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 .
This is a Final Action on the Merits. Claims 20-39 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on December 4th, 2025 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 20-34 and 36-39 have been amended.
Response to Amendments
The previous claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) has been overcome due to the applicant amendment.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 20-39 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendments, however at least one pertinent argument remains.
The applicant states (Amend. 9-10) that Maresca (US 20160123864 A1) (“Maresca”) fails to teach the limitation “provide the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Maresca teaches a determination of the amount of time remaining before a repair needs to be made to a tank using a model and the thickness of the tank to determine the tank’s corrosion rate (See at least Maresca Table 13 and Paragraphs 84-85 “Tables 11 and 12 summarize a more comprehensive list of various types of Methods and the various types of types of Test Results to illustrate the methods summarized in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. All of the methods assume that they have Passed a Leak Detection Test. Furthermore, all of the preferred methods have a high probability that the floor thickness will be greater than 0.1 in., or some acceptable minimum floor thickness, and that the corrosion rate is low to moderate, but not high, because of one or more in-tank floor measurements. The Extension Time Interval, described above in terms of Bayesian statistics is selected on the basis of a Confidence Interval that the method will achieve a 95% or 99% probability of not leaking or structurally failing during the Extension Time Interval. In general, the probability is 99%, except where two or more levels of confidence are expressed and the lower probability is assigned. Table 13 summarizes the Confidence Levels estimated for each method and the Extension Time Interval in years … The Confidence Intervals were assessed in terms of Low, Moderate, and High rates of corrosion rates for the local UT thickness measurements, the previous Out-of-Service Floor Thickness Measurements, and the AE corrosion activity, whether or not the minimum thickness of the tank floor will be exceeded before the Extension Time Interval as assessed by the UT local measurements and the previous Out-of-Service floor inspection measurements, whether or not the UT measurements are correlated and are consistent with these three floor thickness and/or corrosion measurements, whether or not the UT local thickness and corrosion rate measurements are smaller/larger than the Out-of-Service floor thickness and corrosion rate measurements, and whether or not the leak detection results of the AE system are consistent with the results of the Leak Detection test.” | Paragraph 79 “A risk-based inspection needs to estimate both the likelihood of a failure and the consequence of the failure. We have made an estimate of the likelihood of that the tank will not leak and that the thickness of the tank floor will maintain a certain minimum thickness (0.1 in. or 0.05 in.) over the Extension Time Interval given that a certain suite of sensor measurement systems were used to generate the data as input to the decision making models and given that certain results were obtained with this sensor suite.” | Paragraph 22 “The proposed method and apparatuses give the tank owner and operator a method for determining the priority and best schedule for tank maintenance”). Furthermore, the published specification states in paragraph 151 “The forecast engine 408 can perform risk analysis by determining the probability of failure, which is then converted into a period of time after which the tank should be taken out of service for repairs. The forecast engine 408 can assess the probability of failure based on a qualitative approach (engineering/expert judgement and experience using qualitative terms such as very unlikely, unlikely, possible, probable, or highly probable), a semi-qualitative approach (modification of the nominal floor failure frequency—if available—by factors specific to the particular floor's management and environment) or a quantitative approach (structural reliability analysis method). The output of the model can include a period of time the tank can remain in service until the tank should be taken out of service for repairs. Thus, the model generator 406 can generate a risk-based inspection model based on a time-series of quality metrics (e.g., determined based on the loops of electric current provided by the inspection device that extend towards the portion of the tank), and aggregate the historical quality metrics obtained from a plurality of tank inspections to forecast a level of thickness of the tank based on the quality metric.”, such that the limitation “a time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank” includes a determination of “a period of time the tank can remain in service until the tank should be taken out of service for repairs”, which is taught by Maresca as disclosed above.
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.
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 20-21, 23, 34-35, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 20210018396 A1) (“Meyers”) in view of Schmidt (US 6104970 A) (“Schmidt”) in view of Maresca (US 20160123864 A1) (“Maresca”) in view of Morris (US 20160350671 A1) (“Morris”).
With respect to claim 20, Meyers teaches a system, to inspect a tank containing a flammable fluid, comprising:
a propeller (Meyers Paragraph 65 “Also, the external drive assembly 404 may include gearing 405 for driving one or more impetus members such as wheels 450 as shown in FIG. 7B or tracks 442 as shown in FIG. 5A. Other arrangements may use propellers or impellers for impetus members.”),
one or more batteries (Meyers Paragraph 67 “The power supply 500 may include a battery bank 502 housed within a suitable casing 504. In some embodiments, one power supply 500 energizes all of the subsystems”),
one or more processors (Meyers FIG. 2 300 “Control Unit”),
one or more sensors (Meyers Paragraph 34 “Referring now to FIG. 2, there is shown, in functional block diagram format, a non-limiting embodiment of an intelligent mobile platform 100 for performing one or more tasks in the tank 10 of FIG. 1. The mobile platform 100 may include an enclosure 200, a control unit 300, a propulsion system 400, and a power supply 500. Optionally, a task module 600 may also be carried by the mobile platform 100.”),
memory (See at least Meyers Paragraph 49) and
a ranging device (Meyers 50 “A “relative” position is a position identified by referencing a previous position. In one embodiment, the navigation module 304 may include a marker detector 306 that generates signals in response to a detected feature associated with the tank 10 (FIG. 1)”);
the one or more batteries to provide power to the propeller, one or more processors, one or more sensors, and the ranging device (Meyers Paragraph 67 “Referring to FIG. 8, power for the subsystems of the mobile platform 100 may be supplied by the power supply 500. The power supply 500 may include a battery bank 502 housed within a suitable casing 504. In some embodiments, one power supply 500 energizes all of the subsystems.”);
the one or more processors unit to generate, based on data received from the ranging device related to an inspection of an interior of the tank, a map of the interior of the tank (Meyers Paragraph 60 “ In other arrangements, the control unit 300 creates the map or updates the map, if pre-existing, to record the position or relative position of the detected discontinuity and/or the position/relative position of the mobile platform 100” | Paragraph 109 “ The control unit 300 may be programmed to generate a “map” and proceed methodically through the tank 10 by referencing the map and performing the dead reckoning. The map, and any information gathered such as wall thickness data, may be correlated with the actual layout of the tank using common pattern mapping techniques”), and determining a first position of the vehicle on the map of the interior of the tank (Meyers Paragraph 50 “The navigation module 304 may be configured to acquire information that may be used to determine a position of the mobile platform 100 and/or a position relative to a feature associated with a tank 10 (FIG. 1) and/or an orientation of the mobile platform 100. For brevity, the term “position” is inclusive of an orientation (e.g., heading, tilt, azimuth, etc.) and location (i.e., a point relative to an external reference frame such as a Cartesian coordinate system or a polar coordinate system). A “relative” position is a position identified by referencing a previous position”);
the one or more sensors to detect values at the first portion of the tank corresponding to the first position on the map, responsive to the command to initiate the inspection of the interior of the tank (Meyers Paragraph 68 “The task module 600 may include one or more instruments that collect information from which the thicknesses of sections or segments of the walls making up the tank may be determined.”);
and the one or more processors configured to:
cause the propeller to move the vehicle from the first position to a second position within the tank (Meyers Paragraph 58 “FIGS. 6A,B illustrate a method by which the control unit 300 may intelligently traverse an interior of a tank 10 using the navigation module 304 that detects discontinuities 320, which are shown in FIG. 6B. FIG. 6B is a top view of a tank bottom wall 18 that includes discontinuities 320 in the form of weld structures.”)
determine, via the one or more sensors, a quality metric for a second portion of the tank at the second position within the tank (Meyers Paragraph 64 “The propulsion system 400 may be configured to provide the mobile platform 100 with multiple degrees of freedom of movement. That is, the mobile platform 100 can change positions in the tank 10 (FIG. 1) by at least two or more of types of movement. These movements include linear movements such as surge (forward/backward), heave (up/down), and sway (left/right) and rotation movements about an axis such as pitch (lateral axis), yaw (normal axis), and roll (longitudinal axis).” | Paragraph 68 “The task module 600 may include one or more instruments that collect information from which the thicknesses of sections or segments of the walls making up the tank may be determined.”);
and store, in a data structure in the memory of the vehicle, the quality metric corresponding to the second position within the tank (Meyers Paragraph 108 “The memory module 390 stores information collected during operation. This information may be dynamically updated and include information such as position of markers and current position/heading/orientation of the mobile platform 100. The memory module 390 may also store measured data indicative of the thickness of walls 16, 18, 20 of the tank 10.”).
Meyers fails to explicitly disclose that the first position of the vehicle corresponds to a first portion of the interior of the tank where the vehicle is located prior to a command to imitate the inspection of the interior of the tank being sent and to provide the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a future time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank; and the data processing system to: predict, using the model and the quality metric, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and provide, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, an indication of the future time interval.
Schmidt teaches that the first position of the vehicle corresponds to a first portion of the interior of the tank where the vehicle is located prior to a commando imitate the inspection of the interior of the tank being sent (See at least Schmidt FIG. 10 and Col. 2 “To implement the navigation System, the vehicle is pro Vided with at least two pingers which operate with a set of receivers mounted outside the tank on a wall of the tank. The use of a Single pinger in conjunction with the receivers enables determination of present location of the pinger and, hence, of the vehicle, as well as Start point of an inspection, relative to the tank. The location is determined by well known triangulation procedures for navigating the vehicle within the tank. The orientation of the vehicle and, hence, the precise location of each instrument on the vehicle, can be” | Col. 13 “With reference to FIG. 10, a methodology in the practice of the invention begins with an emplacement of the vehicle 22 in the tank 26 of FIG. 1. Thereupon, the vehicle is navigated with the aid of the navigation computer 106 and the ultrasonic receivers 68. The vehicle is to be navigated to the Start point of an inspection Scanning procedure as noted at block 212 of FIG. 10. Thereupon, as noted in block 214, the pingers 72 and 74 are operated Sequentially in conjunc tion with the navigation computer 106 to determine the relative locations of the pingers and, accordingly, the ori entation of the vehicle 22. Scanning can now begin, and as noted at block 216, there is an activation of the drive motors 184, 190 and 192”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers to include that the first position of the vehicle corresponds to a first portion of the interior of the tank where the vehicle is located prior to a commando imitate the inspection of the interior of the tank being sent, as taught by Schmidt as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate mapping based on vehicle position (Schmidt “This invention relates to a crawler vehicle and a data processing system wherein the crawler crawls along the floor of a tank containing a liquid for inspection of the integrity of the floor of the tank and, more particularly, to the provision of the crawler with coarse and fine data gathering capability suitable for a precise mapping of a tank floor”).
Meyers in view of Schmidt fails to explicitly disclose to provide the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a future time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank; and the data processing system to: predict, using the model and the quality metric, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and provide, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, an indication of the future time interval.
Maresca teaches to provide the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank (See at least Maresca Table 13 and Paragraphs 84-85 “Tables 11 and 12 summarize a more comprehensive list of various types of Methods and the various types of types of Test Results to illustrate the methods summarized in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. All of the methods assume that they have Passed a Leak Detection Test. Furthermore, all of the preferred methods have a high probability that the floor thickness will be greater than 0.1 in., or some acceptable minimum floor thickness, and that the corrosion rate is low to moderate, but not high, because of one or more in-tank floor measurements. The Extension Time Interval, described above in terms of Bayesian statistics is selected on the basis of a Confidence Interval that the method will achieve a 95% or 99% probability of not leaking or structurally failing during the Extension Time Interval. In general, the probability is 99%, except where two or more levels of confidence are expressed and the lower probability is assigned. Table 13 summarizes the Confidence Levels estimated for each method and the Extension Time Interval in years … The Confidence Intervals were assessed in terms of Low, Moderate, and High rates of corrosion rates for the local UT thickness measurements, the previous Out-of-Service Floor Thickness Measurements, and the AE corrosion activity, whether or not the minimum thickness of the tank floor will be exceeded before the Extension Time Interval as assessed by the UT local measurements and the previous Out-of-Service floor inspection measurements, whether or not the UT measurements are correlated and are consistent with these three floor thickness and/or corrosion measurements, whether or not the UT local thickness and corrosion rate measurements are smaller/larger than the Out-of-Service floor thickness and corrosion rate measurements, and whether or not the leak detection results of the AE system are consistent with the results of the Leak Detection test.” | Paragraph 79 “A risk-based inspection needs to estimate both the likelihood of a failure and the consequence of the failure. We have made an estimate of the likelihood of that the tank will not leak and that the thickness of the tank floor will maintain a certain minimum thickness (0.1 in. or 0.05 in.) over the Extension Time Interval given that a certain suite of sensor measurement systems were used to generate the data as input to the decision making models and given that certain results were obtained with this sensor suite.” | Paragraph 22 “The proposed method and apparatuses give the tank owner and operator a method for determining the priority and best schedule for tank maintenance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt to provide the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank, as taught by Maresca as disclosed above, in order to ensure efficient repairs to maintain a safe tank (Maresca Paragraph 5 “The routine time interval, which has been the practice, can be very costly and may result in less than optimal maintenance and repair. A risk-based approach will better prioritize and manage the tank inspection program”).
Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca fail to explicitly disclose the data processing system to: predict, using the model and the quality metric, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and provide, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, an indication of the future time interval.
Morris teaches the data processing system to: predict, using the model and the quality metric, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and provide, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, an indication of the future time interval (See at least Morris Paragraph 25 “As used herein, groups of operating systems, hardware devices, machines and associated processes are also contemplated for monitoring of one or more operational outcomes of interest related thereto. Operating systems can include, but are not limited to, mobile systems or vehicles (e.g., locomotives, airplanes, etc.), industrial facilities or distributed equipment, or other monitored processing systems” | Paragraph 75 “The predicted outputs 196 of the trained models 194 can be sent to users and/or operators of the operating system 110 (FIG. 1) or to other entities such as, e.g., centralized or local operational centers associated with the operating system 110 for appropriate action. For example, if the predicted output 196 indicates that an operational outcome of interest (e.g., a failure of a component or piece of equipment 112 of the operating system 110 or other operational condition of interest) is likely to occur within an indicated period of time, then the user and/or operators may take action to avoid or modify the occurrence of the operational outcome of interest. The action may correct or modify a condition through, e.g., maintenance, repair or replacement of the component or equipment 112. As a result, operational data 198 such as, e.g., maintenance logs, replacement or repair records, wear or test measurements, energy or resource usage, or an indication of whether and to what extent the outcome of interest occurred can be entered or recorded by the user and/or operator.” | Paragraph 88 “When the predictive system 160 makes a prediction of a fault (e.g., a fault is likely to occur within some pre-determined span of time in the future), the predictive system 160 can be configured to provide an indication thereof to one or more entities associated with the operating system 110, such as to an operator via his/her user device 124 or a control center via the master controller/on-site server 128.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca to include that the data processing system to: predict, using the model and the quality metric, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and provide, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, an indication of the future time interval, as taught by Morris as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe operation of the tank (Morris Paragraph 35 “As a result, the systems and methods of the present invention can, in non-limiting examples, provide benefits such as reducing unplanned downtime and associated revenue losses, allow for repair of machines, cost reduction, production improvements, quality control, resource reduction for operating systems, hardware devices or machines prior to an operational outcome of interest event occurring, as well as providing insights into the causes of the outcome of interest in the first place.”).
With respect to claim 21, and similarly claim 35, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris teaches that the one or more processors is further configured to: receive a signal from an administrator device, the signal configured to cause the vehicle to traverse the tank according to a type of trajectory to reach the second portion of the tank at the second position (See at least Meyers Paragraph 90 “However, in some variants, human or machines positioned external to the tank may interact with the mobile platform 100. For example, striking the wall of the tank 10 may be used to impart an acoustic command signal to the mobile platform 100 (e.g., “turn on,” “turn off;” “return to retrieval location,” “switch operating modes,” “transmit a signal,” etc.).”).
With respect to claim 23, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris teaches an attitude sensor to detect a vehicle pitch, a vehicle roll, or a vehicle yaw to prevent disorientation of the vehicle (See at least Meyers Paragraph 82 “The second sensing instrument may be a dynamic sensor 380 that estimates one or more navigation parameters. As used herein, a navigation parameter characterizes an absolute and/or a relative position of the mobile platform 100 in a desired coordinate system (e.g., x/y space, polar coordinate defined space) and/or orientation (e.g., direction faced, inclination, etc.). For example, the dynamic sensor 380 may estimate a parameter such as a distance travelled, a degree of rotation, acceleration, tilt, and/or relative changes in the direction of movement”)
With respect to claim 32, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris teaches that the quality metric indicates a thickness of the first portion of the tank corresponding to the first position of the vehicle on the map (See at least Meyers Paragraph 68 “Referring to FIGS. 9A, B, there is shown one embodiment of a task module 600 that may be carried by the mobile platform 100 to perform inspections of a tank wall 16, 18, 20 (FIG. 1). The task module 600 may include one or more instruments that collect information from which the thicknesses of sections or segments of the walls making up the tank may be determined.”).
With respect to claim 34, Meyers teaches method of inspecting a tank containing a flammable fluid, comprising:
a propeller (Meyers Paragraph 65 “Also, the external drive assembly 404 may include gearing 405 for driving one or more impetus members such as wheels 450 as shown in FIG. 7B or tracks 442 as shown in FIG. 5A. Other arrangements may use propellers or impellers for impetus members.”),
one or more batteries (Meyers Paragraph 67 “The power supply 500 may include a battery bank 502 housed within a suitable casing 504. In some embodiments, one power supply 500 energizes all of the subsystems”),
one or more processors (Meyers FIG. 2 300 “Control Unit”),
one or more sensors (Meyers Paragraph 34 “Referring now to FIG. 2, there is shown, in functional block diagram format, a non-limiting embodiment of an intelligent mobile platform 100 for performing one or more tasks in the tank 10 of FIG. 1. The mobile platform 100 may include an enclosure 200, a control unit 300, a propulsion system 400, and a power supply 500. Optionally, a task module 600 may also be carried by the mobile platform 100.”), and
memory (See at least Meyers Paragraph 49);
a ranging device (Meyers 50 “A “relative” position is a position identified by referencing a previous position. In one embodiment, the navigation module 304 may include a marker detector 306 that generates signals in response to a detected feature associated with the tank 10 (FIG. 1)”);
providing power to the propeller, the one or more processors, the one or more sensors, and the ranging device via the battery of the autonomous vehicle (Meyers Paragraph 67 “Referring to FIG. 8, power for the subsystems of the mobile platform 100 may be supplied by the power supply 500. The power supply 500 may include a battery bank 502 housed within a suitable casing 504. In some embodiments, one power supply 500 energizes all of the subsystems.”);
based on data received from the ranging device relating to an inspection of an interior of the tank, generating, by the one or more processors, a map of the interior of the tank (Meyers Paragraph 60 “ In other arrangements, the control unit 300 creates the map or updates the map, if pre-existing, to record the position or relative position of the detected discontinuity and/or the position/relative position of the mobile platform 100” | Paragraph 109 “ The control unit 300 may be programmed to generate a “map” and proceed methodically through the tank 10 by referencing the map and performing the dead reckoning. The map, and any information gathered such as wall thickness data, may be correlated with the actual layout of the tank using common pattern mapping techniques”), and determining a first position of the autonomous vehicle on the map of the interior of the tank (Meyers Paragraph 50 “The navigation module 304 may be configured to acquire information that may be used to determine a position of the mobile platform 100 and/or a position relative to a feature associated with a tank 10 (FIG. 1) and/or an orientation of the mobile platform 100. For brevity, the term “position” is inclusive of an orientation (e.g., heading, tilt, azimuth, etc.) and location (i.e., a point relative to an external reference frame such as a Cartesian coordinate system or a polar coordinate system). A “relative” position is a position identified by referencing a previous position”);
receiving, from the one or more processors, the command from the one or more processors to initiate the inspection of the interior of the tank; responsive to receiving the command, detecting, by the one or more sensors, values at a first portion of the tank corresponding to the first position on the map (Meyers Paragraph 68 “The task module 600 may include one or more instruments that collect information from which the thicknesses of sections or segments of the walls making up the tank may be determined.”);
causing, by the one or more processors, the propeller to move the autonomous vehicle from the first position to a second position within the tank (Meyers Paragraph 58 “FIGS. 6A,B illustrate a method by which the control unit 300 may intelligently traverse an interior of a tank 10 using the navigation module 304 that detects discontinuities 320, which are shown in FIG. 6B. FIG. 6B is a top view of a tank bottom wall 18 that includes discontinuities 320 in the form of weld structures.”)
determining, by the one or more processors via the one or more sensors, a quality metric for a second portion of the interior of the tank at the second position within the tank (Meyers Paragraph 64 “The propulsion system 400 may be configured to provide the mobile platform 100 with multiple degrees of freedom of movement. That is, the mobile platform 100 can change positions in the tank 10 (FIG. 1) by at least two or more of types of movement. These movements include linear movements such as surge (forward/backward), heave (up/down), and sway (left/right) and rotation movements about an axis such as pitch (lateral axis), yaw (normal axis), and roll (longitudinal axis).” | Paragraph 68 “The task module 600 may include one or more instruments that collect information from which the thicknesses of sections or segments of the walls making up the tank may be determined.”);
and store, in a data structure in the memory of the vehicle, the quality metric corresponding to the second position within the tank (Meyers Paragraph 108 “The memory module 390 stores information collected during operation. This information may be dynamically updated and include information such as position of markers and current position/heading/orientation of the mobile platform 100. The memory module 390 may also store measured data indicative of the thickness of walls 16, 18, 20 of the tank 10.”).
Meyers fails to explicitly disclose that the first position of the vehicle corresponds to a first portion of the interior of the tank where the vehicle is located prior to a commando imitate the inspection of the interior of the tank being sent and to providing, by the one or more processors, the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a future time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank; predicting, using the model and the quality metric, by the data processing system, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and providing, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, by the data processing system, an indication of the future time interval.
Schmidt teaches that the first position of the vehicle corresponds to a first portion of the interior of the tank where the vehicle is located prior to a commando imitate the inspection of the interior of the tank being sent (See at least Schmidt FIG. 10 and Col. 2 “To implement the navigation System, the vehicle is pro Vided with at least two pingers which operate with a set of receivers mounted outside the tank on a wall of the tank. The use of a Single pinger in conjunction with the receivers enables determination of present location of the pinger and, hence, of the vehicle, as well as Start point of an inspection, relative to the tank. The location is determined by well known triangulation procedures for navigating the vehicle within the tank. The orientation of the vehicle and, hence, the precise location of each instrument on the vehicle, can be” | Col. 13 “With reference to FIG. 10, a methodology in the practice of the invention begins with an emplacement of the vehicle 22 in the tank 26 of FIG. 1. Thereupon, the vehicle is navigated with the aid of the navigation computer 106 and the ultrasonic receivers 68. The vehicle is to be navigated to the Start point of an inspection Scanning procedure as noted at block 212 of FIG. 10. Thereupon, as noted in block 214, the pingers 72 and 74 are operated Sequentially in conjunc tion with the navigation computer 106 to determine the relative locations of the pingers and, accordingly, the ori entation of the vehicle 22. Scanning can now begin, and as noted at block 216, there is an activation of the drive motors 184, 190 and 192”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers to include that the first position of the vehicle corresponds to a first portion of the interior of the tank where the vehicle is located prior to a commando imitate the inspection of the interior of the tank being sent, as taught by Schmidt as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate mapping based on vehicle position (Schmidt “This invention relates to a crawler vehicle and a data processing system wherein the crawler crawls along the floor of a tank containing a liquid for inspection of the integrity of the floor of the tank and, more particularly, to the provision of the crawler with coarse and fine data gathering capability suitable for a precise mapping of a tank floor”).
Meyers in view of Schmidt fails to explicitly disclose providing, by the one or more processors, the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a future time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank; predicting, using the model and the quality metric, by the data processing system, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and providing, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, by the data processing system, an indication of the future time interval.
Maresca teaches providing, by the one or more processors, the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a future time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank (See at least Maresca Table 13 and Paragraphs 84-85 “Tables 11 and 12 summarize a more comprehensive list of various types of Methods and the various types of types of Test Results to illustrate the methods summarized in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. All of the methods assume that they have Passed a Leak Detection Test. Furthermore, all of the preferred methods have a high probability that the floor thickness will be greater than 0.1 in., or some acceptable minimum floor thickness, and that the corrosion rate is low to moderate, but not high, because of one or more in-tank floor measurements. The Extension Time Interval, described above in terms of Bayesian statistics is selected on the basis of a Confidence Interval that the method will achieve a 95% or 99% probability of not leaking or structurally failing during the Extension Time Interval. In general, the probability is 99%, except where two or more levels of confidence are expressed and the lower probability is assigned. Table 13 summarizes the Confidence Levels estimated for each method and the Extension Time Interval in years … The Confidence Intervals were assessed in terms of Low, Moderate, and High rates of corrosion rates for the local UT thickness measurements, the previous Out-of-Service Floor Thickness Measurements, and the AE corrosion activity, whether or not the minimum thickness of the tank floor will be exceeded before the Extension Time Interval as assessed by the UT local measurements and the previous Out-of-Service floor inspection measurements, whether or not the UT measurements are correlated and are consistent with these three floor thickness and/or corrosion measurements, whether or not the UT local thickness and corrosion rate measurements are smaller/larger than the Out-of-Service floor thickness and corrosion rate measurements, and whether or not the leak detection results of the AE system are consistent with the results of the Leak Detection test.” | Paragraph 79 “A risk-based inspection needs to estimate both the likelihood of a failure and the consequence of the failure. We have made an estimate of the likelihood of that the tank will not leak and that the thickness of the tank floor will maintain a certain minimum thickness (0.1 in. or 0.05 in.) over the Extension Time Interval given that a certain suite of sensor measurement systems were used to generate the data as input to the decision making models and given that certain results were obtained with this sensor suite.” | Paragraph 22 “The proposed method and apparatuses give the tank owner and operator a method for determining the priority and best schedule for tank maintenance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt to include providing the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank, as taught by Maresca as disclosed above, in order to ensure efficient repairs to maintain a safe tank (Maresca Paragraph 5 “The routine time interval, which has been the practice, can be very costly and may result in less than optimal maintenance and repair. A risk-based approach will better prioritize and manage the tank inspection program”).
Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca fail to explicitly disclose predicting, using the model and the quality metric, by the data processing system, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and providing, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, by the data processing system, an indication of the future time interval.
Morris teaches predicting, using the model and the quality metric, by the data processing system, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and providing, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, by the data processing system, an indication of the future time interval (See at least Morris Paragraph 25 “As used herein, groups of operating systems, hardware devices, machines and associated processes are also contemplated for monitoring of one or more operational outcomes of interest related thereto. Operating systems can include, but are not limited to, mobile systems or vehicles (e.g., locomotives, airplanes, etc.), industrial facilities or distributed equipment, or other monitored processing systems” | Paragraph 75 “The predicted outputs 196 of the trained models 194 can be sent to users and/or operators of the operating system 110 (FIG. 1) or to other entities such as, e.g., centralized or local operational centers associated with the operating system 110 for appropriate action. For example, if the predicted output 196 indicates that an operational outcome of interest (e.g., a failure of a component or piece of equipment 112 of the operating system 110 or other operational condition of interest) is likely to occur within an indicated period of time, then the user and/or operators may take action to avoid or modify the occurrence of the operational outcome of interest. The action may correct or modify a condition through, e.g., maintenance, repair or replacement of the component or equipment 112. As a result, operational data 198 such as, e.g., maintenance logs, replacement or repair records, wear or test measurements, energy or resource usage, or an indication of whether and to what extent the outcome of interest occurred can be entered or recorded by the user and/or operator.” | Paragraph 88 “When the predictive system 160 makes a prediction of a fault (e.g., a fault is likely to occur within some pre-determined span of time in the future), the predictive system 160 can be configured to provide an indication thereof to one or more entities associated with the operating system 110, such as to an operator via his/her user device 124 or a control center via the master controller/on-site server 128.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca to include predicting, using the model and the quality metric, by the data processing system, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and providing, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, by the data processing system, an indication of the future time interval, as taught by Morris as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe operation of the tank (Morris Paragraph 35 “As a result, the systems and methods of the present invention can, in non-limiting examples, provide benefits such as reducing unplanned downtime and associated revenue losses, allow for repair of machines, cost reduction, production improvements, quality control, resource reduction for operating systems, hardware devices or machines prior to an operational outcome of interest event occurring, as well as providing insights into the causes of the outcome of interest in the first place.”).
With respect to claim 39, Meyers teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, effectuate operations comprising:
a propeller (Meyers Paragraph 65 “Also, the external drive assembly 404 may include gearing 405 for driving one or more impetus members such as wheels 450 as shown in FIG. 7B or tracks 442 as shown in FIG. 5A. Other arrangements may use propellers or impellers for impetus members.”),
one or more batteries (Meyers Paragraph 67 “The power supply 500 may include a battery bank 502 housed within a suitable casing 504. In some embodiments, one power supply 500 energizes all of the subsystems”),
one or more processors (Meyers FIG. 2 300 “Control Unit”),
one or more sensors (Meyers Paragraph 34 “Referring now to FIG. 2, there is shown, in functional block diagram format, a non-limiting embodiment of an intelligent mobile platform 100 for performing one or more tasks in the tank 10 of FIG. 1. The mobile platform 100 may include an enclosure 200, a control unit 300, a propulsion system 400, and a power supply 500. Optionally, a task module 600 may also be carried by the mobile platform 100.”), and
memory (See at least Meyers Paragraph 49);
a ranging device (Meyers 50 “A “relative” position is a position identified by referencing a previous position. In one embodiment, the navigation module 304 may include a marker detector 306 that generates signals in response to a detected feature associated with the tank 10 (FIG. 1)”);
providing power to the propeller, the one or more processors, the one or more sensors, and the ranging device via the battery of the autonomous vehicle (Meyers Paragraph 67 “Referring to FIG. 8, power for the subsystems of the mobile platform 100 may be supplied by the power supply 500. The power supply 500 may include a battery bank 502 housed within a suitable casing 504. In some embodiments, one power supply 500 energizes all of the subsystems.”);
based on data received from the ranging device relating to an inspection of an interior of the tank, generating, by the one or more processors, a map of the interior of the tank (Meyers Paragraph 60 “ In other arrangements, the control unit 300 creates the map or updates the map, if pre-existing, to record the position or relative position of the detected discontinuity and/or the position/relative position of the mobile platform 100” | Paragraph 109 “ The control unit 300 may be programmed to generate a “map” and proceed methodically through the tank 10 by referencing the map and performing the dead reckoning. The map, and any information gathered such as wall thickness data, may be correlated with the actual layout of the tank using common pattern mapping techniques”), and determining a first position of the autonomous vehicle on the map of the interior of the tank (Meyers Paragraph 50 “The navigation module 304 may be configured to acquire information that may be used to determine a position of the mobile platform 100 and/or a position relative to a feature associated with a tank 10 (FIG. 1) and/or an orientation of the mobile platform 100. For brevity, the term “position” is inclusive of an orientation (e.g., heading, tilt, azimuth, etc.) and location (i.e., a point relative to an external reference frame such as a Cartesian coordinate system or a polar coordinate system). A “relative” position is a position identified by referencing a previous position”);
receiving, from the one or more processors, the command from the one or more processors to initiate the inspection of the interior of the tank; responsive to receiving the command, detecting, by the one or more sensors, values at a first portion of the tank corresponding to the first position on the map (Meyers Paragraph 68 “The task module 600 may include one or more instruments that collect information from which the thicknesses of sections or segments of the walls making up the tank may be determined.”);
causing, by the one or more processors, the propeller to move the autonomous vehicle from the first position to a second position within the tank (Meyers Paragraph 58 “FIGS. 6A,B illustrate a method by which the control unit 300 may intelligently traverse an interior of a tank 10 using the navigation module 304 that detects discontinuities 320, which are shown in FIG. 6B. FIG. 6B is a top view of a tank bottom wall 18 that includes discontinuities 320 in the form of weld structures.”)
determining, by the one or more processors via the one or more sensors, a quality metric for a second portion of the interior of the tank at the second position within the tank (Meyers Paragraph 64 “The propulsion system 400 may be configured to provide the mobile platform 100 with multiple degrees of freedom of movement. That is, the mobile platform 100 can change positions in the tank 10 (FIG. 1) by at least two or more of types of movement. These movements include linear movements such as surge (forward/backward), heave (up/down), and sway (left/right) and rotation movements about an axis such as pitch (lateral axis), yaw (normal axis), and roll (longitudinal axis).” | Paragraph 68 “The task module 600 may include one or more instruments that collect information from which the thicknesses of sections or segments of the walls making up the tank may be determined.”);
and store, in a data structure in the memory of the vehicle, the quality metric corresponding to the second position within the tank (Meyers Paragraph 108 “The memory module 390 stores information collected during operation. This information may be dynamically updated and include information such as position of markers and current position/heading/orientation of the mobile platform 100. The memory module 390 may also store measured data indicative of the thickness of walls 16, 18, 20 of the tank 10.”).
Meyers fails to explicitly disclose that the first position of the vehicle corresponds to a first portion of the interior of the tank where the vehicle is located prior to a commando imitate the inspection of the interior of the tank being sent and to providing, by the one or more processors, the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a future time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank; predicting, using the model and the quality metric, by the data processing system, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and providing, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, by the data processing system, an indication of the future time interval.
Schmidt teaches that the first position of the vehicle corresponds to a first portion of the interior of the tank where the vehicle is located prior to a commando imitate the inspection of the interior of the tank being sent (See at least Schmidt FIG. 10 and Col. 2 “To implement the navigation System, the vehicle is pro Vided with at least two pingers which operate with a set of receivers mounted outside the tank on a wall of the tank. The use of a Single pinger in conjunction with the receivers enables determination of present location of the pinger and, hence, of the vehicle, as well as Start point of an inspection, relative to the tank. The location is determined by well known triangulation procedures for navigating the vehicle within the tank. The orientation of the vehicle and, hence, the precise location of each instrument on the vehicle, can be” | Col. 13 “With reference to FIG. 10, a methodology in the practice of the invention begins with an emplacement of the vehicle 22 in the tank 26 of FIG. 1. Thereupon, the vehicle is navigated with the aid of the navigation computer 106 and the ultrasonic receivers 68. The vehicle is to be navigated to the Start point of an inspection Scanning procedure as noted at block 212 of FIG. 10. Thereupon, as noted in block 214, the pingers 72 and 74 are operated Sequentially in conjunc tion with the navigation computer 106 to determine the relative locations of the pingers and, accordingly, the ori entation of the vehicle 22. Scanning can now begin, and as noted at block 216, there is an activation of the drive motors 184, 190 and 192”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers to include that the first position of the vehicle corresponds to a first portion of the interior of the tank where the vehicle is located prior to a commando imitate the inspection of the interior of the tank being sent, as taught by Schmidt as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate mapping based on vehicle position (Schmidt “This invention relates to a crawler vehicle and a data processing system wherein the crawler crawls along the floor of a tank containing a liquid for inspection of the integrity of the floor of the tank and, more particularly, to the provision of the crawler with coarse and fine data gathering capability suitable for a precise mapping of a tank floor”).
Meyers in view of Schmidt fails to explicitly disclose providing, by the one or more processors, the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a future time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank; predicting, using the model and the quality metric, by the data processing system, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and providing, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, by the data processing system, an indication of the future time interval.
Maresca teaches providing, by the one or more processors, the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a future time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank (See at least Maresca Table 13 and Paragraphs 84-85 “Tables 11 and 12 summarize a more comprehensive list of various types of Methods and the various types of types of Test Results to illustrate the methods summarized in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. All of the methods assume that they have Passed a Leak Detection Test. Furthermore, all of the preferred methods have a high probability that the floor thickness will be greater than 0.1 in., or some acceptable minimum floor thickness, and that the corrosion rate is low to moderate, but not high, because of one or more in-tank floor measurements. The Extension Time Interval, described above in terms of Bayesian statistics is selected on the basis of a Confidence Interval that the method will achieve a 95% or 99% probability of not leaking or structurally failing during the Extension Time Interval. In general, the probability is 99%, except where two or more levels of confidence are expressed and the lower probability is assigned. Table 13 summarizes the Confidence Levels estimated for each method and the Extension Time Interval in years … The Confidence Intervals were assessed in terms of Low, Moderate, and High rates of corrosion rates for the local UT thickness measurements, the previous Out-of-Service Floor Thickness Measurements, and the AE corrosion activity, whether or not the minimum thickness of the tank floor will be exceeded before the Extension Time Interval as assessed by the UT local measurements and the previous Out-of-Service floor inspection measurements, whether or not the UT measurements are correlated and are consistent with these three floor thickness and/or corrosion measurements, whether or not the UT local thickness and corrosion rate measurements are smaller/larger than the Out-of-Service floor thickness and corrosion rate measurements, and whether or not the leak detection results of the AE system are consistent with the results of the Leak Detection test.” | Paragraph 79 “A risk-based inspection needs to estimate both the likelihood of a failure and the consequence of the failure. We have made an estimate of the likelihood of that the tank will not leak and that the thickness of the tank floor will maintain a certain minimum thickness (0.1 in. or 0.05 in.) over the Extension Time Interval given that a certain suite of sensor measurement systems were used to generate the data as input to the decision making models and given that certain results were obtained with this sensor suite.” | Paragraph 22 “The proposed method and apparatuses give the tank owner and operator a method for determining the priority and best schedule for tank maintenance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt to include providing the quality metric to a data processing system that predicts, using a model and the quality metric, a time interval to perform one or more repairs to the tank, as taught by Maresca as disclosed above, in order to ensure efficient repairs to maintain a safe tank (Maresca Paragraph 5 “The routine time interval, which has been the practice, can be very costly and may result in less than optimal maintenance and repair. A risk-based approach will better prioritize and manage the tank inspection program”).
Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca fail to explicitly disclose predicting, using the model and the quality metric, by the data processing system, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and providing, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, by the data processing system, an indication of the future time interval.
Morris teaches predicting, using the model and the quality metric, by the data processing system, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and providing, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, by the data processing system, an indication of the future time interval (See at least Morris Paragraph 25 “As used herein, groups of operating systems, hardware devices, machines and associated processes are also contemplated for monitoring of one or more operational outcomes of interest related thereto. Operating systems can include, but are not limited to, mobile systems or vehicles (e.g., locomotives, airplanes, etc.), industrial facilities or distributed equipment, or other monitored processing systems” | Paragraph 75 “The predicted outputs 196 of the trained models 194 can be sent to users and/or operators of the operating system 110 (FIG. 1) or to other entities such as, e.g., centralized or local operational centers associated with the operating system 110 for appropriate action. For example, if the predicted output 196 indicates that an operational outcome of interest (e.g., a failure of a component or piece of equipment 112 of the operating system 110 or other operational condition of interest) is likely to occur within an indicated period of time, then the user and/or operators may take action to avoid or modify the occurrence of the operational outcome of interest. The action may correct or modify a condition through, e.g., maintenance, repair or replacement of the component or equipment 112. As a result, operational data 198 such as, e.g., maintenance logs, replacement or repair records, wear or test measurements, energy or resource usage, or an indication of whether and to what extent the outcome of interest occurred can be entered or recorded by the user and/or operator.” | Paragraph 88 “When the predictive system 160 makes a prediction of a fault (e.g., a fault is likely to occur within some pre-determined span of time in the future), the predictive system 160 can be configured to provide an indication thereof to one or more entities associated with the operating system 110, such as to an operator via his/her user device 124 or a control center via the master controller/on-site server 128.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca to include predicting, using the model and the quality metric, by the data processing system, the future time interval to perform the one or more repairs to the tank; and providing, for display on a display device via a graphical user interface, by the data processing system, an indication of the future time interval, as taught by Morris as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe operation of the tank (Morris Paragraph 35 “As a result, the systems and methods of the present invention can, in non-limiting examples, provide benefits such as reducing unplanned downtime and associated revenue losses, allow for repair of machines, cost reduction, production improvements, quality control, resource reduction for operating systems, hardware devices or machines prior to an operational outcome of interest event occurring, as well as providing insights into the causes of the outcome of interest in the first place.”).
Claims 22 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 20210018396 A1) (“Meyers”) in view of Schmidt (US 6104970 A) (“Schmidt”) in view of Maresca (US 20160123864 A1) (“Maresca”) in view of Morris (US 20160350671 A1) (“Morris”) further in view of Hamilton (US 20090222338 A1) (“Hamilton”).
With respect to claim 22, and similarly claim 36, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris teaches determining an amount of power consumed by the vehicle during the inspection of the interior of the tank (See at least Meyers Paragraph 56) and sending, by the one or more processors, an indication of at least one of the operation efficiency, the resource utilization value, or the amount of power consumed to an administrator device (See at least Meyers Paragraph 59).
Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris fails to explicitly disclose determining an operation efficiency of the inspection of the interior of the tank; determining a resource utilization value of the inspection of the interior of the tank.
Hamilton teaches determining an operation efficiency of the inspection of the interior of the tank; determining a resource utilization value of the inspection of the interior of the tank (See at least Hamilton Paragraph 22 “Referring now to FIG. 2 as well as FIG. 1, the operations preferably performed to achieve such effects will now be described. In general, when a vehicle operator activates a vehicle for operation, vehicle condition and operation sensors 120-155 and processor 160 will be activated simultaneously or shortly thereafter. When such sensors are activated, data is captured detailing energy and resource efficiency of a vehicle as depicted at step 410 of FIG. 2. From the captured data, analytic processor 160 or 200/290 determines the operating or relative operating efficiency of the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris to include determining an operation efficiency of the inspection of the interior of the tank; determining a resource utilization value of the inspection of the interior of the tank, as taught by Hamilton as disclosed above, in order to ensure vehicle efficiency (Hamilton Paragraph 2 “The present invention generally relates to monitoring of the condition and use of vehicles and providing incentives for energy-efficient operation and/or environmentally friendly operator behaviors and, more particularly, to systems and methods for exchange of information concerning vehicle operation and computing rewards at a station where a transaction is conducted with a vehicle operator.”).
Claims 24 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 20210018396 A1) (“Meyers”) in view of Schmidt (US 6104970 A) (“Schmidt”) in view of Maresca (US 20160123864 A1) (“Maresca”) in view of Morris (US 20160350671 A1) (“Morris”) further in view of Silberg (US 9022738 B1) (“Silberg”).
With respect to claim 24, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris fails to explicitly disclose to change at least one of a propeller speed or a propeller torque in response to a signal received from the attitude sensor to keep the vehicle oriented toward the second position within the tank.
Silberg teaches to change at least one of a propeller speed or a propeller torque in response to a signal received from the attitude sensor to keep the vehicle oriented toward the second position within the tank (See at least Silberg Col. 6 lines 51-58 “The two contra-rotating directions r1 and r2 of propellers 30 are indicated in FIG. 10. Propeller 30 1 rotates in rotational direction r1, and propeller 30 2 rotates in rotational direction r2, which is opposite rotational direction r1. The turning of the propellers 30 1 and 30 2 in opposite directions serves to counteract the effects of rotary torque, and to help maintain the orientation of the longitudinal axis a of hull 102 in concordance with the nautical bearing of the vehicle 100.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris to include changing at least one of a propeller speed or a propeller torque in response to a signal received from the attitude sensor to keep the vehicle oriented toward the second position within the tank, as taught by Silberg as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate vehicle positioning (Silberg “The present invention relates to propulsion and control of underwater vehicles, more particularly to dual-propeller-based systems for accomplishing same with regard to submersibles such as unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).”).
With respect to claim 37, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris teaches an attitude sensor, the attitude sensor to detect a vehicle pitch, a vehicle roll, a vehicle yaw to prevent disorientation of the autonomous vehicle (See at least Meyers Paragraph 82 “The second sensing instrument may be a dynamic sensor 380 that estimates one or more navigation parameters. As used herein, a navigation parameter characterizes an absolute and/or a relative position of the mobile platform 100 in a desired coordinate system (e.g., x/y space, polar coordinate defined space) and/or orientation (e.g., direction faced, inclination, etc.). For example, the dynamic sensor 380 may estimate a parameter such as a distance travelled, a degree of rotation, acceleration, tilt, and/or relative changes in the direction of movement”).
Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris fails to explicitly disclose to change at least one of a propeller speed or a propeller torque in response to a signal received from the attitude sensor to keep the autonomous vehicle oriented toward the second position within the tank.
Silberg teaches to change at least one of a propeller speed or a propeller torque in response to a signal received from the attitude sensor to keep the autonomous vehicle oriented toward the second position within the tank (See at least Silberg Col. 6 lines 51-58 “The two contra-rotating directions r1 and r2 of propellers 30 are indicated in FIG. 10. Propeller 30 1 rotates in rotational direction r1, and propeller 30 2 rotates in rotational direction r2, which is opposite rotational direction r1. The turning of the propellers 30 1 and 30 2 in opposite directions serves to counteract the effects of rotary torque, and to help maintain the orientation of the longitudinal axis a of hull 102 in concordance with the nautical bearing of the vehicle 100.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris to include changing at least one of a propeller speed or a propeller torque in response to a signal received from the attitude sensor to keep the autonomous vehicle oriented toward the second position within the tank, as taught by Silberg as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate vehicle positioning (Silberg “The present invention relates to propulsion and control of underwater vehicles, more particularly to dual-propeller-based systems for accomplishing same with regard to submersibles such as unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).”).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 20210018396 A1) (“Meyers”) in view of Schmidt (US 6104970 A) (“Schmidt”) in view of Maresca (US 20160123864 A1) (“Maresca”) in view of Morris (US 20160350671 A1) (“Morris”) further in view of Anderson (US 20190176638 A1) (“Anderson”).
With respect to claim 25, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris teaches a vehicle inspecting a tank (See at least Meyers Paragraph 68) and receiving commands from an administrator device (See at least Meyers Paragraph 90).
Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris fails to explicitly disclose to receive, from an administrator device, a command to not initiate, abort, or terminate the inspection of the interior of the tank based on data received from a sensor, the one or more sensors, or the ranging device; and wherein the data comprises a vehicle temperature.
Anderson, however, teaches to receive a vehicle command based on data received from a sensor, the one or more sensors, or the ranging device; and wherein the data comprises a vehicle temperature (See at least Anderson FIG. 3 and Paragraphs 63-64 “Method 300 may start at block 302. At block 304, method 300 may include determining whether one or more vehicle conditions are met. The vehicle conditions may be any conditions described herein with respect to FIG. 1, including the battery state of charge, temperature, ambient conditions, etc. At block 306, method 300 may reducing the output of the primary power source. This may include reducing a maximum current output, reducing a voltage set point, performing a combination of the two, or taking some other action.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris to include to receive a vehicle command based on data received from a sensor, the one or more sensors, or the ranging device; and wherein the data comprises a vehicle temperature, as taught by Anderson as disclosed above, such that the command is received from an administrator device to not terminate, abort, or terminate the inspection of the interior of the tank, in order to ensure efficient vehicle operation (Anderson Paragraph 1 “The present disclosure generally relates to vehicle electronics and, more specifically, systems and methods for monitoring vehicle power systems”).
With respect to claim 26, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris in view of Anderson teach receive the command to not initiate, abort, or terminate the tank inspection, and receive, from the administrator device, a command to resume the inspection of the interior of the tank (See at least Anderson FIG. 3 and Paragraphs 63-64”).
With respect to claim 38, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris teaches a vehicle inspecting a tank (See at least Meyers Paragraph 68)
Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris fails to explicitly disclose in a first instance, receiving, by the one or more processors, a command to not initiate, abort, or terminate the inspection of the interior of the tank; and in a second instance subsequent to the first instance, receiving, by the one or more processors, a command to resume the inspection of the interior of the tank.
Anderson, however, teaches in a first instance, receiving, by the one or more processors, a vehicle command and in a second instance subsequent to the first instance, receiving, by one or more processors, a vehicle command (See at least Anderson FIG. 3 and Paragraphs 63-64 “Method 300 may start at block 302. At block 304, method 300 may include determining whether one or more vehicle conditions are met. The vehicle conditions may be any conditions described herein with respect to FIG. 1, including the battery state of charge, temperature, ambient conditions, etc. At block 306, method 300 may reducing the output of the primary power source. This may include reducing a maximum current output, reducing a voltage set point, performing a combination of the two, or taking some other action.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris to include in a first instance, receiving, by the one or more processors, a vehicle command and in a second instance subsequent to the first instance, receiving, by the one or more processors, a vehicle command, as taught by Anderson as disclosed above, such that the command is to not terminate, abort, or terminate the inspection of the interior of the tank and to subsequently resume the inspection of the interior of the tank, in order to ensure efficient vehicle operation (Anderson Paragraph 1 “The present disclosure generally relates to vehicle electronics and, more specifically, systems and methods for monitoring vehicle power systems”).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 20210018396 A1) (“Meyers”) in view of Schmidt (US 6104970 A) (“Schmidt”) in view of Maresca (US 20160123864 A1) (“Maresca”) in view of Morris (US 20160350671 A1) (“Morris”) further in view of Shiqiang (CN 105789719 B) (“Shiqiang”) (Translation Attached).
With respect to claim 27, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris fails to explicitly disclose at least one of a blower or axial fan inside the vehicle; one or more heat sinks coupled to the vehicle; and wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: maintain a temperature of the vehicle below a temperature threshold.
Shiqiang, however, teaches
at least one of a blower or axial fan inside the vehicle; one or more heat sinks coupled to the vehicle; and wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: maintain a temperature of the vehicle below a temperature threshold (See at least Shiqiang Paragraphs 34-37 “S130 predicted battery is too high. The temperature management system compares the predicted temperature change trend with the ideal operating temperature of the battery. If the battery temperature continues to rise in the future, it will approach or exceed the ideal operating temperature of the battery (for example, the ideal operating temperature is 5-50°C). If the upper limit is reached, the enhanced heat dissipation process must be started. S131 enhances heat dissipation. According to the temperature change trend predicted by the temperature management system, in order to avoid excessively high battery temperature, when the temperature rises to a set value such as 45°C, the temperature management system starts to strengthen the heat dissipation device, such as silicone oil liquid cooling external circulation or Electronic fan cooling. When the battery temperature drops to a set value such as 25 degrees Celsius, the enhanced heat dissipation device is turned off.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris to include at least one of a blower or axial fan inside the vehicle; one or more heat sinks coupled to the vehicle; and wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: maintain a temperature of the vehicle below a temperature threshold, as taught by Shiqiang as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal operation of the vehicle (Shiqiang Paragraph 2 “The invention relates to the field of electric vehicles, and in particular to a power battery temperature management method for electric vehicles”).
With respect to claim 28, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris in view of Shiqiang teach that the vehicle is configured to dissipate heat up to a temperature threshold, the temperature threshold pre-determined based on a type of flammable fluid in the tank (See at least Shiqiang Paragraphs 30-37 “The S110 temperature sensor collects battery and ambient temperature. When the battery is in working state, temperature data is detected by temperature sensing probes arranged inside and outside the battery, and the temperature management system collects the temperature data … The temperature management system compares the predicted temperature change trend with the ideal operating temperature of the battery. If the battery temperature continues to rise in the future and approaches or exceeds the upper limit of the ideal operating temperature of the battery (for example, the ideal operating temperature is 5-50°C), the enhanced heat dissipation program will be activated … According to the temperature change trend predicted by the temperature management system, in order to avoid the battery temperature being too high, when the temperature rises to a set value, such as 45°C, the temperature management system starts to enhance the heat dissipation device, such as silicone oil liquid cooling external circulation or electronic fan cooling.”).
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 20210018396 A1) (“Meyers”) in view of Schmidt (US 6104970 A) (“Schmidt”) in view of Maresca (US 20160123864 A1) (“Maresca”) in view of Morris (US 20160350671 A1) (“Morris”) further in view of Frederick (US 20130167646 A1) (“Frederick”).
With respect to claim 29, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris fails to explicitly disclose that the one or more sensors comprises a ultrasonic phased array.
Frederick, however, teaches that the one or more sensors comprises an ultrasonic phased array (See at least Frederick Paragraph 10 “Of particular interest to the instant application is the method of ultrasonic non-destructive testing using a phased array. In a phased array, multiple transducers are used to generate a plurality of ultrasonic pulses. These ultrasonic pulses can be steered by varying the time delay at which the ultrasonic wave is pulsed. These delays are applied during emission and reception of the ultrasonic signals. By varying the time the waves are pulsed, the resultant wave front can be steered. This results in the ability to focus the beam and scan a larger area from a fixed position due to the ability to sweep the beam by varying the time delay in the phased array” | Paragraph 31 “The present invention is generally directed to a novel method and apparatus for non-destructive testing utilizing ultrasonic waves. In particular, the present invention is directed to a method and apparatus for non-destructive testing of material constructed of high density polyethylene. The present invention is directed to and includes an ultrasonic phased array wedge. The novel wedge is designed to accommodate a linear phased array transducer.” | Paragraph 46 “ The method further includes the steps of placing the wedge on the surface of a material to be tested and sending ultrasonic waves via a phased array from the wedge into the material. The method also includes the step of analyzing the ultrasonic waves reflected from the material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris so that the one or more sensors comprises an ultrasonic phased array, as taught by Frederick as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate recordings of the tank’s quality metrics (Frederick Paragraph 1 “The present invention is related generally to the field of non-destructive materials testing using ultrasonic devices, more particularly, ultrasonic devices in a phased array.”).
With respect to claim 30, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris teaches that the one or more sensors comprises an ultrasonic transducer (See at least Meyers Paragraph 68).
Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris fails to explicitly disclose that the one or more sensors pulses the ultrasonic transducer.
Frederick, however, teaches that the one or more sensors pulses the ultrasonic transducer (See at least Frederick Paragraph 5 “Of these various methods of non-destructive testing, perhaps one of the most widely used is ultrasonic testing. In ultrasonic testing, very short ultrasonic pulse-waves with center frequencies ranging from 0.1-15 MHz and occasionally up to 50 MHz are launched into materials to detect internal flaws or to characterize materials” | Paragraph 10 “Of particular interest to the instant application is the method of ultrasonic non-destructive testing using a phased array. In a phased array, multiple transducers are used to generate a plurality of ultrasonic pulses. These ultrasonic pulses can be steered by varying the time delay at which the ultrasonic wave is pulsed. These delays are applied during emission and reception of the ultrasonic signals. By varying the time the waves are pulsed, the resultant wave front can be steered.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris so that the one or more sensors pulses the ultrasonic transducer, as taught by Frederick as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate recordings of the tank’s quality metrics (Frederick Paragraph 1 “The present invention is related generally to the field of non-destructive materials testing using ultrasonic devices, more particularly, ultrasonic devices in a phased array.”).
With respect to claim 31, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris in view of Frederick teach that the one or more sensors steers the beam to scan the first portion of the tank corresponding to the first position of the vehicle on the map (See at least Meyers Paragraph 68).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 20210018396 A1) (“Meyers”) in view of Schmidt (US 6104970 A) (“Schmidt”) in view of Maresca (US 20160123864 A1) (“Maresca”) in view of Morris (US 20160350671 A1) (“Morris”) further in view of Shehri (US 10533937 B1) (“Shehri”).
With respect to claim 33, Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris teach to use the predictive corrosion metric to predict the future time interval (See at least Cella Paragraph 503).
Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris fails to explicitly disclose that the quality metric indicates a predictive corrosion metric based on a plurality of tank inspections performed by the vehicle during a time interval.
Shehri, however, teaches quality metric indicates a predictive corrosion metric based on a plurality of tank inspections performed by the vehicle during a time interval (See at least Shehri Col. 2 lines 48-60 “Embodiments of the present invention also provide a method of obtaining data from an infrastructure asset for enabling prediction and detection of corrosion-under-insulation (CUI). The method comprises capturing thermal image data of the asset over time, probing the asset using an additional sensing mode to obtain additional probe over time, measuring ambient conditions to obtain ambient condition data over time, combining the thermal image, additional probe and ambient condition data into a computer readable file, and transmitting the file to a computing device that uses an algorithm that uses the thermal image, additional probe and ambient condition data to predict whether the asset contains CUI.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Meyers in view of Schmidt in view of Maresca in view of Morris so that quality metric indicates a predictive corrosion metric based on a plurality of tank inspections performed by the vehicle during a time interval, as taught by Shehri as disclosed above, in order to determine an accurate thickness (Shehri “The present invention relates to inspection technologies, and, more particularly, relates to a cloud-based system for the prediction and detection of corrosion under insulation (CUI).”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667