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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB 2310685.9, filed on 12 July 2023.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Feed mechanism for controlling the insertion or retraction of the flexible device interpreted as a motor, spool, motor and wheel, or an actuator
Component driver for driving movement of an aspect of the complex component interpreted as a blade driver, motor, or robotic system
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
The driver for controlling the motion of the flexible motion device by manipulating the relative positions of a plurality of joints within the device
The plurality of joints within the device
The sensor on its distal end
The component driver
The motor for driving a driveshaft or gearbox
The camera
The CCD or CMOS chip
The tool at the distal end
The pressure sensors
The device providing haptic feedback
The twist sensor
The sensor to determine the position of the flexible inspection device within the feed mechanism and to determine the amount of the flexible inspection device that has passed through the feed mechanism
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1 – 20, newly introduced elements of the claim should be preceded with an “a” rather than a “the”.
Regarding Claim 5, “form” should read “from”.
Regarding Claims 16 – 20, elements already introduced in Claim 1 should be preceded with “the” rather than “a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 – 20 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 5 – 11, 13, 16, and 18, the claims recite a “complex component”. It is unclear what about a component makes it “complex”, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claims 1 – 20, the claims appear to recite both a first and second position of the flexible inspection device and first and second position of the complex component. The claims can be ambiguous when reciting the positions thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “link the operation of the flexible inspection device, the feed mechanism and the component driver through a single program”. It is unclear as to what is considered an “operation” of the flexible inspection device, the feed mechanism and the component driver, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “the feed mechanism is both able to provide linear as well as rotational motion”. It is unclear as to if there a mere capability of the structure or if the structure is actually configured to perform such function, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “one of a motor for driving a drive shaft or gearbox”. It is unclear as to if the limitation should be read as “a motor for driving a drive shaft” or a gearbox”, OR “a motor for driving a drive shaft” or “a motor for driving a gearbox”, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “the component driver is used to rotate an aspect of the component to a specific angular position to enable examination with the flexible inspection device”. It is unclear as to if there a mere capability of the structure or if the structure is actually configured to perform such function, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “may be used to assist”. The phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “it is able to automatically move and position the robot into the first imaging position”. It is unclear as to if there a mere capability of the structure or if the structure is actually configured to perform such function, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the robot". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “an artificial intelligence engine, artificial intelligence for imaging of the component”. The phrase does not appear to make grammatical sense, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “the correct its positioning”. The phrase does not appear to make grammatical sense, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the camera". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the camera image". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the flexible imaging system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the tip of the flexible inspection device ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the tip the same as the distal end of Claim 1?
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “for visual or non-destructive evaluation”. It is unclear as to what limitations are being imported onto the CCD or CMOS chip by the phrase, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, the claims recite “complex environment”. It is unclear what about an environment makes it “complex”, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “the recognition of surrounding features is used to determine at least the first position of the flexible inspection device”. It is unclear as to if there a mere capability of the structure or if the structure is actually configured to perform such function, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first position of the flexible inspection device ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “the computer program is used to control the movement of the component driver to enable a set of inspection tasks in the complex environment to be completed”. It is unclear as to if there a mere capability of the structure or if the structure is actually configured to perform such function, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites that the tool is that the distal end, however Claim 1 limits the distal end as having a sensor. It is unclear as to how both the tool and sensor can occupy the same place, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 12, it is unclear how pressure sensors can record “any possible” twist mechanism, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Sensors can only measure values of actions which have actually occurred.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites “represent these forces as haptic feedback through the controller. It is unclear as to how a controller can represent forces as haptic feedback as controllers generally don’t have mechanisms for providing haptic feedback, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 13, the phrase "possibly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites the computer program is instructed to take images. It is unclear as to how a program can take an image, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “determine the amount of flexible inspection device”. It is unclear as to how an “amount” of a device is determined, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites “a twist sensor, which is able to determine the amount of twist that has been applied to the flexible inspection device by the feed mechanism”. It is unclear as to if there a mere capability of the structure or if the structure is actually configured to perform such function, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim appears to attempt to limit “the step of driving the flexible inspection device into the first or second position” by reciting “the operator is capable of maneuvering the distal end of the flexible inspection device into position”. It is unclear as to how the operators capabilities limit the step of driving the flexible inspection device into the first or second position, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites that the tool is that the distal end, however Claim 1 limits the distal end as having a sensor. As such, Claim 10 fails to include all the limitations if the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim appears to attempt to limit “the step of driving the flexible inspection device into the first or second position” by reciting “the operator is capable of maneuvering the distal end of the flexible inspection device into position” however reciting limitations pertaining to an operators capability does not further limit the step of driving the flexible inspection device into the first or second position.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1 – 4, 7, 9, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancato et al. (US 2019/0266718), in view of Morris (US 2021/0018451), in further view of Dong et al. (US 2020/0188042)
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Stancato discloses a system for inspecting a complex component [0005], the system comprising: a flexible inspection device having a driver for controlling the motion of the flexible inspection device [0019], the flexible device having a sensor on its distal end (in US Patent 9036892, incorporated by reference [0020] discloses sensor (126 or 130); a component driver for driving the movement of an aspect of the complex component from at least a first position to a second position [0022]; and a computer running a computer program, the computer interfacing with the flexible inspection device, and the component driver, so as to link the operation of the flexible inspection device, and the component driver through a single program [0008, 0019, 0030 – 0034].
Stancato fails to expressly disclose the motion is controlled by manipulating the relative positions of a plurality of joints within the device; a feed mechanism for controlling the insertion or retraction of the flexible device into or from the complex component; and the computer program interfacing the feed mechanism with the system to link operation with the system.
Morris teaches a feed mechanism (162) for controlling the insertion or retraction of the flexible device into or from the complex component [0032].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Stancato to include a feed mechanism for controlling the insertion or retraction of the flexible device into or from the complex component and further interface the feed mechanism with Stancato’s computer program to link operation with the system for the benefit of improving inspection repeatability and positioning, as taught by Morris [0032].
The US Patent incorporated by reference in Stancato discloses a flexible section in the device (122).
Dong teaches motion is controlled by manipulating the relative positions of a plurality of joints within the device [0044 – 0046].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the motion is controlled by manipulating the relative positions of a plurality of joints within the device for the benefit of being able to perform precise inspection activities, as taught by Dong [0044].
Regarding Claim 2, Morris teaches the feed mechanism is both able to provide linear as well as rotational motion to at least a portion of the flexible inspection device [0032 – 0035].
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Stancato discloses the component driver is one of a motor for driving a drive shaft or gearbox [0008, 0022].
Regarding Claim 4, Stancato discloses the component driver is used to rotate an aspect of the component to a specific angular position to enable examination with the flexible inspection device [0008, 0022].
Regarding Claim 7, Stancato discloses the sensor on the tip of the flexible inspection device is a CCD or CMOS chip for visual or non-destructive evaluation of a component in the complex environment (inherently present in the camera of the device in the US Patent incorporated by reference).
Regarding Claim 9, Stancato discloses a command provided by the computer program is used to control the movement of the component driver to enable a set of inspection tasks in the complex environment to be completed [0008, 0019, 0030 – 0034].
Regarding Claim 10, Stancato discloses the flexible inspection device is provided with a tool at its distal end, the tool being able to physically interface with the aspect of the complex component (In the US Patent incorporated by reference Col 8, line 57 – Col 9, line 13).
Regarding Claim 13, Stancato discloses the computer program is instructed to take at least one image of the aspect of the complex component the first position, and then to take at least one image when the aspect of the complex component is moved to its second and possibly any further positions [0008, 0019, 0030 – 0034].
Conclusion
A complete search was not possible and/or scope of the claim was not possible to ascertain with respect to claims not provided with a prior art rejection due to the 112(b) Rejections as outlined above. Upon applicant’s clarification of the claims, comparison with the prior art will again be made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights