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 .
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 79-98 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.
Claim 79, recites a functional outcome, "identify, within image data of a plurality of components of said mechanism, relative motions of reference points on at least two of said plurality of components of said mechanism " lines 3-4, but does not define any particular analysis steps of how the "relative motions of reference points on at least two of said plurality of components of said mechanism " is identified "within image data of a plurality of components of said mechanism" and, recites “evaluate said health of said mechanism by analyzing said relative motions using a model of proper operation of said mechanism" lines 5-6, but does not define any particular analysis steps of how “health of said mechanism” is “evaluated” and how "said relative motions" is analyzed “using a model of proper operation of said mechanism". Thus, the scope of the claim encompasses every analysis step known now and would be known in the future for implementing the function of " identify, within image data of a plurality of components of said mechanism, relative motions of reference points on at least two of said plurality of components of said mechanism" and for implementing the function of " evaluate said health of said mechanism by analyzing relative motions using a model of proper operation of said mechanism" and therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim and therefore, the claim is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
As to claims 80-95 refer to claim 79 rejection.
Claim 96 is a method analogous to claim 79, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 79 are applicable to claim 96
As to claims 97--98 refer to claim 96 rejection.
Claim 79 recites: "evaluate said health of said mechanism by analyzing said relative motions using a model of proper operation of said mechanism". These are a "use" claim elements, not an intended use elements. These elements appear to be a positively recited steps. However, rather than the steps itself being claimed, a "use" is being claimed. That is, the claim recites a "use" of "a model of proper operation of said mechanism" "for" a purpose of performing the "analyzing said relative motions", but does not define any particular process steps of how the "model of proper operation of said mechanism" is actually used in order to perform the "analyzing said relative motions", the claim merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, and therefore the claim elements are indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(q)).
As to claims 80-98 refer to claim 79 rejection.
Claim 84, recites a functional outcome, "estimating respective forces exerted on said at least two of said plurality of components during operation of said mechanism from said relative motions " lines 1-3, but does not define any particular analysis steps of how the "respective forces exerted on said at least two of said plurality of components during operation of said mechanism" is estimated from “said relative motions” . Thus, the scope of the claim encompasses every analysis step known now and would be known in the future for implementing the function of "estimating respective forces exerted on said at least two of said plurality of components during operation of said mechanism from said relative motions” and therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim and therefore, the claim is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
As to claims 80-98 refer to claim 79 rejection.
Claim 91, recites a functional outcome, "estimating a degree of hardness of a landing of said aircraft from said relative motions " lines 1-2, but does not define any particular analysis steps of how the " hardness of a landing of said aircraft" is estimated from “said relative motions” . Thus, the scope of the claim encompasses every analysis step known now and would be known in the future for implementing the function of "estimating a degree of hardness of a landing of said aircraft from said relative motions” and therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim and therefore, the claim is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
The term "degree" in claim 91 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "degree" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is not clear how much hardness level or intensity of a lading of the aircraft is within the estimated "degree of hardness", nor what distinguishes "normal" landing events from "hard" landing events.
Claim 92 recites: "wherein said model is trained using a training set of images collected during operation of said mechanism and/or a similar mechanism.". These are a "use" claim elements, not an intended use elements. These elements appear to be a positively recited steps. However, rather than the steps itself being claimed, a "use" is being claimed. That is, the claim recites a "use" of a "training set of images collected during operation of said mechanism and/or a similar mechanism" "for" a purpose of performing the "training of the model", but does not define any particular process steps of how the "training set of images collected during operation of said mechanism and/or a similar mechanism" is actually used in order to perform the "training of the model", the claim merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, and therefore the claim elements are indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(q)).
As to claims 93 refer to claim 92 rejection.
Claim 92 recites "wherein said model is trained using a training set of images collected during operation of said mechanism and/or a similar mechanism. The claim refers to the "model of proper operations of the mechanism that analyzes the relative motions" in claim 79 which claim 92 depends from. The specification refers to FIGS. 3A-3F, which show trajectories of the motion of reference points P1-P5 during proper operation of the mechanism. As can be seen from FIG. 3A, reference point P1 moves along a circular curve (model of proper operation). FIG. 3B shows the location of reference point P1 as curves in the X and y axes and a permitted deviation from the curves (e.g., specification, page 39, lines 22-25) as performing these steps. The specification also refers to change detection algorithm may include one or more learning models 322 of the mechanism (e.g., landing gear) (e.g., specification, page 43, lines 1-3 and Fig. 5) as performing this step. Machine learning models as known in the art are neural networks and are different from circular curve model that analyzes the points motion. The claim is using model as trajectories of the motion of reference points P1-P5 during proper operation of the mechanism and as a trained model (learning model) which are different from each other, i.e., model in claim 79 is pattern of reference points and model in claim 92 is a learning model, so claim 92 cannot refer to claim 79 model because they are two different models.
As to claims 93 refer to claim 92 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.
Examiner Note:
Claims are rejected as best understood by the Examiner, and “And/Or” is interpreted as an “Or”.
Claim(s) 79-81, 85-90, 95-98 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FRASER WILSON (GB 2587416 A).
As to claim 79, WILSON discloses a system for monitoring health of a mechanism, comprising a processing circuitry configured to [The landing gear position sensing system 1 (par. [0058])]:
identify, within image data of a plurality of components of said mechanism, relative motions of reference points on at least two of said plurality of components of said mechanism [the landing gear position sensing system 1 may utilise digital image processing. Such digital image processing may include: detection of the positions of components in a first image, such as through the use of suitable edge finding 13 software that is configured to process the received image(s) and identify the positions of points and/or edges in the image(s) (reference points of the components of landing gear mechanism); and comparison of the identified positions with comparative positions of the points and/or edges in a second image. The first image can, for example, be a recent or substantially real-time image of one or more components of the landing gear system. The second image can be a reference image of the system in good working order (model of proper operation), for example, and may be stored in storage that is accessible to the controller 5. Images may be captured and analysed in this way over several respective flights, and the positions of the points and/or edges in the respective images compared to see if there is any progressive creep and/or inconsistencies of the points and/or edges (relative motion) over a plurality of flights, which could be indicative of degradation of one or more components in the landing gear system (par. [0058])];
evaluate said health of said mechanism by analyzing said relative motions using a model of proper operation of said mechanism [The first image can, for example, be a recent or substantially real- time image of one or more components of the landing gear system. The second image can be a reference image of the system in good working order (model of proper operation), for example, and may be stored in storage that is accessible to the controller 5. Images may be captured and analysed in this way over several respective flights, and the positions of the points and/or edges in the respective images compared to see if there is any progressive creep and/or inconsistencies of the points and/or edges (relative motions) over a plurality of flights, which could be indicative of degradation of one or more components in the landing gear system, i., e., the health of the mechanism is evaluated by analyzing relative motions using comparison between the obtained first image and a second image of reference image of the system in good working order (model of proper operation) to see if there is any progressive creep and/or inconsistencies of the points and/or edges (relative motions) (par. [0058]).; and
output an indicator of said health of said mechanism based on said evaluating [he method 30 may further include providing 33 an indication of the status of the at least one landing gear component 4 to an operator. For example, the status may be that the landing gear is extended or retracted. The indication may be given to the flight crew in the cockpit. The indication could be visual, audible or tactile, for example, such as by way of illuminating a light, sounding a beeper or buzzer, or operating a vibration device (Fig. 3 and par. [0061])].
Claim 96 is a method analogous to system claim 79, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 79 are applicable to claim 96.
As to claim 80, WILSON further discloses, wherein said indicator comprises at least one of: maintenance instructions;
a time to failure estimation;
a detected failure alert [The expected/reference image may be a stored image that is accessible by the controller 5 (par. [0048]) In some embodiments, the landing gear position sensing system 1 may be configured to provide an indication to an operator when a failure and/or inconsistency is detected. For example, if the landing gear position sensing system 1 determines that the at least one landing gear component 4 has not deployed correctly before landing, the operator may be provided with an indication to abort the landing (par. [0049])]; and
operating instructions in response to detected failure [For example, if the landing gear position sensing system 1 determines that the at least one landing gear component 4 has not deployed correctly before landing, the operator may be provided with an indication to abort the landing (operating instructions) (par. [049]) ].
