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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on September 7th, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims have unity of invention because they are all directed to AI enabled assessment and predictive analysis of buildings and infrastructure systems. This is not found persuasive because as was noted in the restriction requirement, the technical features that the claims in group I and II share do not amount to a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art. While applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation of “wherein the target component or the target system comprises at least one of the following: building façade, interiors of buildings, buildings under construction, machines and machined parts”, it is noted that this technical feature is also not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art, as shown in the rejections below. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the restriction has been maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. As such, group I, Claims 1-5 and 17-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration.
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.
Claims 6-10 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 6, “the target component or the target system”, there is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the claim recites that the sensor includes one or more of a thermal camera, a visual camera, and a laser scanner (in lines 4-5), but then later uses each of these sensors to collect information about the target component or target system (lines 8-15). Therefore, it is not clear whether each of these sensors is actually required for the system, or if the collection by each of these sensors is optional. Finally there is inconsistent wording when using target component or target system. For example “at least one scan of the target component or the system” of line 15, and “to predict a remaining lifetime of a target component where the defect was identified” of the last line, making the claim generally unclear. Clarification is required.
In regards to claim 7, the claim states “the plurality of sensors comprises a plurality of communication units for communicating with sensors disposed on a target component or a target system, wherein the sensors are configured to monitor conditions of the target component or the target system”. The claim appears to only claim communication units, but then describes the specifics of the sensors, which appear to only be passively claimed. Further, it is not clear from the claim whether the sensors disposed on the target are the sensors that includes one or more of the thermal camera, visual camera, or laser scanner. Therefore, it is not clear if the sensors are different sensors than the ones claimed in claim 6, and further whether they are a required part of the system or merely claimed as intended use of the communication unit. Clarification is required. For the purposes of prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as only requiring a plurality of communication units.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the remote storage unit" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims which depend on rejected claims, inherit the problems of these claims, and are, therefore, also rejected.
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) 6-10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 20180390546, translation provided), in view of Loveland et al. (9,805,261).
In regards to claim 6, Huang discloses a system for artificial intelligence enabled assessment and predictive analysis (abstract) comprising: an autonomous vehicle or robot (unmanned aerial vehicle) coupled with a plurality of sensors (the unmanned vehicle is coupled to at least two detection modules 1 and 2, page 10, ⁋ 9), wherein the sensors include one or more of the following: a thermal camera, a visual camera, and a LASER scanner (page 10, ⁋ 9 comprises a visual camera); a computing device comprising a tangible non-transitory computer readable storage medium (4 central processing module), wherein the visual camera is configured to collect at least one visual image of the target component or the target system (page 10, ⁋ 10, “for the camera collecting the civil engineering structure image data), wherein the target component or the target system comprises at least one of the following: building façade, interiors of buildings, buildings under construction, machines and machined parts (page 2, “such as building….station, airport”); wherein the computing device is configured to identify at least one defect related information from the processed data, wherein the at least one defect related information including a type of defect and a degree of severity of the defect; (paragraph bridging pages 10/11, obtains length, width and depth information of defect for quantizing the defect) and wherein the computing device is configured to predict a remaining lifetime of a target component where the defect was identified (page 13, ⁋ 10 “life prediction module 7 to forecast the life of the civil engineering structure”).
Huang is silent to a thermal camera being configured to collect at least one thermal image of the target component or the target system; or a LASER scanner being configured to collect at least one scan of the target component or the system; wherein the computing device is configured to process data as a function of the collected visual image, the thermal image, and the LASER scan.
Loveland, in the same field of endeavor as Huang of building damage assessment using an autonomous vehicle (abstract, and column 13, lines 39-45), discloses that multiple sensors can be used to assess damage to an object (column 2, lines 54-51). Specifically, Loveland discloses a thermal camera is configured to collect at least one thermal image of the target component or the target system (column 13, lines 13-24); wherein the LASER scanner is configured to collect at least one scan of the target component or the system (column 4, lines 45-59 and column 5, lines 40-48, wherein a LIDAR is a laser scanner); wherein the computing device is configured to process data as a function of the collected visual image, the thermal image, and the LASER scan which is done in order to give an accurate assessment of damage to the structure (column 12, lines 26-57). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into Huang additional sensor, such as taught by Loveland, such as a thermal camera to collect at least one thermal image of the target component or the target system; and a LASER scanner to collect at least one scan of the target component or the system; and configure the computing device to process data as a function of the collected visual image, the thermal image, and the LASER scan in order to arrive at more detailed information of the damage of the object being measured.
In regards to claims 7 and 9, the combined system is disclosed above. The combination system is silent to the plurality of sensors comprising a plurality of communication units for communicating with sensors or the computing device comprising a communication unit to receive data via a 5G mobile data transfer. However, the examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art of defect detection to include into a system a plurality of communication devices to connect a sensor measuring the target to the computer analyzing the data from the sensors, and further that 5G is a well-known protocol to do this. This is done in order to allow proper communication of data for processing. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into the system the plurality of sensors comprising a plurality of communication units for communicating with sensors or the computing device comprising a communication unit to receive data via a 5G mobile data transfer, as this is well-known in the art to do, and in order to allow proper communication of data from the sensors to the computer for processing.
In regards to claim 8, the tangible non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises a memory card associated with the computing device or a remote storage unit (Huang page 17, DVD, SSD, etc.).
In regards to claim 10, Huang generates a defect report, wherein the report provides information of an estimated remaining life of the target component or target system (page 18, “for predicting the life of the civil engineering structure to a display module”). Huang is silent to generating a recommendation for predictive maintenance. Loveland, in the same field of endeavor as Huang of building damage assessment using an autonomous vehicle (abstract, and column 13, lines 39-45), discloses generating a recommendation for predictive maintenance, which allows repair and extended life of the building (fig. 11, for example). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into Huang generating a recommendation for predictive maintenance, as taught by Loveland, in order to allow repair and extended life of the building.
In regards to claim 12, language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). In the instant case the combined system as disclosed above can be used to determine defects and the remaining lifetime of any target component.
In regards to claim 13, the device is further configured to analyze an imminent defect condition as a function of the identifying (Huang, abstract).
In regards to claim 14, the combined system is disclosed above. The combined system is silent to the computing device being further configured to transmit a SMS message or an electronic mail message to an owner of the target component or target system in response the analyzed imminent defect condition satisfying a threshold. However, the examiner takes official notice, that in defect detection, it is very well-known in the art to have some sort of alarm to alert the user, such as an SMS message or email, to an imminent defect condition, in order to allow the user to quickly take preventative action to avoid a catastrophic failure. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into the combined system that the computing device is further configured to transmit a SMS message or an electronic mail message to an owner of the target component or target system in response the analyzed imminent defect condition satisfying a threshold, as this is very well known in the art of defect detection to do, in order to allow the user to quickly take preventative action to avoid a catastrophic failure.
In regards to claim 15, the computing device is further configured to calculate Safety Integrity Level (SIL) or Condition Score (CS) to indicate an overall health of the target component or system (Huang, page 5, “evaluation levels” and “score range”).
In regards to claim 16, the computing device is further configured to compare the SIL or CS to other target components or systems or compare the SIL or CS to similar target components or systems at different times (page 9, ⁋ 11, the real-time information is updated continuously to update the remaining life prediction result; therefore, the information is compared at different times to update the life prediction result).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kilaru et al. (US 2020/0272137) discloses determining the life-cycle of a machine, Davis et al. (US 10755357) Gros et al. (US 10618168) and Ruda et al. (US 10,726,558) disclose using a UAV with multiple sensors to monitor the health and defects of a building.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA E GEISEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/KARA E. GEISEL/
Art Unit 2877
