a remote server (Fig. 3-14: “borescope” & Fig. 3-24: “the cloud”, column 26 lines 55-58: “By employing servers and/or services in the cloud 24 to analyze data, the NDT inspector 276 and/or the NDT inspector 278 may analyze data captured by NDT inspection devices 12 using the processing capabilities of the cloud 24”), wherein the first set of inspection data includes an inspection template (column 15 lines 15-19: “Along with the sharing process or format, the application may receive an indication of a template that may be used to present the data. In this case, prior to sending the data, the application may apply the template, generate a report using the template, and send the report.”), at least one first image or video, and first metadata from an inspection (column 8 lines 55-58: “the communication of a variety of data from the borescope 14 to the mobile device 22, including but not limited to images, video, and sensor measurements,”);receiving a second set of inspection data from one or more sensors of a borescope device, wherein the second set of inspection data includes the inspection template, at least one second image or video, and second metadata (it is inherent to an inspection to collect analogous data corresponding to the item being inspected but at a different time so as to be able to make comparisons); comparing the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data (it is inherent to an inspection to compare data);- differences between the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data (it is inherent to an inspection to compare data); … to create a synchronized set of inspection data, that includes the inspection template, the first set of inspection data and the second set of inspection data, wherein synchronizing occurs (Fig 6-172: “synchronization signal”, column 12 lines 31-35: “The data stream 168 may include only overlays, while the data stream 170 may include images or video. In one embodiment, the images or video 170 may be synchronized with the overlays 168 by using a synchronization signal 172.”) automatically during an inspection(Fig. 10: “”column 18 lines 41-46: “the application may also employ a process 260 for automatically sharing data acquired from the NDT system 10, as shown in FIG. 10.”); and- providing the synchronized set of inspection data to the remote server such that the synchronized set of data is present on both the borescope device and the remote system (Fig. 3-14: “borescope” & Fig. 3-24: “the cloud”,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-transitory computer readable memory taught by Takeda with the teachings of Soorianarayanan. One would have added to the “Synchronous Measurement System” of Takeda the “Systems And Methods For Collaborating In A Non-destructive Testing System” which includes NDT devices of Soorianarayanan. The motivation would have been that the combination would better enable the more efficient collection, comparing, and sharing of data about inspections (see Soorianarayanan column 1 lines 25-27: “Accordingly, it would be beneficial to improve the data sharing capabilities of the NDT system, for example, to more efficiently test and inspect a variety of systems and equipment.” & see Takeda para 0020: “it is possible to measure various kinds of information such as the movements, the postures, and the distortions in a plurality of places of an object to be detected (a human body, a mobile body, an immobile property, etc.) in synchronization.”)
Regarding claim 17, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the non-transitory computer readable memory of claim 15,
Takeda further teaches wherein operations further comprise: providing, the second set of inspection data to the remote server (Fig. 4 – 307: “Communication Section”, the data is sent to another device and so data is present on multiple devices, A POSITA would see that the system of Takeda could be used to synchronize inspection data such as from borescopes of Soorianarayanan).
Regarding claim 19, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the non-transitory computer readable memory of claim 15,
Takeda further teaches wherein the synchronized set of inspection data comprises: an images or videos; metadata; annotations made by an inspector; or measurements (Fig. 5: “measurement data”, measurements/(“measurement data”)).
Regarding claim 20, Takeda in view of Soorianarayanan teaches the non-transitory computer readable memory of claim 15,
Takeda further teaches wherein the synchronized set of inspection data comprises a specified file naming nomenclature (inherently files created and read by computers have specified naming nomenclature so that the computers know how to find and interpret them).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9185161 B2 "Systems And Methods For Synchronizing Non-destructive Testing Devices" (Messinger) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 9641569 B2 "Systems And Methods For Collaborating In A Non-destructive Testing System Using Location Information" (Domke) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 11.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights