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 .
This action is Final Action.
The rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 5 and 12 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are rejected as discussed below.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 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. The most recent amendment adds the following language to the independent claims, “generating, when an inconsistency... is detected, an alert, wherein, the inconsistency is between an analysis of an NDT operator and an independent analysis of an artificial system” (using claim 1 as an example, similar language contained in the other independent claims). There is no discussion in the specification of comparing an independent analysis of an artificial system to an analysis of an NDT operator to determine an inconsistency in order to generate an alert. Thus, the newly amended language lacks written description support and is rejected. Examiner notes, the language of the current claim only generating an alert when one of an inconsistency or an identified issue is detected, not both, so it is possible to provide an art rejection that does not include the unsupported limitation.
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, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Messinger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0168787, hereinafter Messinger).
Regarding independent claim 1, Messinger discloses a method to perform a nondestructive test (NDT) of an industrial facility, comprising: (paragraphs [0017] and [0021] of Messinger)
obtaining, by a centralized analysis system, baseline data and a checklist of the NDT to be performed for a component at an NDT site of the industrial facility, wherein the baseline data comprises target parameters of the NDT, wherein the checklist comprises process steps of the NDT; (paragraphs [0105], [0121], and [0123]-[0124] of Messinger, see also paragraph [0152] regarding a centralized cloud-based NDT system)
capturing, by an NDT inspection device disposed at the NDT site, physical parameters of the NDT while each of the process steps of the NDT is performed; (paragraphs [0087], [0094], [0095] and [0097] of Messinger)
transmitting, by the NDT inspection device to the centralized analysis system, the physical parameters of the NDT; (paragraphs [0085] and [0152] of Messinger)
analyzing, by the centralized analysis system, the physical parameters of the NDT with respect to the baseline data and the checklist of the NDT; and (paragraphs [0122] and [0127] of Messinger)
generating, in response to said analyzing by the centralized analysis system, an NDT verification result (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0085] and [0100] of Messinger); and
generating, when an inconsistency or an identified issue in the NDT verification result is detected, an alert, wherein, the inconsistency is between an analysis of an NDT operator and an independent analysis of an artificial intelligence system (“inspection data changes” and “indication” – paragraphs [0084], [0085], and [0107] of Messinger).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Messinger discloses wherein the target parameters of the NDT comprises participant information of the NDT, equipment information of the NDT, NDT site information, and time/date of the NDT, and (paragraphs [0105] and [0106] of Messinger)
wherein the checklist further comprises time intervals between the process steps of the NDT (“time-based inspection schedule” – paragraphs [0123]-[0125] of Messinger).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Messinger discloses wherein the NDT verification result comprises proof of completing the NDT, proof of participants of the NDT, proof of NDT result, and proof of time and location of each of the process steps of the NDT (paragraphs [0085], [0100], and [0107] of Messinger).
Regarding dependent claims 5, Messinger discloses detecting, by the centralized analysis system, an inconsistency or identified issue in the NDT verification result; and generating, in response to said detecting by the centralized analysis system, an alert (“inspection data changes” and “indication” – paragraphs [0084], [0085], and [0107] of Messinger).
Regarding dependent claims 6, Messinger discloses sending, by the centralized analysis system according to an escalation procedure, the alert to an NDT supervisor within an information management system of the industrial facility; and (“watchlist” and “indication” – paragraph [0107] of Messinger)
initiating, in response to the alert and by the NDT supervisor, a corrective action of the NDT, wherein the centralized analysis system is integrated within the information management system (“parts replacement schedules, maintenance schedules, equipment utilization schedules, personnel usage schedules, new inspection schedules, and so on” – paragraphs [0084] and [0085] of Messinger, see also paragraph [0152] regarding a centralized cloud-based NDT system).
Regarding dependent claims 7, Messinger discloses receiving, by the centralized analysis system, a request for inspection (RFI) of the NDT, wherein the RFI comprises the baseline data of the NDT (“new inspection schedules” based on the result of inspection – paragraphs [0084], [0085], [0105], and [0106] of Messinger).
Regarding independent claim 8, Messinger discloses a nondestructive test (NDT) inspection device for performing an NDT of an industrial facility, comprising: (paragraphs [0017] and [0021] of Messinger)
a plurality of sensors that capture physical parameters of the NDT while each of process steps of the NDT is performed for a component at an NDT site of the industrial facility; (paragraph [0023] of Messinger)
an NDT interface that controls and records NDT testing parameters of the NDT, wherein the NDT interface comprises a GPS tool for locating the NDT site and a data communication module for transmitting the captured physical parameters of the NDT to a centralized analysis system of the industrial facility; and (Figs. 9 and 10; and paragraphs [0087], [0094], [0095] and [0097] of Messinger)
a display screen that displays the captured physical parameters, a checklist of the NDT, NDT results, GPS information of the NDT site, and a function menu that allows a user to view and check off each of the process steps of the checklist, initiate NDT information recording, and display recorded NDT information, (paragraphs [0063], [0087], [0094], [0095], [0097], and [0101] of Messinger)
wherein the centralized analysis system obtains baseline data and the checklist of the NDT, wherein the baseline data comprises target parameters of the NDT, wherein the checklist comprises the process steps of the NDT, (paragraphs [0105], [0121], and [0123]-[0124] of Messinger, see also paragraph [0152] regarding a centralized cloud-based NDT system)
analyzes the physical parameters of the NDT with respect to the baseline data and the checklist of the NDT, and (paragraphs [0122] and [0127] of Messinger)
generates, in response to analyzing the physical parameters of the NDT, an NDT verification result (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0085] and [0100] of Messinger); and
generates, when an inconsistency or an identified issue in the NDT verification result is detected, an alert, wherein, the inconsistency is between an NDT operator's analysis and an artificial intelligence system's independent analysis (“inspection data changes” and “indication” – paragraphs [0084], [0085], and [0107] of Messinger).
Regarding dependent claims 9, 11, 13, and 14, the claims are substantially similar to claims 2, 4, 6, and 7. Thus, claims 9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 2, 4, 6, and 7.
Regarding independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16 and 18, the claims are substantially similar to claims 8, 9, and 11. Thus, claims 15, 16, and 18 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 8, 9, and 11.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Messinger discloses the centralized analysis system detects an inconsistency or identified issue in the NDT verification result; generates, in response to detecting the inconsistency or identified issue, an alert; (“inspection data changes” and “indication” – paragraphs [0084], [0085], and [0107] of Messinger)
obtaining, from an NDT participant, feedback regarding the NDT; and generates, in response to obtaining the feedback, a lesson learned and best practice of the NDT ((“new inspection schedules” based on the result of inspection – paragraphs [0084], [0085], [0105], and [0106] and “improving the detection of undesired conditions, enhancing maintenance activities, and increasing returns on investment (ROI) of facilities and equipment” – paragraph [0152] of Messinger).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Messinger discloses the centralized analysis system sends the NDT verification result and the alert according to an escalation procedure to an NDT supervisor within an information management system of the industrial facility, (“watchlist” and “indication” – paragraph [0107] of Messinger)
wherein the NDT supervisor initiates, using a mirror application and in response to the alert, a corrective action of the NDT to facilitate the NDT or to train a new NDT participant, and wherein the centralized analysis system is integrated within the information management system (“parts replacement schedules, maintenance schedules, equipment utilization schedules, personnel usage schedules, new inspection schedules, and so on” – paragraphs [0084], [0085], [0101], and [0107] of Messinger, see also paragraph [0152] regarding a centralized cloud-based NDT system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messinger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0168787, hereinafter Messinger) in view of Muramatsu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0076089, hereinafter Muramatsu).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, and 17, Messinger discloses wherein the physical parameters of the NDT comprises identification data of an NDT participant, timestamp and GPS information of the NDT, and images of each of the process steps of the NDT (paragraphs [0050], [0085]-[0087], and [0097] of Messinger).
Messinger does not explicitly disclose that the identification data of an NDT participant is biometric data of an NDT participant. However, Muramatsu discloses the use of biometric data for login/authorization purposes regarding users (Fig. 1, Abstract, and paragraph [0007] of Muramatsu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Messinger with the notoriously well-known teachings of Muramatsu regarding using fingerprint data and a fingerprint scanner as a method of login/authorization for a user. Using a biometric data for login/authorization as discussed in Muramatsu in place of other login/authorization procedures as discussed in Messinger would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element (login/authorization as discussed in Messinger) with another known element (biometric data login/authorization as presented in Muramatsu) to obtain predictable results (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments directed toward the prior art rejections:
Applicant argues that the Messinger either alone or combination with Muramatsu does not disclose the limitations added to the independent claims in the most recent amendment.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection above, the examiner notes that the amendment does not appear to have proper written description support. However, even it was determined to have written description support the actual language of the amended limitations makes the second limitation completely optional and thus it is not required to be taught by the prior art to properly reject the claims in question. The limitations require, “generating, when an inconsistency or an identified issue in the NDT verification result is detected, an alert,” (emphasis added), so generating an alert when an identified issue is detected properly reads on the limitations as claimed. Then, the next limitation which is directed to only “an inconsistency” is not required. Thus, the rejection is proper and must be maintained.
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA D CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4133. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 M-F.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992