DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8, 10, and 13-15 are pending, and claims dated 12/04/2025 are being examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/04/2025 with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson et al. (US-20210237867-A1), in view of Troy et al. (US-20200207488-A1), in view of Sasamoto et al. (US-20150212008-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Georgeson, Troy, and Sasamoto respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Georgeson teaches a system comprising:
processing circuitry; and ([0046] The controller is configured (e.g., programmed) to control the rotors to cause the UAV to fly along a flight path to a location where the UAV is in proximity to or in contact with an area on the surface of a structure to be inspected and repaired)
a drone comprising ([0046] …the UAV takes the form of a rotorcraft having multiple rotors):
a marking mount configured to receive a marking device (FIGs. 3A-3B: arm 3 configured to receive payload 6; [0024] Each roller tape applicator may be a payload carried by a UAV of one of the types depicted in FIGS. 2 and 3A or a type having a different design; [0085] FIG. 5 shows a side view of some components of a roller tape applicator 70 a);
[…] control logic communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry, the control logic being configured to (Georgeson [0095] In addition, the flight controller 39 of the UAV 2 is configured to control operation of the rotor motors 12 so that the UAV 2 flies along a linear path that is parallel to the surface 9 of a structure and, more specifically, parallel to the intended path of the applicator roller 78 for laying down tape 11, while maintaining the pressure exerted on the surface 9 by the applicator roller 78 within a specified range):
based on navigation instructions received from the processing circuitry, navigate the drone to an area identified via image analysis as being associated with damage, such that a distal tip of the marking device makes contact with the area associated with the damage (Georgeson [0084] If the image data indicates that damage exists, then a determination is made whether tape should be applied to the damage site or not. If a quick repair by applying tape is warranted, the UAV is guided to fly along a path that brings the tape applicator carried by the UAV into contact with the surface at a start-tape-laying position)
Georgeson does not explicitly teach: (1) a motion guide configured to provide a sliding framework for a reciprocating motion of the marking mount; a shock absorption sub-assembly positioned between the marking mount and the motion guide, wherein the motion guide is configured to maintain a position of the shock absorption sub-assembly; and (2) the contact occurs “while activating the shock absorption sub-assembly to at least partially absorb a shock caused by the contact between the distal tip of the marking device and the area”.
However, Troy teaches (1) a motion guide configured to provide a sliding framework for a reciprocating motion of the marking mount (Fig. 5 arm 506 provides sliding framework for up-and-down linear reciprocating motion of the support telescoping arm 502; [0037] In some embodiments, the telescoping arm 502 is formed having at least two slidable nesting portions);
a shock absorption sub-assembly positioned between the marking mount and the motion guide, wherein the motion guide is configured to maintain a position of the shock absorption sub-assembly ([0038] A compliant element (e.g., a spring) may be disposed within a cavity of the second portion to bias the first portion 504 with respect to the second portion 506);
and (2) the contact occurs “while activating the shock absorption sub-assembly to at least partially absorb a shock caused by the contact between the distal tip of the marking device and the area” ([0038] Accordingly, the UAV 102 is configured to apply an approximately constant pressure to the surface of a target structure regardless of the distance between the UAV 102 and the surface).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the structure of the arm taught in Georgeson to incorporate the teachings of Troy to include (1) a motion guide configured to provide a sliding framework for a reciprocating motion of the marking mount; a shock absorption sub-assembly positioned between the marking mount and the motion guide, wherein the motion guide is configured to maintain a position of the shock absorption sub-assembly; and (2) the contact occurs “while activating the shock absorption sub-assembly to at least partially absorb a shock caused by the contact between the distal tip of the marking device and the area”, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of avoiding variations in pressure by “applying approximately constant pressure to the target structure regardless of a distance between the UAV and the target structure” (Troy [0028], [0038]).
Georgeson does not explicitly teach that the area identified via image analysis is “a tape misapplication that comprises at least one of a fishmouth crease, a tenting of a tape as applied to a substrate, a missing tape segment, or an insufficient tension of the tape”.
However, in the same field of endeavor directed towards vision-based defect detection, Sasamoto teaches an area identified via image analysis is “a tape misapplication that comprises at least one of a fishmouth crease, a tenting of a tape as applied to a substrate, a missing tape segment, or an insufficient tension of the tape” (FIG. 3 camera 31 binarizes image to identify tape portions and the categorical testing component 44 performs image processing to identify tape defects; [0068] The binary processor 43 a binarizes the image data acquired by the image input component 41, and extracts the bright tape portion as a white image, and the dark underlying tape layer as a black image; [0085] This allows abnormal gap errors to be detected […] This allows abnormal lapping errors to be detected; [0101] …a multi-articulated robot capable of multiaxial control is used to move relatively over the surface of the test object w2; [0136] At a place where an error has occurred, the tape that caused the error is peeled off, a new tape is applied, and repair is performed to remove any foreign matter, etc.).
The navigation mechanism of Georgeson operates based on location information corresponding to a detected condition on a surface ([0050], [0084]). The inspection system of Georgeson routinely detects multiple different types of defects ([0066]-[0068]. The specific type of detected condition is not critical to the navigation process in Georgeson because the drone merely travels to the location associated with the detected condition. Modifying the inspection criteria of Georgeson to detect tape misapplication and directing the drone to the location would have required only routine adaptation of Georgeson’s image analysis algorithm to also identify another detect type, while using the same navigation framework already disclosed in Georgeson.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the system of Georgeson so that the drone navigates to an area associated with a tape misapplication, rather than solely an area of structural damage by also identifying via image analysis an area associated with a tape misapplication that comprises at least one of a fishmouth crease, a tenting of a tape as applied to a substrate, a missing tape segment, or an insufficient tension of the tape as taught in Sasamoto, since this would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, yielding no more than predictable results. The modification does not change the operation of the drone navigation system because the navigation logic relies only on the location of a detected condition rather than the specific nature of that condition. Further at the time of the invention, there existed a desirability to detect and resolve tape misapplications (Sasamoto [0136]), so the modification would have achieved the benefit of a more comprehensive detection system, applying repair to more types of defects.
Regarding claim 2, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Georgeson, as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the shock absorption sub-assembly comprises a compression spring set.
However, Troy also teaches wherein the shock absorption sub-assembly comprises a compression spring set ([0038] A compliant element (e.g., a spring) may be disposed within a cavity of the second portion to bias the first portion 504 with respect to the second portion 506. Accordingly, the UAV 102 is configured to apply an approximately constant pressure to the surface of a target structure regardless of the distance between the UAV 102 and the surface, when the NDI scanning device 104 is in contact with the surface).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the structure of the arm taught in Georgeson, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Troy to include wherein the shock absorption sub-assembly comprises a compression spring set, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of avoiding variations in pressure by “applying approximately constant pressure to the target structure regardless of a distance between the UAV and the target structure” (Troy [0028], [0038]).
Regarding claim 4, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.Georgeson also suggests wherein the drone further comprises wireless interface hardware, and wherein the processing circuitry is integrated into a remote control device that is wirelessly coupled to the wireless interface hardware of the drone by disclosing in para. [0094] In accordance with one embodiment, a remotely controlled tape-laying apparatus includes a UAV 2 and a roller tape applicator 70 c coupled to the UAV 2”. However, Georgeson does not explicitly teach in the same embodiment wherein the drone further comprises wireless interface hardware, and wherein the processing circuitry is integrated into a remote control device that is wirelessly coupled to the wireless interface hardware of the drone.
However, Troy also teaches wherein the drone further comprises wireless interface hardware, and wherein the processing circuitry is integrated into a remote control device that is wirelessly coupled to the wireless interface hardware of the drone ([0042] …controllable from a remote controller 612; [0046] The controller 700 is programed with instructions to control one or more of the subsystems of the UAV 102 and the NDI scanning device 104 and/or communicate via the transceiver 704 with a wireless UAV controller and/or the remote inspection station).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the controls of Georgeson to incorporate the teachings of Troy to include wherein the drone further comprises wireless interface hardware, and wherein the processing circuitry is integrated into a remote control device that is wirelessly coupled to the wireless interface hardware of the drone, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the well-known benefit of remote controlling, allowing for repairs to be done without the need for a wired or on site presence.
Regarding claim 5, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Because the above cited embodiment disclosed in Georgeson teaches the marking device as an applicator roller for laying down tape, Georgeson, as modified, does not explicitly teach in the same embodiment wherein the marking device is configured to dispense ink from the distal tip onto the area associated with the tape misapplication in response to the distal tip making the contact with the area associated with the tape misapplication.
However, Georgeson, as modified, teaches in different embodiments a marking device configured to dispense ink from the distal tip onto the area associated with the tape misapplication (Georgeson [0156] An alternative 3-D localization approach involves placing two or more UAV-placed visible targets, such as ink marks, adjacent to the repair area; see rejection of claim 1 cited to Tyson teaching the repair area being an area associated with tape misapplication).
Because Georgeson is silent on how the ink marks are applied, Georgeson, as modified, does not explicitly teach: in response to the distal tip “making the contact” with the area.
However, Troy teaches wherein a marking device is configured to dispense ink from the distal tip onto the area in response to the distal tip making the contact with the area ([0025] The UAV 102 can also enable maintenance activities, such as painting, sanding, and location tagging for periodic remote inspection. Adhesive tags, paint, etc. can also be left attached for future reference, or enable 3-D visualization; [0027] The articulated support arm 206 is configured, in certain embodiments, with a passive or active end effector mechanism at the distal end for manipulating one or more maintenance tools including, but not limited to […] ink stamps, etc; [0036] …the payload being carried by the UAV 102 (e.g., NDI scanning device 102, sanding device, paint brush, etc.)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify how the ink is applied as taught in Georgeson, as modified, to substitute Troy’s paint brush and/or ink stamp such that the ink is dispensed in response to the distal tip “making the contact” with the area because it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the substitution of using a paint brush or ink stamp to apply ink for an unspecified way to apply ink would have had the predictable result of dispensing ink to a target area to mark defects.
Regarding claim 6, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Georgeson, as modified, also teaches wherein the marking device is configured to dispense a self-adhesive paper strip onto the area associated with the tape misapplication in response to the distal tip making the contact with the area associated with the tape misapplication (Georgeson [0084] If the image data indicates that damage exists, then a determination is made whether tape should be applied to the damage site or not. If a quick repair by applying tape is warranted, the UAV is guided to fly along a path that brings the tape applicator carried by the UAV into contact with the surface at a start-tape-laying position; see rejection of claim 1 cited to Tyson teaching the damaged area being an area associated with tape misapplication, specifically Tyson [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Georgeson also teaches wherein the processing circuitry is integrated into the drone ([0057] …onboard computer system).
Regarding claim 8, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Georgeson, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the area associated with the tape misapplication is on an envelope layer of a building.
However, Georgeson teaches that the repair of structures may be performed on virtually any structure ([0024] The payload-carrying UAV 2 depicted in FIG. 2 or FIG. 3A is equally well adapted for use in repairing a wide range of structures including, but not limited to, aircraft, wind turbine blades, storage tanks, power lines, power-generating facilities, power grids, dams, levees, stadiums, large buildings, bridges, large antennas and telescopes, water treatment facilities, oil refineries, chemical processing plants, high-rise buildings, and infrastructure associated with electric trains and monorail support structures. The system is also particularly well suited for use inside large buildings such as manufacturing facilities and warehouses. Virtually any structure that would be difficult, costly, or too hazardous to be repaired by a human controlling the repair tool may potentially be repaired using the systems described herein.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the location of the area associated with the tape misapplication as taught in Georgeson, as modified, to substitute the area associated with the tape misapplication is part of an envelope layer of a building because it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the substitution of the target structure being an envelope layer of a building for a different target structure would have had the predictable result of making contact with the area and performing the dispensing of tape, paint etc. on a target structure. The modification for the area associated with the tape misapplication to be part of an envelope layer of a building has a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so would have achieved the benefit of applying the maintenance and repair activities taught in Georgeson, as modified, to more types of target structures.
Regarding claim 10, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Georgeson, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the area associated with the tape misapplication is part of a roof of a building.
However, in different embodiments, Georgeson teaches that the repair of structures may be performed on virtually any structure ([0024] The payload-carrying UAV 2 depicted in FIG. 2 or FIG. 3A is equally well adapted for use in repairing a wide range of structures including, but not limited to, aircraft, wind turbine blades, storage tanks, power lines, power-generating facilities, power grids, dams, levees, stadiums, large buildings, bridges, large antennas and telescopes, water treatment facilities, oil refineries, chemical processing plants, high-rise buildings, and infrastructure associated with electric trains and monorail support structures. The system is also particularly well suited for use inside large buildings such as manufacturing facilities and warehouses. Virtually any structure that would be difficult, costly, or too hazardous to be repaired by a human controlling the repair tool may potentially be repaired using the systems described herein.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the location of the area associated with the tape misapplication as taught in Georgeson, as modified, to substitute the area associated with the tape misapplication is part of a roof of a building because it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the substitution of the target structure being a part of a roof of a building for a different target structure would have had the predictable result of making contact with the area and performing the dispensing of tape, paint etc. on a target structure. The modification for the area associated with the tape misapplication to be part of a roof of a building has a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so would have achieved the benefit of applying the maintenance and repair activities taught in Georgeson, as modified, to more types of target structures.
Regarding claim 13, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Georgeson, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the image analysis is performed on a polarization image.
However, Sasamoto also teaches wherein the image analysis is performed on a polarization image ([0135] In this case, the polarization direction of the polarizing filter is set to be the same as the direction in which the fibers extend in the fiber reinforced plastic tape of the layer that will be the test object, and reflected light in this polarization direction is selected for observation, so reflected light in other polarization directions (noise component) is cut out, resulting in much higher contrast of the observation image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the image analysis as taught in Georgeson, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Sasamoto to include wherein the image analysis is performed on a polarization image, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of reducing noise “resulting in much higher contrast of the observation image” (Sasamoto [0135]).
Regarding claim 14, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Georgeson, as modified, also teaches wherein the image analysis is performed on an image expressed in one or more of a red-green-blue (RGB) color space, a grayscale color space, or a black and white color space (see rejection of claim 1 cited to Sasamoto [0068] The binary processor 43 a binarizes the image data acquired by the image input component 41, and extracts the bright tape portion as a white image, and the dark underlying tape layer as a black image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the image analysis as taught in Georgeson, as modified to incorporate the teachings of Sasamoto to include wherein the image analysis is performed on an image expressed in one or more of a red-green-blue (RGB) color space, a grayscale color space, or a black and white color space, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of distinguishing the tape in the image (Sasamoto FIGs. 4A-4B).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson, in view of Troy, in view of Sasamoto, in further view of Saez et al. (US-20180156770-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Saez.
Regarding claim 3, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Georgeson, as modified, does not explicitly teach: wherein the shock absorption sub-assembly comprises a hydraulic device.
However, Saez teaches wherein a shock absorption sub-assembly comprises a hydraulic device ([0059] The retractable boom assembly 110 may include roll axis and pitch axis energy dampening mounts 196 a, 196 b, as shown in FIG. 5. The energy dampening mounts may be rubber dampers, rubber bands, and/or hydraulic or air shock absorbers).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the shock absorption sub-assembly as taught in Georgeson, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Saez to include a hydraulic device, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “decreasing vibrational noise experienced”, “improve the flight stability of the system 100 by decreasing movement of the retractable boom assembly 110”, and “may desirably increase longevity of both mechanical and electronic equipment attached to the UAS 108 and retractable boom assembly 110” (Saez [0059]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson, in view of Troy, in view of Sasamoto, in further view of Wang et al. (US-20200324494-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 15, Georgeson, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Georgeson, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the image analysis is performed using a trained classification model.
However, Wang teaches wherein the image analysis is performed using a trained classification model ([0040] Outputs generated by the neural network may include, for each of multiple locations (e.g., points evenly spaced along a grid across a surface of the laminate), a likelihood of fabrication discrepancies such as gaps between tows greater than a predetermined size indicative of an out-of-tolerance condition, gaps between courses greater than a predetermined size, laps across tows greater than a predetermined size (e.g., laps of any size), laps across courses greater than a predetermined size (e.g., laps of any size), delays in fabrication speed/layup speed, wrinkles in tows, twists in tows, untacked tows, and a fill ratio below a predetermined amount; [0059] Within the binary image, one pixel row corresponds with each tow. The binary image may be reshaped into a vector and used as input for a neural network in the form of a pattern recognition network, and additional input parameters can be appended to this vector. In this manner, controller 112 may operate the pattern recognition network based on binary image 820 to predict likelihoods of gaps that are out of tolerance between courses and also between tows within courses).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the image analysis as taught in Georgeson, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include using a trained classification model, with a reasonable expectation of success, to obtain the benefits of machine learning, as such models can be improved over time through additional training data and/or adjusting of weights (Wang [0040], [0050]), allowing the system to adapt to variations in captured images. The incorporation of using a trained classification model would therefore provide the predictable advantage of enabling the system to improve its defect detection performance as additional training data becomes available.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20220215651-A1: Blom-Schieber teaches use machine learning to detect tows
US-20160341671-A1: Mass teaches detection of tape/tow defects using image analysis ([0052] The method 500 may, for example, detect the presence and/or locations of layup features and/or flaws including, but not limited to tape edges, tape start and end locations, gaps, overlaps and splices between tapes, twisted tapes, buckled tapes, bridged tapes, foreign matter on the tape surface and other flaws.).
US-20190318444-A1: Juarez teaches in [0009] that “known evaluation techniques may utilize image processing that focuses on tow tape alignment defects such as twists, overlaps, and gaps”.
Sun S, Han Z, Fu H, Jin H, Dhupia JS, Wang Y. Defect Characteristics and Online Detection Techniques During Manufacturing of FRPs Using Automated Fiber Placement: A Review. Polymers (Basel). 2020 Jun 12;12(6):1337. doi: 10.3390/polym12061337. PMID: 32545590; PMCID: PMC7361825. teaches detection of tow defects occurring during automated fiber placement process (AFP) see FIG. 2, 7, 10
US-20200143141-A1: Tullman provides a UAV that autonomously marks infrastructure
US-20190128772-A1: Heinrich teaches a UAV using image analysis to check surface profiles
See prior arts cited in the previous office action
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662