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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 3, “the electromagnetic spectrum” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 7, line 2, “is removed the aerial” is unclear. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of analyzing an aerial vehicle structure comprising steps of transmitting a transmit signal from a transmit antenna to or into the aerial vehicle structure, detecting a response that results from the transmission at a receive antenna and using the detected response to determine whether the structure is acceptable or unacceptable. The steps of the claims describe the concept of transmitting a transmit signal from a transmit antenna to or into the aerial vehicle structure using a transmit antenna, detecting a response that results from the transmission at a receive antenna using a receive antenna and using the detected response to determine whether the structure is acceptable or unacceptable using a processor which are considered abstract ideas. The claim limitations are similar to those previously found by the courts to be abstract such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and computing or setting alarm limits in Flook, 437 U.S. 594, 198 USPQ2d 199. All of these concepts relate to tracking, organizing or analyzing information. The concepts described in the claims are not meaningfully different than concepts of gathering data found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the descriptions in the claims of transmitting, detecting and using is an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are
generic controller elements claimed to perform their basic functions of transmitting, detecting and using. The recitation of the controller limitations amounts to
mere instructions to implement the abstract idea. Taking the elements both
individually and as a combination, the components at each step of the process
perform purely generic computer functions. The claims as a whole do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they would be routine in any
computer implementation. With respect to Electric Power Group, the courts found that claims drawn to collecting data, analyzing data, and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis was an abstract idea. The present invention relates to collecting data using transmit and receive antennas to transmit, receive and detect data and analyzing the data using a processor to determine characteristics of a sample. Taking the courts' opinion in Electric Power Group into consideration in view of the claimed subject matter of the instant application, simply outputting the results of an analysis is considered to be abstract. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (See Bensmann, 11,292,615, “Deformation Sensing System”). With respect to Flook, the courts found that claims drawn to computing or setting alarm limits was an abstract idea. The present invention relates to determining acceptable or unacceptable aerial vehicle structures based on a tolerance threshold. Taking the courts' opinion in Flook into consideration in view of the claimed subject matter of the instant application, the controller performs generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Furthermore, there is no indication that the transmitting, detecting and using steps are performed by any specific structure and in view of Electric Power Group is an extension of the abstract idea presented in Flook. Thus, generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (See Bensmann, 11,292,615, “Deformation Sensing System”). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 - 4 and 6 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buchmueller et al. (10,053,236, hereinafter Buchmueller).
Regarding claim 1, Buchmueller discloses an apparatus comprising transmitting a transmit signal from a transmit antenna 216 to or into an aerial vehicle structure (airplane or aircraft) 210 (See Fig. 2), the transmit signal being in a radio or microwave frequency range of an electromagnetic spectrum; detecting a response at a receive antenna 216 that results from the transmission of the transmit signal to or into the aerial vehicle structure; and using the detected response to determine whether the aerial vehicle structure is acceptable or unacceptable (See Fig. 2, See Col. 10, lines 41 – 67, Col. 11, lines 1 – 19, Col. 17, lines 51 – 67, Col. 18, lines 1 – 26 and Col. 20, lines 36 – 63).
Regarding claim 2, the detected response comprises comparing the detected response with a stored signal (See Col. 17, lines 51 – 67 and Col. 18, lines 1 – 26).
Regarding claim 3, the stored signal comprises a signal indicative of an acceptable aerial vehicle structure (See Col. 17, lines 51 – 67 and Col. 18, lines 1 – 26). Regarding claim 4, the stored signal comprises a signal indicative of an unacceptable aerial vehicle structure (See Col. 17, lines 51 – 67 and Col. 18, lines 1 – 26). Regarding claim 6, transmitting the transmit signal from the transmit antenna to or into the aerial vehicle structure occurs while the aerial vehicle structure is located on the aerial vehicle (See Col. 11, lines 13 – 19).
Regarding claim 7, transmitting the transmit signal from the transmit antenna to or into the aerial vehicle structure occurs while the aerial vehicle structure is removed the aerial vehicle (See Col. 11, lines 13 – 19).
Regarding claim 8, the aerial vehicle structure comprises a wing or a portion thereof, a fuselage or a portion thereof, a turbine blade or a portion thereof, a turbine blade root or a portion thereof, a turbine disc or a portion thereof, a compressor blade or a portion thereof, a stator blade or a portion thereof, a propeller blade or a portion thereof, an aileron or a portion thereof, an elevator or a portion thereof, a rudder or a portion thereof, a winglet or a portion thereof, a trim tab or a portion thereof, a flap or a portion thereof, a spoiler or a portion thereof, an air brake or a portion thereof, a slat or a portion thereof, a nozzle throat or a portion thereof, an exit nozzle/cone or a portion thereof, or a motor case or a portion thereof (See Col. 10, lines 64 – 67 and Col. 11, lines 1 - 12).
Regarding claim 9, the aerial vehicle comprises an air vehicle or a space vehicle 110 (See Col. 1, lines 6 – 12). 8. Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stein 2020/0247562).
Regarding claim 1, Stein discloses an apparatus comprising transmitting a transmit signal from a transmit antenna 213 to or into an aerial vehicle structure 100 (See Fig. 2A), the transmit signal being a radio or microwave frequency range of an electromagnetic spectrum; detecting a response at a receiving antenna 213 that results from transmission of the transmit signal to or into the aerial vehicle structure; and using the detected response to determine whether the aerial vehicle structure is acceptable or unacceptable (See Pg. 2, Paras. 0020, 0022, 0028 and 0029).
Regarding claim 2, the detected response comprises comparing the detected response with a stored signal (See Pg. 2, Para. 0027).
Regarding claim 3, the stored signal comprises a signal indicative of an acceptable aerial vehicle structure (See Pg. 2, Para. 0027).
Regarding claim 4, the stored signal comprises a signal indicative of an unacceptable aerial vehicle structure (See Pg. 2, Para. 0027).
Regarding claim 5, comparing the detected response with the stored signal comprises converting the detected response from an analog signal into a digital signal by an AD converter 206, and comparing the digital signal with the stored signal (See Pg. 2, Para. 0028). Regarding claim 6, transmitting the transmit signal from the transmit antenna to or into the aerial vehicle structure occurs while the aerial vehicle structure is located on the aerial vehicle (See Pg. 2, Para. 0029).
Regarding claim 7, transmitting the transmit signal from the transmit antenna to or into the aerial vehicle structure occurs while the aerial vehicle structure is removed the aerial vehicle (See Pg. 2, Para. 0029).
Regarding claim 8, the aerial vehicle structure comprises a wing or a portion thereof, a fuselage or a portion thereof, a turbine blade or a portion thereof, a turbine blade root or a portion thereof, a turbine disc or a portion thereof, a compressor blade or a portion thereof, a stator blade or a portion thereof, a propeller blade or a portion thereof, an aileron or a portion thereof, an elevator or a portion thereof, a rudder or a portion thereof, a winglet or a portion thereof, a trim tab or a portion thereof, a flap or a portion thereof, a spoiler or a portion thereof, an air brake or a portion thereof, a slat or a portion thereof, a nozzle throat or a portion thereof, an exit nozzle/cone or a portion thereof, or a motor case or a portion thereof (See Pg. 2, Para. 0024).
Regarding claim 9, the aerial vehicle comprises an air vehicle or a space vehicle (See Pg. 2, Para. 0024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. 10. Fanton et al. (CN111052190) disclose an aircraft monitoring system. Watters et al. (7,986,218) disclose sensor devices for structural health monitoring. Townsend et al. (7,970,734) disclose a data collection and storage device. Moon et al. (11,459,101) disclose a method of flying unmanned aerial robot in unmanned aerial system and apparatus for supporting the same. Herlihy et al. (10,467,825) disclose an airframe health monitor. Kessler et al. (2019/0079511) disclose methods and systems for rotor anomaly detection and response. Bensmann (11,292,615) discloses a deformation sensing system.11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 12/12/25