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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/23/2025 (all seven IDS Forms) fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
References struck through do not appear to be relevant to the application and applicant is asked to provide a concise explanation of relevance.
The information disclosure statement filed 01/31/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The NPL documents provided are unclear and difficult to read. The URLs provided are directed toward webpages or videos that are no longer available. The examiner is unable to determine the relevance of the NPL documents cited. Therefore it is unclear as to their relevance to the application and have been struck through and not considered.
A copy of WO2021097558 was provided but does not appear to be cited on any IDS filed.
A copy of a reference titled “MULTI-SENSOR INSPECTION FOR IDENTIFICATION OF PRESSURIZED PIPE DEFECTS THAT LEAK” (4/23/2025)but does not appear to be cited and is missing any type of document identification. It is unclear what this document is.
A copy of reference titled “ANOMALY DETECTOR FOR PIPELINES” (20 pages) (4/23/2025) was provided but does not appear to include a document ID. It is unclear where this document is from.
A copy of reference titled “PIPELINE INSPECTION ROBOT” (11 pages) (4/23/2025) was provided but does not appear to include a document ID. It is unclear where this document is from.
A reference believed to be AU20211371453 filed 4/23/2025 (50 pages) was scanned in with only the top left portion of the document. Applicant is asked to file a full copy of the reference.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because some of the figures include improper shading and are difficult to understand. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms “GO-pro” [0064], “iPad” [0101], and “WiFi” [0102], which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, the examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of “the float attachment structure defines a channel”. It is unclear how the float attachment structure and the figures and specification do not provide clarity. Therefore, the it is unclear what exactly defines a channel”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 14-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christoph et al. (DE 10 2010 022608).
Regarding claim 1, Christoph et al. (hereinafter Christoph) teaches a system for mapping a confined space, the system comprising: a mapping device 2 comprising a camera 3 configured to capture image data depicting a transit of the confined space by the mapping device 2 [0032]; and an image processing system (control unit) comprising a processor and a memory [0046], wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions stored on the memory to perform the operations of: processing the image data to determine a first set of locations of the mapping device 2 as it transits the confined space [0041]; and processing the image data to determine a second set of locations of one or more features or one or more defects associated with the confined space [0041].
Regarding claim 10, Christoph teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the mapping device comprises one or more sensors, the one or more sensors comprising a luminance sensor, a barometer, a gas sensor, a humidity sensor, a temperature sensor, a tactile sensor, a proximity sensor 5 [0033], a sonar sensor [0034], or a LIDAR sensor 5 [0033].
Regarding claim 11, Christoph teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the system is modular and physically configurable (to float or to have wheels) based on one or more environments in which the portion of the system is disposed, the one or more environments comprising a vertical confined space, a pipe, a subterranean environment, a vehicle, or a storage container. ][0025]
Regarding claim 14, Christoph teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise mapping the first set of locations of the mapping device and the second set of locations of the one or more features or one or more defects to respective geographic coordinates [0041].
Regarding claim 15, Christoph teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the one or more features comprises a manhole, a start of a pipe, a sewer segment, or a lateral connection (joints) [0019].
Regarding claim 16, Christoph teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the one or more defects comprises a rock, debris, or a surface defect of the confined space [0044].
Regarding claim 19, Christoph teaches the system of claim 1,wherein the image processing system is located in a server different than the mapping device [0036].
Regarding claim 20, Christoph teaches a method for mapping a confined space, the method comprising: receiving image data of a transit of the confined space by an inspection system comprising a mapping device [0032]; processing the image data to determine a first set of locations of the mapping device as it transits the confined space [0041]; and processing the image data to determine a second set of locations of one or more features or one or more defects associated with the confined space [0041].
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) 2-4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoph et al. (DE 10 2010 022608).
Regarding claim 2, Christoph teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the camera is disposed on a camera module 3 [0032] attached to the mapping device 2 but remains silent as to camera module removably attached to the mapping device 2.
While silent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have certain parts be removably attached in order to make replacement easy. Further, it can be said that any feature attached may be removed by various methods.
Regarding claim 3, Christoph teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a light module 120 attached to the mapping device, the light module 120 comprising an array of lights disposed about the mapping device [0022], but remains silent as the light module removably attached to the mapping device 2. While silent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have certain parts be removably attached in order to make replacement easy. Further, it can be said that any feature attached may be removed by various methods.
Regarding claim 4, Christoph teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a float attachment structure (hull), wherein the mapping device is disposed on or in the float attachment structure [0034], but remains silent as to wherein the mapping device is removably disposed on or in the float attachment structure.
While silent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have certain parts be removably attached in order to make replacement easy. Further, it can be said that any feature attached may be removed by various methods.
Regarding claim 6, Christoph teaches the system of claim 4 as rejected above, wherein the float attachment structure comprises at least one fin and/or at least one hull [0034].
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoph et al. (DE 10 2010 022608) in view of Stenger et al. (GB 2542118).
Regarding claim 12, Christoph teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing the image data to determine the first set of locations of the mapping device but remains silent as to: providing the image data as input to a visual simultaneous localization and mapping algorithm; and mapping an environment within the confined space as a sparse point cloud.
Stenger et al. (hereinafter Stenger) teaches a method for detecting change in a structure (such as tunnel (page 1, lines 7-9) providing the image data as input into a visual simultaneous localization and mapping algorithm (page 12 lines 22-24), and mapping an environment within the confined space as a sparse point cloud (page 12 lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 13, Christoph as modified by Stenger teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise transforming the sparse point cloud to fit into a real-world location (page 12, lines 21-24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW V DO whose telephone number is (571)270-3420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Walter L Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/A.V.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2852