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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 10-14, 19 & 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/753,741 in view of Georgeson et al (US 9,834,323 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 10-12, 19 & 20 Co-pending application ‘741 discloses one or more image sensors configured to acquire one or more images of an aerodynamic surface via a vehicle used to identify one or more predicted defects of the surface; and one or more tactile sensors disposed on the one or more vehicles, the one or more tactile sensors configured to acquire dimensioning information for the one or more predicted defects [Claims 1-20]. Application ‘741 does not explicitly claim a circumferential rail and track structure overlapping with a section of an aerodynamic surface; one or more vehicles constrained to travel along the circumferential track / rail structure. Georgeson et al ‘323 discloses a circumferential rail and track structure overlapping with a section of an aerodynamic surface; one or more vehicles constrained to travel along the track [Claims 1 & 21].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of aircraft surface inspection systems before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle mobile system as disclosed by co-pending application ‘741 with a rail structure and track overlapping with a section of an aerodynamic surface; one or more vehicles constrained to travel along the track for the purpose of controlled and accurate surface scanning of the fuselage of an aircraft as taught by Georgeson et al ‘323 for the purpose of guiding a scanning system along a surface to be inspected for defects . Moreover, it would be well within the skill set of a person in the field of endeavor to utilize the track system as taught by Georgeson et al ‘323 within the mobile vehicle surface scanning system of Co-pending application ‘741.
Regarding claims 2, & 12 Co-pending application ‘741 teaches the basic features of the claimed invention but fails to teach a base section; an actuator configured to move the base section along the track; and a robotic arm having a first end coupled with the base section, and an opposing second end coupled with one or both of a first image sensor of the one or more image sensors, and a first tactile sensor of the one or more tactile sensors. Georgeson et al teaches a base section (Inherent) 52 ; an actuator (Abstract)(Col. 9 lines 40 – 65) configured to move the base section 52 along the track (col. 7 lines 7 -41); and a robotic arm 90a 90b (Interpreted as telescoping arm) (Abstract) having a first end coupled with the base section 52 (Fig. 4), and an opposing second end coupled with one or both of a first image sensor 2 of the one or more image sensors 2 , and a first tactile sensor 8 of the one or more tactile sensors 8.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill int the art of aircraft surface inspection systems before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as disclosed by Co-pending application ‘741 with a base section; an actuator configured to move the base section along the track; and a robotic arm having a first end coupled with the base section, and an opposing second end coupled with one or both of a first image sensor of the one or more image sensors, and a first tactile sensor of the one or more tactile sensors as taught by Georgeson et al for the purpose of guiding a scanning system along a surface to be inspected for defects. Moreover, it would be well within the skill set of a person in the field of endeavor to utilize the track system as taught by Georgeson et al within the surface scanning system of Co-pending application ‘741.
Regarding claims 3 & 14 Co-pending application ‘741 teaches the basic features of the claimed invention but fails to teach a mount coupled to an interface defined at the second end of the robotic arm, wherein both the first image sensor and the first tactile sensor are coupled to the mount. Georgeson et al teaches a mount coupled to an interface defined at the second end of the robotic arm 90a 90b, wherein both the first image sensor 2 and the first tactile sensor 8 are coupled to the mount (Fig. 2 – 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill int the art of aircraft surface inspection systems before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as disclosed by Co-pending application ‘741 with a mount coupled to an interface defined at the second end of the robotic arm, wherein both the first image sensor and the first tactile sensor are coupled to the mount as taught by Georgeson et al for the purpose of guiding a scanning system along a surface to be inspected for defects. Moreover, it would be well within the skill set of a person in the field of endeavor to utilize the track system as taught by Georgeson et al within the surface scanning system of Co-pending application ‘741.
Regarding claim 8 Co-pending application ‘741 discloses acquiring the dimensioning information for the one or more predicted defects comprises: determining one or more of a depth profile, a width, a length, and a sharpness of a bottom basin for the one or more predicted defects [Claims 8 & 17].
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Georgeson et al (US 9834323 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 12 & 19 Georgeson et al discloses a track (Abstract)(col. 7 lines 7 -41) overlapping with a section of the surface 12 (figs. 1-3) ; one or more vehicles 52 (interpreted as a carriage) constrained to travel along the track (col. 7 lines 7 -41)(figs. 1-3); one or more image sensors 2 (col. 11 lines 8 40) disposed on the one or more vehicles 52, the one or more image sensors 2 configured to acquire one or more images of the surface 12 used to identify one or more predicted defects (interpreted as ultrasonic inspection) (Col. 8 lines 42-62) of the surface (Col. 10 lines 33-65) (col. 11 lines 8-40) ; and one or more tactile sensors 8 disposed on the one or more vehicles 52, the one or more tactile sensors 8 configured to acquire dimensioning information for the one or more predicted defects (Col. 10 lines 33-65) (col. 11-Col. 12).
Regarding claims 2 & 13 Georgeson et al teaches a base section (Inherent) 52 ; an actuator (Abstract)(Col. 9 lines 40 – 65) configured to move the base section 52 along the track (col. 7 lines 7 -41); and a robotic arm 90a 90b (Interpreted as telescoping arm) (Abstract) having a first end coupled with the base section 52 (Fig. 4), and an opposing second end coupled with one or both of a first image sensor 2 of the one or more image sensors 2 , and a first tactile sensor 8 of the one or more tactile sensors 8.
Regarding claims 3 & 14 Georgeson et al teaches a mount coupled to an interface defined at the second end of the robotic arm 90a 90b, wherein both the first image sensor 2 and the first tactile sensor 8 are coupled to the mount (Fig. 2 – 15).
Regarding claims 8 & 10 Georgeson et al teaches acquiring the dimensioning information for the one or more predicted defects comprises: determining one or more of a depth profile, a width, a length, and a sharpness of a bottom basin for the one or more predicted defects. (Interpreted as ultrasonic inspection) (Abstract)(Col. 6 lines 40-65)
Regarding claims 9 Georgeson et al teaches the track is removably coupled to the surface (Implied the inspection system is removable from a fuselage.)
Regarding claims 11 & 20 Georgeson et al teaches an aircraft fuselage 12, wherein the one or more rails 28a 28b comprises a plurality of rails 28a 28b spaced apart from each other and extending circumferentially around the aircraft fuselage 12, wherein the space between the plurality of rails 28a 28b overlaps with a joint section of the aircraft fuselage 12, and wherein the joint section comprises one or more rows of fasteners extending circumferentially around the aircraft fuselage 12. (Fig. 2 – 15).
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 & 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson et al (US 9834323 B2) in view of Georgeson et al (US 11044011 B2).
Regarding claims 4-7 and 15-18 Georgeson et al ‘323 as modified by Georgeson et al ‘011 teaches a mounting arrangement (Georgeson et al ‘323 col. 2 lines 15-25, col. 8 lines 1-5, figs. 1-15), (Georgeson et al ‘011 figs. 1-15, col. 2 lines 15-25, col. 8 lines 1-5). Georgeson et al ‘323 as modified by Georgeson et al ‘011 does not explicitly teach a mount that includes a central section contoured to mate with the interface; a flange extending from the central section, the first image sensor coupled to the flange; and a forked bracket extending from the central section, the first tactile sensor coupled to the forked bracket; the flange extending in a first direction from the central section, and wherein the forked bracket extends in an opposing second direction from the central section; the flange and the forked bracket provide the image sensor and the tactile sensor with a same orientation; the central section defines a recessed portion that receives a portion of the interface.
Since Georgeson et al ‘323 as modified by Georgeson et al ‘011 discloses a mounted fuselage scanning system, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill int the art of aircraft surface inspection systems before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mounting arrangements to further include a mount that includes a central section contoured to mate with the interface; a flange extending from the central section, the first image sensor coupled to the flange; and a forked bracket extending from the central section, the first tactile sensor coupled to the forked bracket; the flange extending in a first direction from the central section, and wherein the forked bracket extends in an opposing second direction from the central section; the flange and the forked bracket provide the image sensor and the tactile sensor with a same orientation; the central section defines a recessed portion that receives a portion of the interface, for the purpose of ensuring a properly secured surface scanning system. Furthermore, since the applicant has not established that the specifics of the mounting arrangement as claimed solves a stated problem or purpose. Lacking any criticality, it would appear that a person having ordinary skill in the art due to the design need of a suitable mounting feature, pursue any number of identified, predictable solutions, and / or options within his or her technical grasp. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12409952 B1 Vehicles, systems, and methods for the autonomous inspection of objects
US 12378004 B2 UAV-based aviation inspection systems and related methods
US 12007220 B2 Optical structural health monitoring
US 11401051 B2 Aircraft inspection systems and methods
US 10239641 B2 Automated scanning systems for non-destructive inspection of curved cylinder-like workpieces
US 11044011 B2 Automated scanning systems for non-destructive inspection of curved cylinder-like workpieces
US 20170052070 A1 Method for infrared thermographic inspection of composite structure, involves stitching first and second infrared imaging data together based on first and second coordinate locations of field of view of infrared camera
US 20160123933 A1 Component inspection system e.g., for detecting abnormalities or damage in component using ultrasonic inspection probe has controller, which controls robotic device to adjust actual orientation of end effector to be in desired orientation
US 20140345384 A1 Generator Retaining Ring Scanning Robot
US 8713998 B2 Autonomous non-destructive evaluation system for aircraft structures
US 7640810 B2 Ultrasonic inspection apparatus, system, and method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights