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 .
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to Application No. 18/512,333 filed on 11/17/2023. Claims 1 thru 20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Any reference to specific figures, column, line and paragraphs should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2023 and 02/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 thru 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Claim 16 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1, 16, and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here.
Claim 1 recites: A device comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
receive input data identifying an aircraft, a location on the aircraft, and damage information associated with the location;
automatically identify a plurality of maintenance conditions based on the input data and a three-dimensional model of the aircraft, the three-dimensional model comprising a first layer associated with a first set of structural features of a portion of the aircraft and a second layer associated with a second set of structural features of the portion of the aircraft, the first set of structural features distinct from the second set of structural features;
obtain a damage limit from a digital service manual, the damage limit based at least on the plurality of maintenance conditions; and
generate a maintenance disposition based at least on the damage limit and the input data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identify…”, and “generate…” involve forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to deter-mine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to rep-resent the “abstract idea”): A device comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
receive input data identifying an aircraft, a location on the aircraft, and damage information associated with the location;
automatically identify a plurality of maintenance conditions based on the input data and a three-dimensional model of the aircraft, the three-dimensional model comprising a first layer associated with a first set of structural features of a portion of the aircraft and a second layer associated with a second set of structural features of the portion of the aircraft, the first set of structural features distinct from the second set of structural features;
obtain a damage limit from a digital service manual, the damage limit based at least on the plurality of maintenance conditions; and
generate a maintenance disposition based at least on the damage limit and the input data.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). In particular, receive input data identifying an aircraft, a location on the aircraft, and damage information associated with the location, and, obtain a damage limit from a digital service manual, the damage limit based at least on the plurality of maintenance conditions, are recited at a high level of generality (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223), are merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering, data outputting (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, claim 16 is a method claim that recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore not patent eligible. Claim 20 includes A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method described by substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and 6 and is therefore not patent eligible.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For in-stance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 6 do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of “receive input data identifying an aircraft, a location on the aircraft, and damage information associated with the location, and, obtain a damage limit from a digital service manual, the damage limit based at least on the plurality of maintenance conditions”, have been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such limitations are not unconventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations merely use a computer to perform the abstract idea, and add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding a preliminary step of gathering data to a process that recites identify a plurality of maintenance conditions, and, generate a maintenance disposition (mental processes) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of identifying a plurality of maintenance conditions, and, generating a maintenance disposition. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 – 15, and 17 – 19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible.
Claim 2 discloses that the content of the digital service manual is stored as a knowledge graph data structure. Claim 3 discloses that the damage limit comprises an allowable damage limit. Claim 4 discloses that the damage limit comprises a repairable damage limit. Claim 5 discloses that the input data comprises data associated with a digital image of damage to the aircraft. Claims 6 and 7 are directed towards identifying a plot point associated with a center point of the damage to the aircraft. Claim 8 is directed towards storing the plot point in a plot point database. Claims 9 – 11 are directed towards identifying a boundary of a damage region for the aircraft and a set of boundary points. Claim 12 is directed towards generating a digitized boundary shape from the set of boundary points. Claim 13 is directed towards identifying the plurality of maintenance conditions for each of the boundary points. Claim 14 is directed towards identifying a subset of the boundary points associated with a unique set of associated maintenance conditions. Claim 15 is directed towards obtaining the damage limit from the digital service manual. Claim 17 is directed towards the method of claim 16, subsequently describing the same method steps as disclosed by the limitations of claims 9 – 15. Claim 18 is directed towards storing the content of the digital service manual as a knowledge graph data structure. Claim 19 discloses the groups from which the layers associated with structural features of the portion of the aircraft are selected.
These limitations recite additional abstract ideas, are extra-solution activity, e.g., mathematical concepts, data gathering or outputting, using computers or machinery as mere tools, or are part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2 thru 15 and 17 thru 19 are not patent eligible.
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 1 – 6, 8, 13 – 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130311111 Lewis et al. (Lewis hereafter), in view of US 20130166458 Wallner et al. (Wallner hereafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Lewis discloses A device comprising:
one or more processors (see at least Lewis [¶0006], “The computer enabled user interface device includes a processor”) configured to:
receive input data identifying an aircraft, a location on the aircraft, and damage information associated with the location (see at least Lewis [¶0046], “user interface device 16 receives 1226 damage information. In the illustrative method, damage information relates to information such as, but not limited to, structure type 58, damage type 64, damage area 50 and damage zone 68.”);
the three-dimensional model comprising a first layer associated with a first set of structural features of a portion of the aircraft and a second layer associated with a second set of structural features of the portion of the aircraft, the first set of structural features distinct from the second set of structural features (see at least Lewis [¶0028, 0029, Fig.3], “a decision is made to select a 3D structural damage location 54 on a 3D model 56 of structure 14. In the exemplary embodiment, 3D model 56 is provided to user interface device 16 by compliance management system 18. Alternatively, 3D model 56 and associated structural locations 54 may be stored in database 48 of user interface device 16. At block 250, structural damage location 54 is selected via user interface device 16 to facilitate graphically highlighting damage area 50.”, “a list of structure types 58 is displayed by user interface device 16. Structure type 58 includes types such as, but not limited to, skins and stringers, frames, floor beams, intercostals, galley upper, galley floor, fittings, cargo floor, doors, and windows.”);
obtain a damage limit from a digital service manual, the damage limit based at least on the plurality of maintenance conditions (see at least Lewis [¶0038, Fig.7], “At block 710, a database of allowable damage limits 80 is acquired by user interface device 16 from compliance management system 18 (shown in FIG. 1). Alternatively, user interface device 16 can be loaded with allowable damage limits 80. FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary database listing allowable damage limits 80. At block 720, allowable damage limits 80 are compared to at least one parameter 74. At block 730, analyzer 26 (shown in FIG. 1) is configured to conduct and analyze allowable damage limits 80 and at least one parameter 74. A determination for a damage allowability 81 is made at block 740.”); and
generate a maintenance disposition based at least on the damage limit and the input data (see at least Lewis [¶0006], “The processor is further configured to perform a structural analysis to determine a damage allowability based on the at least one parameter and display a maintenance instruction based on the damage allowability.”).
Lewis does not explicitly disclose automatically identify a plurality of maintenance conditions based on the input data and a three-dimensional model of the aircraft.
However, Wallner, directed towards a system and method for remote and automatic assessment of structural damage and repair, discloses automatically identify a plurality of maintenance conditions based on the input data and a three-dimensional model of the aircraft (see at least Wallner [¶0037, 0038, Fig.3], “The system will assess the damage based on the damage information [] and the structural properties from the aircraft selected part in the 3D model and suggest an appropriate damage disposition.”, “the damage assessment is performed automatically by the system [], the damage disposition will be provided based on the already issued Structural Repair Manual (SRM). The system will compare the damage information supplied by the user with the limits specified in the SRM. ”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Wallner to modify Lewis, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of automatically identify a plurality of maintenance conditions based on the input data and a three-dimensional model of the aircraft. Since the assessment will be made automatically by the system without human interference, mistakes that may occur during Service Manual consultation will be reduced and during damage assessment based on its instructions will be eliminated, as taught by Wallner.
Regarding Claim 16, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose A method comprising:
receiving input data identifying an aircraft, a location on the aircraft, and damage information associated with the location (see at least Lewis [¶0046], above);
automatically identifying a plurality of maintenance conditions based on the input data and a three-dimensional model of the aircraft (see at least Wallner [¶0037, 0038, Fig.3], above),
the three-dimensional model comprising a first layer associated with a first set of structural features of a portion of the aircraft and a second layer associated with a second set of structural features of the portion of the aircraft, the first set of structural features distinct from the second set of structural features (see at least Lewis [¶0028, 0029, Fig.3], above);
obtaining a damage limit from a digital service manual, the damage limit based at least on the plurality of maintenance conditions (see at least Lewis [¶0038, Fig.7], above); and
generating a maintenance disposition based at least on the damage limit and the input data (see at least Lewis [¶0006], above).
Regarding Claim 20, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (see at least Lewis [¶0026], “user interface device 16 is computer enabled having a central processing unit 42, [], and a computer-readable non-volatile medium, such as flash memory.”):
receive input data identifying an aircraft, a location on the aircraft, and damage information associated with the location (see at least Lewis [¶0046], above);
automatically identify a plurality of maintenance conditions based on the input data and a three-dimensional model of the aircraft (see at least Wallner [¶0037, 0038, Fig.3], above),
the three-dimensional model comprising a first layer associated with a first set of structural features of a portion of the aircraft and a second layer associated with a second set of structural features of the portion of the aircraft, the first set of structural features distinct from the second set of structural features (see at least Lewis [¶0028, 0029, Fig.3], above);
obtain a damage limit from a digital service manual, the damage limit based at least on the plurality of maintenance conditions (see at least Lewis [¶0038, Fig.7], above); and
generate a maintenance disposition based at least on the damage limit and the input data (see at least Lewis [¶0006], above).
Regarding Claim 2, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 1, Lewis further discloses wherein content of the digital service manual is stored as a knowledge graph data structure (see at least Lewis, [¶0032], “damage area 50 is displayed by user interface device 16. More particularly, block 450 graphically illustrates damage area 50. In the exemplary embodiment, block 450 graphically illustrates in 3D representative damage areas 50. Alternatively, block 450 can display textual descriptions for damage area 50. In the exemplary embodiment, 3D graphical representation of damage area 50 is provided to user interface device 16 by compliance management system 18. Alternatively, 3D graphical representation of damage area 50 may be stored in database 48 of user interface device 16. At block 460, a list of damaged areas 50 is displayed by user interface device 16. In the exemplary embodiment, damage areas 50 are defined by graphics correlating to areas of structure 14. In the illustrative example, damage areas 50 are defined by indicia 67 such as "S-21R" as representing a particular string of structure 14.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 1, Lewis further discloses wherein the damage limit comprises an allowable damage limit (see at least Lewis [¶0038 – 0040, Fig.7-8], “a database of allowable damage limits 80 is acquired by user interface device 16 from compliance management system 18 (shown in FIG. 1). Alternatively, user interface device 16 can be loaded with allowable damage limits 80. [] At block 720, allowable damage limits 80 are compared to at least one parameter 74. At block 730, analyzer 26 (shown in FIG. 1) is configured to conduct and analyze allowable damage limits 80 and at least one parameter 74. A determination for a damage allowability 81 is made at block 740.”, “At block 750, a determination is made that damage 12 is not within allowable damage limit 80. A maintenance response 82 is displayed by user interface device 16 at block 760 based on the determination.”, “At block 770, a determination is made that damage 12 is within allowable damage limits 80. Maintenance response 82 is displayed by user interface device 16 at block 780. More particularly, user interface device 16 displays that structure 14 is to be repaired at block 780. In the exemplary embodiment, user interface device 16 displays a repair instruction 781”).
Regarding Claim 4, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 1, Lewis further discloses wherein the damage limit comprises a repairable damage limit (see at least Lewis [¶0038 – 0040, Fig.7-8], “a database of allowable damage limits 80 is acquired by user interface device 16 from compliance management system 18 (shown in FIG. 1). Alternatively, user interface device 16 can be loaded with allowable damage limits 80. [] At block 720, allowable damage limits 80 are compared to at least one parameter 74. At block 730, analyzer 26 (shown in FIG. 1) is configured to conduct and analyze allowable damage limits 80 and at least one parameter 74. A determination for a damage allowability 81 is made at block 740.”, “At block 750, a determination is made that damage 12 is not within allowable damage limit 80. A maintenance response 82 is displayed by user interface device 16 at block 760 based on the determination.”, “At block 770, a determination is made that damage 12 is within allowable damage limits 80. Maintenance response 82 is displayed by user interface device 16 at block 780. More particularly, user interface device 16 displays that structure 14 is to be repaired at block 780. In the exemplary embodiment, user interface device 16 displays a repair instruction 781”).
Regarding Claim 5, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 1, Lewis further discloses wherein the input data comprises data associated with a digital image of damage to the aircraft (see at least Lewis, [¶0033 – 0037, Figs.5-6], “At block 510, damage zone 68 is displayed and selected by user interface device 16. In the exemplary embodiment, block 520 graphically illustrates damage zone 68.”, “At block 610, user interface device 16 is configured to graphically display damage 12. [], since "gouge" was selected as damage type 64 by user interface device 16 (shown in FIG. 3), block 610 displays a graphical representation 72 of a "gouge". [], parameter 74 includes quantifiable information such as, but not limited to, dimensions, materials, positions and colorizations of damage 12.”, “At block 650, a determination is made to document damage 12. More particularly, damage 12 is documented by a procedure such as, but not limited to, photographing damage, video recording damage and/or electronically imputing a text description of damage. At block 660, instructions for damage documentation, such as how to photograph damage 12, are displayed by user interface device 16.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 5, Lewis further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify a plot point associated with a center point of the damage to the aircraft (see at least Lewis, [¶0025], “Management system 18 is configured to facilitate mapping, in 3D coordinates, areas, zones and specific locations of damage 12 on and/or within structure 14. Compliance management system 18 includes a structure database 24 such as, but not limited to, toolbox and/or knowledge tree databases having information relating to specific locations of damage of structure 14. Moreover, management system 18 includes a damage analyzer 26 that is configured to perform a structural analysis to determined damage allowability of damage 12. In the exemplary embodiment, structure database 24 includes a query of questions 78 relating to structure locations. Moreover, compliance management system 18 includes a program to generate questions 78 relating to structure locations based on inputs 28 provided by user interface device 16. Management system 18 includes data functional blocks 30. Data functional blocks 30 include a requirements data functional block 32, a tasks data functional block 34, an information data functional block 36, a records data functional block 38 and other data functional blocks 40.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 6, Lewis further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to store the plot point in a plot point database, the plot point database including a plurality of plot points associated with a history of damage to the aircraft, a history of damage to a plurality of aircraft, or a combination thereof (see at least Lewis, [¶0023, 0040], “A user interface device facilitates electronic damage assessment and recordation of repair procedures applied to the damage.”, “user interface device 16 displays a repair instruction 781 such as, but not limited to, that a temporary seal is to be applied to damage 12 at block 790. A record of temporary seal is recorded by user interface device 16 at block 792. More particularly, record of temporary repair at damage area 50 is coupled to database 48 to further document a permanent seal is to be made prior to predetermined number of life cycles of structure 14.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 11, Wallner further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify the plurality of maintenance conditions including automatically identifying the plurality of maintenance conditions for each of the boundary points (see at least Wallner [¶0037, 0038, Fig.3], “The system will assess the damage based on the damage information [] and the structural properties from the aircraft selected part in the 3D model and suggest an appropriate damage disposition.”, “the damage assessment is performed automatically by the system [], the damage disposition will be provided based on the already issued Structural Repair Manual (SRM). The system will compare the damage information supplied by the user with the limits specified in the SRM. ”).
Regarding Claim 14, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 13, Wallner further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify a subset of the boundary points associated with a unique set of associated maintenance conditions (see at least Wallner [¶0037, 0038, Fig.3], “The system will assess the damage based on the damage information [] and the structural properties from the aircraft selected part in the 3D model and suggest an appropriate damage disposition.”, “the damage assessment is performed automatically by the system [], the damage disposition will be provided based on the already issued Structural Repair Manual (SRM). The system will compare the damage information supplied by the user with the limits specified in the SRM. ”).
Regarding Claim 15, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 14, Lewis further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to obtain the damage limit from the digital service manual including obtaining the damage limit based on the subset of the boundary points (see at least Lewis [¶0038, Fig.7], “At block 710, a database of allowable damage limits 80 is acquired by user interface device 16 from compliance management system 18 (shown in FIG. 1). Alternatively, user interface device 16 can be loaded with allowable damage limits 80. FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary database listing allowable damage limits 80. At block 720, allowable damage limits 80 are compared to at least one parameter 74. At block 730, analyzer 26 (shown in FIG. 1) is configured to conduct and analyze allowable damage limits 80 and at least one parameter 74. A determination for a damage allowability 81 is made at block 740.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The method of claim 16, wherein content of the digital service manual is stored as a knowledge graph data structure (see at least Lewis, [¶0032], “damage area 50 is displayed by user interface device 16. More particularly, block 450 graphically illustrates damage area 50. In the exemplary embodiment, block 450 graphically illustrates in 3D representative damage areas 50. Alternatively, block 450 can display textual descriptions for damage area 50. In the exemplary embodiment, 3D graphical representation of damage area 50 is provided to user interface device 16 by compliance management system 18. Alternatively, 3D graphical representation of damage area 50 may be stored in database 48 of user interface device 16. At block 460, a list of damaged areas 50 is displayed by user interface device 16. In the exemplary embodiment, damage areas 50 are defined by graphics correlating to areas of structure 14. In the illustrative example, damage areas 50 are defined by indicia 67 such as "S-21R" as representing a particular string of structure 14.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The method of claim 16, wherein the first layer and the second layer are selected from a group including a part number layer, an allowable damage limit zone layer, an allowable damage limit area layer, a repairable damage limit zone layer, a material thickness layer, and a fastener layer (see at least Lewis [¶0025, 0028, 0029, Fig.3], “Management system 18 is configured to facilitate mapping, in 3D coordinates, areas, zones and specific locations of damage 12 on and/or within structure 14. Compliance management system 18 includes a structure database 24 such as, but not limited to, toolbox and/or knowledge tree databases having information relating to specific locations of damage of structure 14. Moreover, management system 18 includes a damage analyzer 26 that is configured to perform a structural analysis to determined damage allowability of damage 12.”, “a decision is made to select a 3D structural damage location 54 on a 3D model 56 of structure 14. In the exemplary embodiment, 3D model 56 is provided to user interface device 16 by compliance management system 18. Alternatively, 3D model 56 and associated structural locations 54 may be stored in database 48 of user interface device 16. At block 250, structural damage location 54 is selected via user interface device 16 to facilitate graphically highlighting damage area 50.”, “a list of structure types 58 is displayed by user interface device 16. Structure type 58 includes types such as, but not limited to, skins and stringers, frames, floor beams, intercostals, galley upper, galley floor, fittings, cargo floor, doors, and windows.”).
Claims 7, 9 – 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, in view of Wallner, and further in view of CN 114372317 YANG (YANG hereafter).
Regarding Claim 7, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 6, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify the plot point including identifying the plot point by a first trained model.
However, YANG, directed towards a damage location method for composite material inspection and maintenance, discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify the plot point including identifying the plot point by a first trained model (see at least YANG [¶n0041], “Through secondary development of CATIA, the position coordinate information of the four corner points of the rectangular box in the Excel file is read, and the damage information is drawn in the 3D model. The damage location point data is recorded at the specified position point in the model. By extracting the damage boundary position point in the image, the damage can be directly input into the 3D model as the position coordinate point. Then, the relevant text information is associated with the damage position point, which can realize the reading and query of the damage in the 3D model. Damage occurring at the same point in time can be read and queried. If damage occurs near this structure later, the previous damage location information can be extracted for comparative analysis, considering the impact of the original damage and facilitating evaluation.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of YANG to modify Lewis and Wallner in combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of identifying the plot point including identifying the plot point by a first trained model, for the purpose of identifying the damaged area. By extracting the damage boundary position point in the image, the damage can be directly input into the 3D model as the position coordinate point, the damage location information can be extracted for comparative analysis, facilitating evaluation, as taught by YANG.
Regarding Claim 9, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to automatically identify a boundary of a damage region for the aircraft (see at least YANG [¶n0020], “In one possible embodiment, in step 7, the position coordinate information of the four corner points of the rectangular box in the Excel file is read through catia secondary development, and the damage information is drawn in the 3D model. The damage location point data is recorded at the specified position point in the model. By extracting the damage boundary position point in the image, the damage can be directly input as the position coordinate point into the three-dimensional model. Then, the damage location point is associated with the relevant text information, so that the damage can be read and queried in the three dimensional model.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of YANG to modify Lewis and Wallner in combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of automatically identify a boundary of a damage region for the aircraft, for the purpose of identifying the damaged area. By extracting the damage boundary position point in the image, the damage can be directly input into the 3D model as the position coordinate point, the damage location information can be extracted for comparative analysis, facilitating evaluation, as taught by YANG.
Regarding Claim 10, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 9, wherein the boundary encompasses visible and invisible damage to the aircraft (see at least YANG [¶n0031], “For non-destructive testing of composite materials, the damage cannot be fully obtained by visual methods, and ultrasonic testing methods are needed to characterize and record the damage. Ultrasonic testing can be used to classify, determine and measure the delamination, debonding and impact damage of composite materials. The area to be inspected is comprehensively scanned by ultrasonic A-scan equipment. The boundary of the damage is determined according to the half-wave height method, and then the outline of the damage is drawn; or the inspection image is directly obtained by scanning with ultrasonic C-scan equipment. For A-scan the outline of the lesion is obtained or for C-scan the lesion image is obtained.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of YANG to modify Lewis and Wallner in combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of the boundary encompassing visible and invisible damage to the aircraft, for the purpose of identifying the damaged area. By extracting the damage boundary position point in the image, the damage can be directly input into the 3D model as the position coordinate point, the damage location information can be extracted for comparative analysis, facilitating evaluation, as taught by YANG.
Regarding Claim 11, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify the boundary including identifying, by a second trained model, a set of boundary points along the boundary (see at least YANG [¶n0041], “Through secondary development of CATIA, the position coordinate information of the four corner points of the rectangular box in the Excel file is read, and the damage information is drawn in the 3D model. The damage location point data is recorded at the specified position point in the model. By extracting the damage boundary position point in the image, the damage can be directly input into the 3D model as the position coordinate point. Then, the relevant text information is associated with the damage position point, which can realize the reading and query of the damage in the 3D model. Damage occurring at the same point in time can be read and queried. If damage occurs near this structure later, the previous damage location information can be extracted for comparative analysis, considering the impact of the original damage and facilitating evaluation.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The device of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate a digitized boundary shape from the set of boundary points, the digitized boundary shape matching the boundary within a boundary match threshold (see at least YANG [¶n0014], “In one possible embodiment, in step 1, the area to be inspected is comprehensively scanned by an ultrasonic A-scan device, the boundary of the damage is determined according to the half-wave height method, and then the outline of the damage is drawn; or an ultrasonic scan device is directly used to scan and obtain a local image of the damage, thereby obtaining the outline of the damage.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of YANG to modify Lewis and Wallner in combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of generate a digitized boundary shape from the set of boundary points, the digitized boundary shape matching the boundary within a boundary match threshold, for the purpose of identifying the damaged area. By extracting the damage boundary position point in the image, the damage can be directly input into the 3D model as the position coordinate point, the damage location information can be extracted for comparative analysis, facilitating evaluation, as taught by YANG.
Regarding Claim 17, Lewis and Wallner in combination disclose The method of claim 16, Lewis further discloses further comprising:
identifying a subset of the boundary points associated with a unique set of associated maintenance conditions, wherein obtaining the damage limit from the digital service manual comprises obtaining the damage limit based on the subset of the boundary points (see at least Lewis [¶0038, Fig.7], “At block 710, a database of allowable damage limits 80 is acquired by user interface device 16 from compliance management system 18 (shown in FIG. 1). Alternatively, user interface device 16 can be loaded with allowable damage limits 80. FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary database listing allowable damage limits 80. At block 720, allowable damage limits 80 are compared to at least one parameter 74. At block 730, analyzer 26 (shown in FIG. 1) is configured to conduct and analyze allowable damage limits 80 and at least one parameter 74. A determination for a damage allowability 81 is made at block 740.”).
Wallner further discloses automatically identifying the plurality of maintenance conditions comprises automatically identifying the plurality of maintenance conditions for each of the boundary points (see at least Wallner [¶0037, 0038, Fig.3], “The system will assess the damage based on the damage information [] and the structural properties from the aircraft selected part in the 3D model and suggest an appropriate damage disposition.”, “the damage assessment is performed automatically by the system [], the damage disposition will be provided based on the already issued Structural Repair Manual (SRM). The system will compare the damage information supplied by the user with the limits specified in the SRM. ”);and identifying a subset of the boundary points associated with a unique set of associated maintenance conditions (see at least Wallner [¶0037, 0038, Fig.3]).
Lewis and Wallner in combination do not explicitly disclose automatically identifying a boundary of a damage region for the aircraft, wherein identifying the boundary comprises identifying, by a second trained model, a set of boundary points along the boundary, wherein automatically identifying the plurality of maintenance conditions comprises automatically identifying the plurality of maintenance conditions for each of the boundary points;
generating a digitized boundary shape from the set of boundary points, the digitized boundary shape matching the boundary within a boundary match threshold;
However, YANG discloses automatically identifying a boundary of a damage region for the aircraft, wherein identifying the boundary comprises identifying, by a second trained model, a set of boundary points along the boundary (see at least YANG [¶n0041], “Through secondary development of CATIA, the position coordinate information of the four corner points of the rectangular box in the Excel file is read, and the damage information is drawn in the 3D model. The damage location point data is recorded at the specified position point in the model. By extracting the damage boundary position point in the image, the damage can be directly input into the 3D model as the position coordinate point. Then, the relevant text information is associated with the damage position point, which can realize the reading and query of the damage in the 3D model. Damage occurring at the same point in time can be read and queried. If damage occurs near this structure later, the previous damage location information can be extracted for comparative analysis, considering the impact of the original damage and facilitating evaluation.”),
generating a digitized boundary shape from the set of boundary points, the digitized boundary shape matching the boundary within a boundary match threshold (see at least YANG [¶n0014], “In one possible embodiment, in step 1, the area to be inspected is comprehensively scanned by an ultrasonic A-scan device, the boundary of the damage is determined according to the half-wave height method, and then the outline of the damage is drawn; or an ultrasonic Cscan device is directly used to scan and obtain a local image of the damage, thereby obtaining the outline of the damage.).
Conclusion
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 502.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neit J. Nieves Flores whose telephone number is (703)756-5864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0930-1800 AST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/Neit J. Nieves Flores/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664