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 .
1. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1-6, 13 and 15 the generic placeholder, “control unit” coupled with the functional language, “configured to”;
Claim 1, the generic placeholder, “inspection device” coupled with the functional language, “configured to”;
Claims 1 and 10, the generic placeholder, “system” coupled with the functional language, “configured to”; and
Claim 9, the generic placeholder, “connection line” coupled with the functional language, “configured to”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification, Par. [0053], “systems described herein may be implemented in a high-level procedural or object-oriented programming or scripting language, or a combination thereof, to communicate with or assist in the operation of the controller or computing device” is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed functions as state above. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform “the system configured to inspect the surface structure”. The use of “system” is not adequate structure for performing the functions as listed because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The phrase “those elements” and “other element” in claims 2 and 12, unclear and vague since the phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of “those” and “other” are unclear.
The phrase “weighted differently” in claims 4 and 13, unclear and vague since the phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of “weighted differently” are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claim 2-10 and 14, these claims are at least rejected for their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on the rejected claim 1 and 13. They are therefore rejected as set forth above.
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “the system configured to inspect…”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
5. 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.
5.1 Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US2013/0018525 A1) in view of Troy (US 2019/0311555 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Jang discloses system for checking a surface structure of an aircraft or spacecraft ([0082] Inspection environment includes aircraft and inspection system), comprising:
a manipulator ([Fig. 7, [0104], robotic system), arranged on the ground vehicle ([0065], movement system may comprise at least one of wheels, continuous tracks, legs, rollers, sliders, propellers, fan blades, wings, and other suitable types of movement mechanisms), having multiple movement links arranged in an articulated manner in relation to one another ([0103]-[0107], Robotic system moves robotic arms with respect to surface to different locations on aircraft to perform non-destructive inspection, and can be moved by different mechanisms that may be included in movement system with robotic arm. Movement system 706 is associated with hangar and comprises robotic system is configured to pick up, hold, and release inspection vehicles),
an inspection device arranged on the manipulator and movable by the manipulator (Fig. 3-7, [0008], [0103], Movement system is associated with hangar. Movement system comprises robotic system. Robotic system is configured to pick up, hold, and release inspection vehicles. The inspection vehicles are configured to move relative to a surface of an object),
multiple proximity sensors ([0008], [0050], non-destructive inspection, ultrasonic sensor systems), and
a control unit ([0008], controller),
wherein the proximity sensors are distributed at least on the manipulator (Fig. 7, [0101], [0106], Sensor systems (not shown) are associated with these inspection vehicles. The robotic arms are associated with sensor systems in FIG. 1) and are divided there into multiple zones (Fig. Inspection vehicles are at plurality of locations (multiple zones), respectively, form configuration for mobile sensor network) and are configured to acquire a distance of the proximity sensor to an object in a respective acquisition range (Fig. 6, Fig. 1,[0059], [0044], sensor systems may be moved to locations, for example, around, within, over or in some other suitable manner, a selected distance on object relative to location).
wherein the drive and the proximity sensors are coupled to the control unit ([0036], Fig. 1-Fig. 6, inspection system comprises inspection vehicles, sensor systems, and controller),
wherein the inspection device is configured to determine a property of the surface structure and to identify points having a shape deviation by comparison to a setpoint property ([0049], [0042], [0035], [0056], inspection environment includes inspection system that is used to perform inspection of object and generate the inspection of object data to determine whether undesired inconsistency is present at location on object. Policy may be applied to data to determine whether inconsistency is undesired inconsistency. Policy may include a number of rules, criteria, and/or other suitable information that may be used in identifying undesired inconsistency),
wherein the system is configured to successively inspect the surface structure of the aircraft or spacecraft by successively moving the inspection device along the surface structure ([0049], [0058], [0061], movement system configured to place inspection vehicles on object such that inspection vehicles may move relative to surface of object. The inspection system may be used to test a number of other locations relative to object. For example, a first portion of inspection vehicles may be used to test a wing of aircraft, while another portion of inspection vehicles may be used to test a fuselage of aircraft), and
wherein the control unit is configured to record distances acquired by the proximity sensors and to activate the drive and the manipulator in consideration of the acquired distances such that the inspection device is placed in succession at inspection positions at a predetermined distance to the surface structure and a sufficient distance of the ground vehicle (Abstract, [0008]-[0010], [0037], ([0053], [0059], controller stores data in database in association with coordinates identifying location. The controller may use position data received from position identification system to control the movement of inspection vehicles. For example, position identification system may include at least one of a number of camera systems, a number of position sensors, a range finder, and other suitable devices for identifying position data for inspection vehicles. Position data identifies the positions of inspection vehicles relative to object. The controller is configured to control movement of the inspection vehicles into a configuration with respect to a location for inspection. The data generated by the sensor systems is stored. The controller is configured to control operation of the sensor systems to generate the data about the object for the location. The controller is configured to receive the data transmitted by the inspection vehicles. Movement of inspection vehicles relative to a surface of an object is controlled using a controller) and the manipulator from the surface structure and any objects surrounding the surface structure is maintained simultaneously ([0037], Controller is configured to control movement of inspection vehicles in a coordinated fashion).
In addition, Jang does disclose the robot movement is hanger as shown Fig.7, but fails to discloses the robot is a ground vehicle having a drive. However, Troy discloses in Abstract, Par [0036], [0049], A ground-based mobile visual-inspection system included proximity sensor, linear variable differential transformer, potentiometer, optical sensors, and other similar encoders or sensors. The mobile base includes wheels that allow holonomic motion).
Jang and Troy are analogous art. They relate to mobile inspection robot for aircraft.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a ground-based visual-inspection system, taught by Troy, incorporated with inspection vehicles, taught by Jang, in order to capture of steady and precisely-located photos and videos of the inspecting object to visually inspect all necessary surface areas.
Regarding claim 3, Jang discloses the zones comprise an end effector zone ([0058], movement system may include at least one of a robotic arm system, a track system, a crane, a hoist, a number of platforms, and other suitable types of movement devices configured to move inspection vehicles in different location), which adjoins the inspection device or in an area of which the inspection device is arranged ([0089] Positioning system is configured to identify a location of inspection vehicle relative to object), wherein the control unit is configured to assist a placement of the inspection device at one of the inspection positions from acquired distances of the proximity sensors in the end effector zone ([0008]-[0010], [0044], [0053], The inspection vehicles are configured to move relative to a surface of an object and transmit data generated about the object. The sensor systems are configured to generate the data about the object when the sensor systems are in a configuration with respect to a location on the object for inspection. The controller is configured to control movement of the inspection vehicles, control operation of the sensor systems).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Jang discloses the control unit is configured to plan a movement path of the inspection device to reach the inspection positions ([0059], [0071], controller may use position data received from position identification system to control the movement of inspection vehicles), and wherein the acquired distances of the proximity sensors are weighted differently ([0008], The sensor systems are configured to generate the data about the object when the sensor systems are in a configuration with respect to a location on the object for inspection).
Regarding claim 6, Jang discloses the control unit is configured to activate the proximity sensors sequentially to avoid mutual influencing ([0037], [0043], [0050], Controller is configured to control movement of inspection vehicles in a coordinated fashion, wherein the sensor systems are associated with inspection vehicles. Controller may control inspection vehicles to move sensor systems into configuration with respect to location).
Regarding claim 7, Troy discloses the manipulator is a robot arm (Abstract, [0004], an actuatable arm coupled to the mobile base), which is connected via a base joint to the ground vehicle (Fig. 1, [0004], Abstract, ground-based visual-inspection apparatus), wherein the movement links are elongated arm links (Fig. 1, the horizontal actuator allows for movement in a horizontal direction as shown by arrows 138. That is, the horizontal actuator is configured to actuate to any length within a predetermined range of lengths), and wherein the manipulator comprises an end effector joint, at which the inspection device is arranged (Fig. 1, Abstract, [0022], The end effector includes a camera configured to capture images of a structure).
Regarding claim 8, Jang discloses the manipulator comprises a network made up of electrical connection lines, which extends at least in some areas on a surface of the manipulator ([0010],[0038], [0090], [0101], Fig. 6, Power may be sent to sensor systems using conductive power transfer, inductive power transfer, and/or some other suitable type of power transfer; inspection vehicles may be moved to other locations of plurality of locations to form other configurations for mobile sensor network), and wherein the proximity sensors are arranged on the surface of the manipulator and are connectable to the network (Fig. 6, Fig. 7, [0101]-[0104], Inspection vehicles is moved to other locations of plurality of locations to form other configurations for mobile sensor network).
Regarding claim 9, Jang discloses the connection lines are configured to provide an electrical supply voltage for the proximity sensors ([0038], [0072], [0092], inspection vehicles are configured to send power to sensor systems to operate sensor systems), and wherein the proximity sensors are configured to communicate wirelessly with the control unit (Fig. 1, Fig. 2,[0051], [0084], perform non-destructive inspection, and data generated during this non-destructive inspection is sent to controller 720 using wireless communications).
Regarding claim 15, Troy discloses multiple ground vehicles having a manipulator arranged thereon and an inspection device, or at least one such ground vehicle and at least one other device bearing a manipulator and an inspection device, and each vehicle or device including a control unit configured to jointly check multiple sections of the surface structure (Abstract, [0004], [0015], a ground-based visual-inspection system includes a ground-based visual-inspection apparatus and a control system), and
wherein the control units are configured to be coupled to one another in order to communicate at least one of:
position specifications of at least one of a respective ground vehicles, the other device, a respective manipulator, or a respective inspection device, or respectively acquired distances having position specifications of the respective ground vehicle, the other device, the respective manipulator, or the respective inspection device ([0037], [0042], [0043], The range of heights would be any height that is greater than the height of the structure, allowing the actuatable arm to position a camera near any surface of the structure; allows for the end effector to be locatable (e.g., a positional and orientable) in a three dimensional space. The camera may be positioned close to the surface of the aircraft 122 without inadvertently bumping the surface of the aircraft 122).
5.2 Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US2013/0018525 A1) in view of Troy (US 2019/0311555 A1) further in view of Pivac et al. (US 20200206924 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination of Jang and Troy disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 11, but fails to discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 12. However, Pivac discloses the control unit is configured to move those elements of the manipulator which are located closer to an object or the surface structure than other elements at a lower speed than a speed of the other elements ([0034]-[0035], determines a robot base position using signals from the second tracking system; and, controls the robot arm to move the end effector along the end effector path at a reduced end effector speed).
Pivac, Jang and Troy are analogous art. They relate to robot arm control.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a robot base actuator that moves the robot base relative to the environment, taught by Pivac, incorporated with the teaching of Troy and Jang, as state above, in order to allow the robot arm to be controlled in the environment coordinate system.
5.3 Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US2013/0018525 A1) in view of Troy (US 2019/0311555 A1) further in view of Oota (US 2018/0370027 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combination of Jang and Troy disclose the limitations of claims 1, 4, 11, and 13, in addition, Troy discloses, limitation of claim 4 and 14, wherein the movement path is derived at least partially based on a value function, which comprises the acquired distances and describes collision probabilities between the ground vehicle or the manipulator and the surface structure and other objects therefrom ([0043], [0056], data from the laser rangefinders may be used to stop or activate the various actuators of the ground-based visual-inspection apparatus and automatically deter potential collisions. Other types of collision preventions systems may be deployed which are configured to prevent collisions between the ground-based visual-inspection apparatus and the aircraft. the camera may be positioned close to the surface of the aircraft without inadvertently bumping the surface of the aircraft), and wherein the movement path comprises a sequence of movement procedures of at least one of the ground vehicles or the manipulator (Fig. 5, [0060]-[0061], the control system includes a locating system that configured to control the positioning and orientation of the ground-based visual-inspection apparatus. The locating system is configured to continually adjust the position and orientation of the components of the ground-based visual-inspection apparatus while the ground-based visual-inspection apparatus is moved over the target area of the aircraft. The locating system may be configured to activate actuators, such as vertical actuator and horizontal actuator, and the rotational actuator, that rotates the end effector about pivot joint to adjust the position and orientation of the end effector relative to the aircraft).
However, the combination of Tory and Jang fail to disclose the control unit is configured to use at least one model for machine learning in order to plan the movement path for at least one of the ground vehicles or the manipulator.
Oota discloses the control unit is configured to use at least one model for machine learning in order to plan the movement path for at least one of the ground vehicles or the manipulator (Abstract, [0007], A machine learning device that acquires state information from a robot control inspection system. The system has a robot hand to hold a workpiece or camera. The state information includes a flaw detection position of the workpiece, a movement route of the robot hand, an imaging point of the workpiece).
Oota, Jang and Troy are analogous art. They relate to robot arm movement control.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a machine learning device that acquires state information from a robot control inspection system, taught by Oota, incorporated with the teaching of Troy and Jang, as state above, in order to have low frequency of generation of a flaw, so that the number of imaging pieces and imaging positions are optimized, and a cycle time of the inspection is reduced, in flaw inspection using a robot; a robot control system; and a machine learning method.
5.4 Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US2013/0018525 A1) in view of Troy (US 2019/0311555 A1) further in view of Afrasiabi et al. (US 2019/0311469 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jang and Troy disclose the limitations of claim 1, but fail to disclose the limitation of claim 10. However, regarding claim 10, Afrasiabi discloses the system is configured to mark an identified point having a shape deviation by means of a removable marking (Abstract, [0003], Fig. 11, [0047], generating an output image, where the output image includes a depiction of the aircraft under quality inspection with the at least one difference annotated; and causing the output image to be displayed. The system may include at least one standardized marker configured to be placed on the aircraft under quality inspection prior to the capturing at least one image of the aircraft under quality inspection from a first perspective and the capturing at least one image of the aircraft under quality inspection from a second perspective).
Afrasiabi, Jang and Troy are analogous art. They relate to robot arm movement control.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a method places standardized markers on the aircraft, taught by Afrasiabi, incorporated with the teaching of Troy and Jang, as state above, in order to remediate the potential defect, such as removing any foreign material, applying missing paint, or removing and relocating misplaced paint application.
Citation Pertinent prior art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akin et al. (US 20190022849 A1) discloses a systems and methods for in situ gap inspection in a machine, such as a generator, an electric motor, or a turbomachine. A robotic crawler has multidirectional traction modules, an expandable body, and sensor modules. A control system communicates with the robotic crawler to provide a control signal to navigate an inspection path within an annular gap of the machine. The inspection path includes axial and radial movements to inspect the annular gap using the sensor modules.
Colin et al. (US 20160264262 A1) discloses device for visually inspecting the external surfaces of an aircraft includes an inspection area to receive an aircraft, at least one visual inspection robot, and a control center. A movable platform of the robot supports a turret having an observation unit. The robot includes a processing unit which guides the movable platform and process the data received from the observation unit.
Georgeson et al. (US 20130333472 A1) discloses moving an elongate optical fiber carrier holding a number of optical fibers to the location on test object with the number of obstructions to reaching the location. An ultrasound inspection system is done more quickly and is made more cost effective than inspection using inspection systems.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119