DETAILED ACTION
Examiner received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 15 January 2026. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 4 - 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) Rejection of Claims 4 - 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments pertaining to the newly added claim limitations have been addressed in the updated claim rejections below.
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See MPEP 2144.03.C. In the rejection of Claims 5 and 8 - 12, Examiner asserted Official Notice “it is common knowledge in the art to perform tapping inspections on aircraft”. As the assertion has not been traversed, the Official Notice is taken to be admitted prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (WO 2020/021589), in view of Soeda et al. (JP 2019-82402). Citations pertaining to Soeda refer to the attached English translation.
Regarding Claim 1, Goto discloses a tapping inspection system comprising: a hand-held hammer for tapping an inspection portion [0013]; a display (202a) configured to display a target position to be tapped with the hammer [0022, 0054, 0055, 0057], the target position being superimposed on the inspection portion [0055, 0057]; a microphone (203b) for collecting sound generated when the inspection portion is tapped with the hammer [0026, 0058, 0065]; a position detector (203d) configured to detect a position in the inspection portion tapped with the hammer [0028, 0037]; and a storage (110, 112) configured to store an inspection record created by relating the sound collected by the microphone with the position detected by the position detector [0037, 0039].
Goto fails to expressly disclose an actual tapping position being detected during tapping inspection and the storage storing the actual tapping position.
Soeda teaches an actual tapping position being detected during tapping inspection [0016] where the actual tapping position is stored [0027]
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Goto’s position detector so that it is configured to detect, during tapping inspection, an actual tapping position and the storage so that is configured to store the inspection record including the actual tapping position for the benefit of associating individual information with the location information can be performed accurately in a short time while simplifying the configuration, as taught by Soeda [0006].
Regarding Claim 4, Goto discloses the display includes a head mounted display for augmented reality (Figure 2) which further displays a drawing delineating a portion of internal structure inside the inspection portion that is not visible to the operator from outside the inspection portion, the drawing being further superimposed on the inspection portion [0057] (the drawing delineates a portion of the structure which inherently includes internal structure nor visible to the operator) (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Goto and Soeda render obvious using the tapping inspection system according to Claim 1 where Goto discloses displaying, on the display, the target position to be tapped with the hand-held hammer, the target position being superimposed on an inspection portion [0022, 0054 – 0057] (Figure 5) ; collecting, with the microphone, sound generated when the inspection portion is tapped with the hand-held hammer [0026, 0058, 0065]; detecting, with the position detector, a tapping position in the inspection portion tapped with the hand-held hammer, during tapping inspection [0028, 0037]; and storing, in the storage, an inspection record created by relating the collected sound with the detected position [0037, 0039] where Soeda renders obvious an actual tapping position being detected during tapping inspection [0016] where the actual tapping position is stored [0027], the combination being obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
The combination fails to expressly disclose the inspection is performed on an aircraft.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art to perform tapping inspections on aircraft.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination’s method by using it on an aircraft for the benefit of determining if an abnormality has occurred, as taught by Goto [0003].
Regarding Claim 10, Goto and Soeda render obvious using the tapping inspection system according to Claim 4 where Goto discloses displaying, on the head mounted display for augmented reality, the target position to be tapped with the hand-held hammer, the target position being superimposed on an inspection portion [0022, 0054 – 0057] (Figure 5); displaying, on the head mounted display for augmented reality, a drawing delineating a portion of internal structure inside the inspection portion that is not visible to an operator from outside the inspection portion, the drawing being further superimposed on the inspection portion [0057] (Figure 5); collecting, with the microphone, sound generated when the inspection portion is tapped with the hand-held hammer [0026, 0058, 0065]; detecting, with the position detector, a tapping position in the inspection portion tapped with the hand-held hammer, during tapping inspection [0028, 0037]; and storing, in the storage, an inspection record created by relating the collected sound with the detected position [0037, 0039] where Soeda renders obvious an actual tapping position being detected during tapping inspection [0016] where the actual tapping position is stored [0027], the combination being obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 4 above.
The combination fails to expressly disclose the inspection is performed on an aircraft.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art to perform tapping inspections on aircraft.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination’s method by using it on an aircraft for the benefit of determining if an abnormality has occurred, as taught by Goto [0003].
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6 – 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (WO 2020/021589), in view of Soeda et al. (JP 2019-82402), in further view of Zhou et al. (CN 106053004).
Regarding Claim 2, The combination fails to expressly disclose a strain sensor for measuring a shock load when the inspection portion is tapped with the hammer, wherein the inspection record is created by further relating the sound collected by the microphone with the shock load measured by the strain sensor.
Zhou teaches a strain sensor for measuring a shock load when an inspection portion is tapped with a hammer [0032, 0036].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination by including a strain sensor for measuring a shock load when the inspection portion is tapped with the hammer, wherein the inspection record is created by further relating the sound collected by the microphone with the shock load measured by the strain sensor i.e. saving data from the shock sensor in the combination with data collected at the same time for the benefit of performing transient dynamic simulation or harmonic response analysis while using a sensor with strong anti-electromagnetic interference capability and long service life, as taught by Zhou [0004, 0006].
Regarding Claim 3, Goto discloses electronic circuitry (140) configured to obtain an inspection result of the inspection portion based on the related sound and position stored as the inspection record in the storage [0032] wherein the combination renders obvious using the shock load as well to perform transient dynamic simulation or harmonic response analysis.
The combination would have been obvious for the same reason regarding the rejection of Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Goto discloses the display includes a head mounted display for augmented reality (Figure 2) which further displays a drawing delineating a portion of internal structure inside the inspection portion that is not visible to the operator from outside the inspection portion, the drawing being further superimposed on the inspection portion [0057] (the drawing delineates a portion of the structure which inherently includes internal structure nor visible to the operator) (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Goto, Soeda, and Zhu render obvious using the tapping inspection system according to Claim 2 where Goto discloses displaying, on the display, the target position to be tapped with the hand-held hammer, the target position being superimposed on an inspection portion [0022, 0054 – 0057] (Figure 5); collecting, with the microphone, sound generated when the inspection portion is tapped with the hand-held hammer [0026, 0058, 0065]; detecting, with the position detector, a tapping position in the inspection portion tapped with the hand-held hammer, during tapping inspection [0028, 0037]; and storing, in the storage, an inspection record created by relating the collected sound with the detected position [0037, 0039] where Soeda renders obvious an actual tapping position being detected during tapping inspection [0016] where the actual tapping position is stored [0027], where Zhu renders obvious measuring a shock load when an inspection portion is tapped with a hammer [0032, 0036], the combination being obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 2 above.
The combination fails to expressly disclose the inspection is performed on an aircraft.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art to perform tapping inspections on aircraft.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination’s method by using it on an aircraft for the benefit of determining if an abnormality has occurred, as taught by Goto [0003].
Regarding Claim 9, Goto, Soeda, and Zhu render obvious using the tapping inspection system according to Claim 3 where Goto discloses displaying, on the display, the target position to be tapped with the hand-held hammer, the target position being superimposed on an inspection portion [0022, 0054 – 0057] (Figure 5); collecting, with the microphone, sound generated when the inspection portion is tapped with the hand-held hammer [0026, 0058, 0065]; detecting, with the position detector, a tapping position in the inspection portion tapped with the hand-held hammer, during tapping inspection [0028, 0037]; storing, in the storage, an inspection record created by relating the collected sound with the detected position [0037, 0039]; and obtaining, with the electronic circuitry, and inspection result of the inspection portion based on the inspection record stored in storage [0032], where Soeda renders obvious an actual tapping position being detected during tapping inspection [0016] where the actual tapping position is stored [0027], where Zhu renders obvious measuring a shock load when an inspection portion is tapped with a hammer [0032, 0036], the combination being obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 3 above.
The combination fails to expressly disclose the inspection is performed on an aircraft.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art to perform tapping inspections on aircraft.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination’s method by using it on an aircraft for the benefit of determining if an abnormality has occurred, as taught by Goto [0003].
Regarding Claim 11, Goto, Soeda, and Zhu render obvious using the tapping inspection system according to Claim 6 where Goto discloses displaying, on the head mounted display for augmented reality, the target position to be tapped with the hand-held hammer, the target position being superimposed on an inspection portion [0022, 0054 – 0057] (Figure 5); displaying, on the head mounted display for augmented reality, a drawing delineating a portion of internal structure inside the inspection portion that is not visible to an operator from outside the inspection portion, the drawing being further superimposed on the inspection portion [0057] (Figure 5); collecting, with the microphone, sound generated when the inspection portion is tapped with the hand-held hammer [0026, 0058, 0065]; detecting, with the position detector, a tapping position in the inspection portion tapped with the hand-held hammer, during tapping inspection [0028, 0037]; and storing, in the storage, an inspection record created by relating the collected sound with the detected position [0037, 0039] where Soeda renders obvious an actual tapping position being detected during tapping inspection [0016] where the actual tapping position is stored [0027], where Zhu renders obvious measuring a shock load when an inspection portion is tapped with a hammer [0032, 0036], the combination being obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 6 above.
The combination fails to expressly disclose the inspection is performed on an aircraft.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art to perform tapping inspections on aircraft.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination’s method by using it on an aircraft for the benefit of determining if an abnormality has occurred, as taught by Goto [0003].
Regarding Claim 12, Goto, Soeda, and Zhu render obvious using the tapping inspection system according to Claim 7 where Goto discloses displaying, on the head mounted display for augmented reality, the target position to be tapped with the hand-held hammer, the target position being superimposed on an inspection portion [0022, 0054 – 0057] (Figure 5); displaying, on the head mounted display for augmented reality, a drawing delineating a portion of internal structure inside the inspection portion that is not visible to an operator from outside the inspection portion, the drawing being further superimposed on the inspection portion [0057] (Figure 5); collecting, with the microphone, sound generated when the inspection portion is tapped with the hand-held hammer [0026, 0058, 0065]; detecting, with the position detector, a tapping position in the inspection portion tapped with the hand-held hammer, during tapping inspection [0028, 0037]; storing, in the storage, an inspection record created by relating the collected sound with the detected position [0037, 0039]; and obtaining, with the electronic circuitry, and inspection result of the inspection portion based on the inspection record stored in storage [0032], where Soeda renders obvious an actual tapping position being detected during tapping inspection [0016] where the actual tapping position is stored [0027], where Zhu renders obvious measuring a shock load when an inspection portion is tapped with a hammer [0032, 0036], the combination being obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 7 above.
The combination fails to expressly disclose the inspection is performed on an aircraft.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art to perform tapping inspections on aircraft.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination’s method by using it on an aircraft for the benefit of determining if an abnormality has occurred, as taught by Goto [0003].
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 ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855