DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 7-8 applicant argues that Main fails to disclose “an inspection reel supported by the housing and including an inspection camera configured to captured image data”. Main relies on a “pipe frame inspection” and applicant argues that it is not the same as inspection reel. It is noted that a “pipe frame inspection” and an “inspection reel” are functionally and structurally equivalent. Both refer to apparatuses designed to facilitate the inspection of pipes by deploying and retrieving a camera or sensor using a reel mounted on a supporting frame. In industry practice, these terms are often used interchangeably, as both systems serve the same purpose and have similar configurations, a frame supporting a reel for cable management. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these terms to describe the same type of inspection equipment. Furthermore, it is noted that the pipe frame inspection disclosed by Main discloses the claim limitations.
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.
Claims 55, 73, 74, 105, 123, 124, 213, 220 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being Main by 2022/0172335.
[claim 55]
In regard to Claim 55, Mian discloses an inspection tool comprising:
a housing (Figure 1);
a user interface supported by the housing; an inspection reel supported by the housing and including an inspection camera configured to captured image data (paragraph 0032);
a controller including a processor and a memory, the controller supported by the housing and coupled to the inspection camera and the user interface (Paragraph 0032-0035), wherein the processor is configured to:
receive, from the inspection camera, image data collected from an area of interest
process the received image data through a model to determine a classification for an aspect of the area of interest, the model trained with previously received image data and respective previously received or determined classifications (Paragraph 0056-0062 and Paragraph 0071-0074) describes the process of classification),
determine, based on the classification, a label for the aspect, and provide the label and received image data to the user interface (Paragraph 0080-0083).
[claim 73]
In regard to Claim 73, Mian discloses an inspection tool of claim 55, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, based on the classification and the image data, a command to control the inspection camera; and provide the command to the inspection camera (Paragraphs 0050-0052 describe the inspection camera command).
[claim 74]
In regard to Claim 74, Mian discloses an inspection tool of claim 73, wherein the command includes at least one of slowing a frame rate of the image data, providing a user prompt to the user interface, reduce a forward speed of the inspection tool, stopping a forward progression of the inspection tool, performing a zoom function with the inspection camera, panning the inspection camera, rotating the inspection camera, switching cameras, adjusting coloring, adjusting lighting, adjusting contrast, adjusting resolution, adjusting brightness, adjusting color mapping, or augmenting a visualization the aspect on the user interface (Paragraph 0054-0059).
[claim 105]
Claim limitations have been discussed in Claim 55.
[claim 123]
Claim limitations have been discussed in Claim 73.
[claim 124]
Claim limitations have been discussed in Claim 74.
[claim 213]
Claim limitations have been discussed in Claim 55.
[claim 220]
Claim limitations have been discussed in Claim 74.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim(s) 82, 83, 84, 91, 92, 132, 133, 134, 141, 142, 221, 222 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Main by 2022/0172335 in view of West WO 2022/172048.
[claim 82]
In regard to Claim 82, Mian discloses an inspection tool however, fails to disclose w3herein a pipe is displayed one- dimensionally via the user interface and as substantially straight except at a joint. West discloses a system that inspects the pipe and displays to the used through 1D, 2D and 3D and stiches the image together keeping it straight as seen in Figure 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use Main inspection tool and further incorporate West ability to lace images together to provide a clear straight picture of the inside of the pipe (Paragraph 003).
[claim 83]
In regard to Claim 83, West teaches an inspection tool wherein the user interface is configured to display a three-dimensional (3D) representation of a pipe via stitching that is performed using a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) technique with the image data (Paragraph 0041-0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use Main inspection tool and further incorporate West ability to lace images together to provide a clear straight picture of the inside of the pipe (Paragraph 003).
[claim 84]
In regard to Claim 84, discloses an inspection tool, wherein the user interface is configured to display a two-dimensional (2D) representation of a pipe that includes a constant diameter pipe, and wherein the 2D representation of the pipe is "unrolled" to a one-dimensional (lD) image (Paragraph 0041-0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use Main inspection tool and further incorporate West ability to lace images together to provide a clear straight picture of the inside of the pipe (Paragraph 003).
[claim 91]
In regard to Claim 91, West teaches an inspection tool wherein the area of interest includes a pipe and wherein the aspect is a crack, a clog, a root, a buildup of fluid, running fluid, pipe wear, a transition, a connecting pipe, a joint, a misalignment, an inner lining, a belly, a leak, a pipe material or type, a wire, a stud, a nail, daylight, a hoses, an outlet, a screw, a junction boxes, daylight, an item of interest, or a path aspect (Paragraph 003).
[claim 92]
In regard to Claim 92, discloses the inspection tool wherein the path aspect includes a turn, a connection with another pipe, or a slope.
[claim 132]
Claim limitations have been discussed in Claim 82.
[claim 133]
Claim limitations have been discussed in Claim 83.
[claim 134]
Claim limitations have been discussed in Claim 84.
[claim 141]
Claim limitations have been discussed in Claim 91.
[claim 142]
Claim limitations have been discussed in Claim 92.
[claim 221]
In regard to Claim 221, West discloses augmenting the visualization includes highlighting, magnifying, or adding a border surrounding the aspect (Paragraph 0041-0052).
[claim 222]
In regard to Claim 222, West discloses an inspection tool, wherein the augmentation of the visualization is saved as part of a video, saved in another layer, saved as metadata for a video, or saved in a separate file (Paragraph 0041-0052).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE JO ATALA whose telephone number is (571)272-7384. The examiner can normally be reached 830am-500pm M-TH.
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, please reach out to Dave Czekaj 571-272-7327. 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.
/JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486