As to claim97 refer to claim 80 rejection.
As to claim 81, WILSON further discloses wherein at least two of said plurality of components comprise at least one component in rotational motion and at least one component in linear motion [as shown in figures 1 and 2 and their corresponding text, the landing gear 7 (one component) that is movable between a retracted position 8 and an extended position 9 and a landing gear bay door 12 (one component) that is movable between a closed position 13 and an open position 14 are in a rotary motion. The landing gear movement mechanism 10 is for moving the landing gear 7 between the extended position 9 (dashed lines graph) and the retracted position 8 (solid lines graph) is extending along a straight line (one dimensional motion along a straight line). The landing gear bay door movement mechanism 15 is for moving the landing gear bay door 12 between the closed position 13 (solid lines graph) and the open position 14 (dashed lines graph), to permit movement of the landing gear 7 between the extended position 9 and the retracted position 8 is extending a long a straight line (one dimensional motion along a straight line).
As to claim 98 refer to claim 81 rejection.
As to claim 85, WILSON further discloses, wherein said processing circuitry is further configured to monitor at least one defect said plurality of components and said evaluating said health of said machine is further based on said monitoring of said at least one defect [ For example, if lidar or millimetric radar is used in a landing gear bay, edge detection software may be used to map the landing gear bay and the landing gear components therein. Advantageously, a substantially real-time image of the landing gear bay may be created, from which multiple components and statuses may be monitored at once (par. [0046]. The ability to produce a substantially real-time image of the landing bay allows functions and movements of the at least one landing gear component 4 to be monitored. For example, the extension and retraction time of the landing gear may be measured. This measurement may be used for diagnostic processes. Moreover, the at least one landing gear component 4 may be monitored so as to determine, for example, its condition and detect any failures (par. [0047]).
As to claim 86, WILSON further discloses, wherein said evaluating said health of said mechanism is further based on at least one of:
a force exerted on at least one of said plurality of components;
a defect in at least one of said plurality of components [The ability to produce a substantially real-time image of the landing bay allows functions and movements of the at least one landing gear component 4 to be monitored. For example, the extension and retraction time of the landing gear may be measured. This measurement may be used for diagnostic processes. Moreover, the at least one landing gear component 4 may be monitored so as to determine, for example, its condition and detect any failures (par. [0047]). In some embodiments, the landing gear position sensing system 1 may detect leaks or failures in the at least one landing gear component 4. For example, the at least one landing gear component 4 may comprise a hydraulic component and the landing gear position sensing system 1 may be configured to detect a leak of hydraulic fluid, such as by identifying hydraulic fluid on the surface of a component or following a determination that the extension or retraction time of the landing gear is greater than a predetermined normal" period (par. [0048])];
a deformation of at least one of said plurality of components;
a change in shape of at least one of said plurality of components; and
information from at least one non-imaging sensor [Advantageously, lidar and/or millimetric radar may have faster response time than a conventional proximity sensor. As such, operations that require the determination of a status of at least one landing gear component 4 may occur faster.(par. [0045]). Moreover, when edge detection is used to determine a position of the at least one landing gear component 4, it is possible to determine the position at various points of its motion. In contrast, the use of a conventional proximity sensor may only allow the detection of the position of the at least one landing gear component 4 at a single point (par. [0046])].
As to claim 87, WILSON further discloses, wherein said indicator comprises maintenance requirements for at least one of said plurality of components of said mechanism, said maintenance requirements being based on image data compiled during a plurality of operations of said mechanism [For example, the extension and retraction time of the landing gear may be measured. This measurement may be used for diagnostic processes (maintenance requirements). Moreover, the at least one landing gear component 4 may be monitored so as to determine, for example, its condition and detect any failures (par. [047]). In some embodiments, the landing gear position sensing system 1 may utilise digital image processing. Such digital image processing may include: detection of the positions of components in a first image, such as through the use of suitable edge finding I 3 software that is configured to process the received image(s) and identify the positions of points and/or edges in the image(s); and comparison of the identified positions with comparative positions of the points and/or edges in a second image. The first image can, for example, be a recent or substantially real-time image of one or more components of the landing gear system. The second image can be a reference image of the system in good working order, for example, and may be stored in storage that is accessible to the controller 5. Images may be captured and analysed in this way over several respective flights (image data compiled during a plurality of operations) , and the positions of the points and/or edges in the respective images compared to see if there is any progressive creep and/or inconsistencies of the points and/or edges over a plurality of flights, which could be indicative of degradation of one or more components in the landing gear system (par. [0058])].
As to claim 88, WILSON further discloses, wherein said mechanism comprises a subsystem of a vehicle, and wherein said subsystem is positioned between a body of said vehicle and a surface supporting said vehicle [the landing gear mechanism includes a landing gear positioned between a body of an airplane (vehicle) and ground (a surface supporting said vehicle) (par. [0063] and Figs. 1 and 5)].
As to claim 89, WILSON further discloses, wherein said mechanism comprises a landing gear of an aircraft (Figs. 1 and 5).
As to claim 90, WILSON further discloses, wherein said indicator indicates one of a locked and an unlocked state of said landing gear [aircraft controller 5 determining first and second statuses of landing gear component(s) based on data received from energy receiver(s), the data indicative of first and second properties of the landing gear component(s). Properties may include position, temperature, structural rigidity and rotational velocity (Abstract). The landing gear component is at least one of a landing gear, part of a landing gear movement mechanism for moving the landing gear, a landing gear bay door, part of a landing gear bay door movement mechanism for moving the landing gear bay door, and an uplock for retaining a landing gear or a landing gear bay door in position, i.e., the controller indicates the locked and unlocked status of the landing gear (par. [0016])].
As to claim 95, WILSON further discloses, wherein the at least one optical sensor is fixed relative to the plurality of components of said mechanism [the lidar sensor 6 (optical sensor) is fixed relative to the components of the landing gear (plurality of components of the mechanism) (see Figs. 1 and 2)].
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.
Claim(s) 82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRASER WILSON (GB 2587416 A) as applied to claim 79 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 20180130198 A1).
WILSON does not disclose wherein said analyzing comprises determining an alignment of said reference points when said reference points are static, and said indicator indicates when said reference points are correctly aligned and incorrectly aligned relative to each other.
Kikuchi discloses monitoring status of a speed reducer 30B built in an industrial robot 30A (par. [0110] and Fig. 7). As shown in FIG. 7, the industrial robot 30A having at least one rotation shafts 306 to 310 represents the industrial machine 3 (par. [0111]). Physical information regarding the surface 3a of the industrial robot 30A, an information acquisition unit 11 acquires a displacement of each of the respective surfaces of the first to third rotation shafts 306 to 308 (see FIG. 21). There is no particular limitation on a specific method for acquiring a displacement of each of the respective surfaces of the first to third rotation shafts 306 to 308. For example, based on a captured image, which is captured by a camera 100, of a mark provided at a particular position on each of the surfaces of the first to third rotation shafts 306 to 308, the information acquisition unit 11 may acquire a trajectory of the mark as a displacement of the each of the surfaces of the first to third rotation shafts 306 to 308 (par. [0205]). In determining presence or absence of the abnormal state, the control device 120 may perform a determination in consideration of respective positions of the surfaces whose displacements are to be acquired. For example, in an example shown in FIG. 21 when the reference points are static, the wave form is a circle when reference points are correctly aligned and a curve when incorrectly aligned to each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the teachings of Kikuchi to modify the system of WILSON by determining an alignment of said reference points when said reference points are static, and said indicator indicates when said reference points are correctly aligned and incorrectly aligned relative to each other in order to a malfunction prediction can be performed with higher accuracy (par. [0155]).
Claim(s) 91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRASER WILSON (GB 2587416 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Nance (US 8042765 B1).
As to claim 91, WILSON does not disclose, wherein said analyzing comprises estimating a degree of hardness of a landing of said aircraft from said relative motions, and said indicator indicates said degree of hardness of said landing of said aircraft.
Nance discloses a tool to automatically determine if an initial landing gear strut compression rate, which relates to the aircraft sink-rate has exceeded an aircraft limitation, thereby determining a required inspection for overweight landings and hard landing events (Col. 4, lines 11-15 ). The present invention provides a method of monitoring landing gear on an aircraft at initial contact of the landing gear with the ground, each landing gear comprising a strut, which is capable of extension. The extension of one of the struts is measured before contact of the respective landing gear with the ground. The extension of the one strut is measured during initial contact of the respective landing gear with the ground. The amount of changed extension of the one start is measured in relation to elapsed time. The rate of compression of the one strut is determined from the measured amount of changed extension of the one strut in relation to elapsed time (relative motion). An indication of the rate of compression of the one strut is provided (col. 4, lines 16-28). Struts have easy to identify points of structure on both the moving lower strut portion and also on the fixed upper strut portion. Review and mapping of sequential photographs looks for compression or shortening of this telescoping element and identifies the amount of compression over time. The present invention described herein uses a high speed camera, a computer and image recognition software to monitor, map, measure and determine the compression of the strut, as well as the rate of closure between specific points of the lower portion of the landing gear strut, as compared to fixed upper stationary portions of the same landing gear stmt. That rate of closure is the rate of strut compression, also being the vertical velocity of the aircraft as it comes into initial contact with the ground. This allows the monitoring of aircraft landing gear rate of compression without increasing the risk of possible landing gear failure (Col. 8, lines 13-28). High-speed digital cameras or targeted range-finder devices to monitor the landing gear and identify the range of movement of a specific point on the lower portion of the telescopic landing gear strut, as compared to a specific point of the upper fixed body, of that same landing gear strut or aircraft hull, as further measured against elapsed time (col. 8, lines 35-40). As an alternate method of measuring the amount of landing gear strut compression, the landing gear components have various unique physical features on both the upper stationary portion of strut body 3 as well as the lower telescopic piston 5, that are easily identified in photographs and can be recognized for the individual strut mapping process. Examples of these features are the upper torque link rotation collar 9 of strut body 3 and lower torque link rotation collar 11 of telescopic piston 5, which are both features of the landing gear scissor link 7 assembly (FIG. 1.) Photographs taken with camera 17 identify and illustrate these unique physical features which allow these valid reference points which are identified and compared to the identical features in subsequent photographs, thus determining the distance relationship between the two distinct features, as mapped and measured, in relation to elapsed time (col. 10, lines 3-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the teachings of Nance to modify the system of WILSON by estimating a degree of hardness of a landing of said aircraft from said relative motions, and said indicator indicates said degree of hardness of said landing of said aircraft in order to determining a required inspection for overweight landings and hard landing events (col. 4, lines 10-15).
Claim(s) 92-93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRASER WILSON (GB 2587416 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stamatovski (US 20220024577 A1).
As to claim 92, WILSON does not disclose, wherein said model is trained using a training set of images collected during operation of said mechanism and/or a similar mechanism.
Stamatovski discloses a system for inspecting an aircraft includes an autonomous drone, a slow- moving, self-directed base station, a base station controller, and a drone controller. The autonomous drone includes one or more cameras. The base station has a storage compartment configured to store the autonomous drone therein. The base station controller has a base station processor and a base station memory. The drone flies to at least one first predetermined position relative to the aircraft; and record image data of at least portions of the aircraft with the one or more cameras. (par. [0003]). Causing a base station to autonomously drive to a first predetermined location relative to an aircraft, causing a drone supported by the base station to autonomously take flight from the base station, causing the drone to autonomously fly to a first predetermined position relative to the aircraft, and causing the drone to inspect the aircraft by recording image data (e.g., video and/or picture data) of at least a portion of the aircraft when disposed in the first predetermined position (par. [0012]). For instance, drone base station system 10 can be configured to inspect an object, such as an airplane 99, via sensors 32 (e.g., a camera, scanner, etc.), for determining and/or identifying changes in a condition of the exterior 99a of airplane 99, such as between flights (e.g., a full mechanical inspection). The exterior of aircraft can include the skin, paint, rivets, nuts, bolts, flaps, windows, landing gear, sensors, lights, rudders, wings, or any other aircraft component). In this regard, if such inspection reveals that the condition of the exterior 99a does not meet predetermined standards, such as by being significantly chipped or damaged, the exterior 99a can be repaired, as necessary (par. [0047]). Storage devices of disclosed controllers may store one or more machine learning algorithms and/or models, configured to detect various objects in various environments. The machine learning algorithm(s) may be trained on, and learn from experimental data and/or previously measured data which may be initially input into the one or more machine learning applications in order to enable the machine learning application(s) to identify objects based upon such data. Such data may include object data, environmental data, electromagnetic data, conductivity data, and any other suitable data (par. [0081]). n one aspect of the present disclosure, the algorithms in the present disclosure may be trained using supervised learning. Supervised learning is the machine learning task of learning a function that maps an input to an output based on example input-output pairs. It infers a function from labeled training data consisting of a set of training examples. In supervised learning, each example is a pair consisting of an input object (typically a vector) and a desired output value (also called the supervisory signal). A supervised learning algorithm analyzes the training data and produces an inferred function, which can be used for mapping new examples. In various embodiments (par. [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the teachings of Stamatovski to modify the system of WILSON by training a model using a training set of images collected during operation of said mechanism and/or a similar mechanism in order to remediate any defects uncovered during the inspection when the manufacturer is called to service the aircraft (par. [0002]).
As to claim 93, Stamatovski further discloses, wherein at least one of said reference points is detected automatically as a result of said training of said model [Machine learning algorithms of this disclosure are advantageous for use in identifying objects in various environments at least in that machine learning algorithms may improve the functionality of complex sensor components. Machine learning algorithms utilize the initial input data (e.g., the previous object-identification data, current object-identification data, and/or experimental data), to determine statistical features and/or correlations that enable the identification of unknown objects in various environments by analyzing data therefrom. Thus, with the one or more machine learning algorithms having been trained as detailed above, such can be used to identify objects (par.[0082]). The terms "artificial intelligence," "data models," or "machine learning" may include, but are not limited to, neural networks, deep neural networks, recurrent neural networks (RNN), generative adversarial networks (GAN), Bayesian Regression, Naive Bayes, Monte Carlo Methods, nearest neighbors, least squares, means, and support vector regression, among other data science, artificial intelligence, and machine learning techniques. Exemplary uses are identifying patterns and making predictions relating to objects in various environments (par. [0083]).
Claim(s) 94 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRASER WILSON (GB 2587416 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TAKASHIKA HATSUKO (JP 3236387 B2).
As to claim 94, WILSON does not disclose, wherein at least one of said reference points is specified by a user.
HATSUKO discloses a component placement device for placing components on a screen. The parts are displayed once on a virtual screen or the like, and in response to the designation of the arrangement reference point, the parts are arranged at desired positions on the screen based on the arrangement reference points, and a three-dimensional assembly drawing is created. An object of the present invention is to improve operability of component arrangement such as three-dimensional CAD (par. [0008]). The component display 4 displays the component 11 whose placement has been instructed on the screen, and prompts the user to specify the placement reference point 13 of the component 11. The component arrangement 5 corresponds to the indication of the arrangement reference point 13 of the component 11 displayed on the screen. Based on the arrangement reference point 13 and the arrangement origin 12 defined in advance on the part 11, the part 11 is arranged such that the arrangement reference point 13 is located at a designated arrangement position on the screen, In response to the instruction of the arrangement reference point 13 of the component 11 displayed in the above, the offset value between the arrangement reference point 13 and the arrangement origin 12 defined in advance for the component 11 is stored, and the offset value and the Placement origin 12 (par. [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the teachings of HATSUKO to modify the system of WILSON by specifying said reference points by a user in order to improve operability of component arrangement of the mechanism (par. [0008]).
Claims 5 and 6, would be allowable if amended to overcome the above rejections and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR ANWAR AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7413. The examiner can normally be reached flex.
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, Edward Urban can be reached at (571)272-7899. 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.
/SAMIR A AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights