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
The applicant’s claim to priority of PRO 63/078,592 on 09/15/2020 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 12-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ramsey et al. (US 20160090132 hereinafter Ramsey) in view of Reverie et al. (US 20030290779 hereinafter Reverie).
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly 12), Ramsey teaches a system for inspecting a vehicle, the system comprising:
a robot having a vertical dimension that permits the robot to pass under the vehicle, the robot comprising at least one sensor, the robot configured to perform actions comprising (See at least: [0005] An aspect of the present disclosure relates to a system for inspecting the undercarriage of a vehicle or other carriage. The system may comprise a mobile unit for inspection of the underside of the vehicle, including recording and scanning devices being movable underneath the vehicle remotely.):
determining an identification of the vehicle (See at least: [0017] via “ For example, the condition of the undercarriage of the vehicle can be determined with respect to factory schematics or standards for the make and/or model, including modifications, of the vehicle.”);
passing under the vehicle (See at least: [0017] via “Alternatively, the housing may be mobile such that the housing moves below a stationary vehicle for example, the housing unit may be a mobile unit 10”); and
obtaining sensor data regarding the vehicle;
and a back-end system computer configured to perform operations comprising (See at least: [0033] via “The video and/or images and data captured during surveillance and/or inspection of the underside of the vehicle body may be transmitted, live in real time, to a viewing unit 28 so that the operator may view the underside of the vehicle substantially simultaneously with the movement of the unit 10 under the vehicle or after the unit has gathered video from underneath the vehicle. The video may also be recorded for later reference. Thus, if an item of interest or concern is spotted, an operator can stop, reverse or slow down the mobile unit 10 to further inspect or re-inspect a selected area. The video captured from the cameras 22 is transmitted to the viewing unit 28 by a wireless connection and transmission. The viewing unit 28 is a control pad and monitor which can also be a hand held or mobile device.”):
receiving the identification of the vehicle and the sensor data from the robot;
analyzing the sensor data based on comparison data;
determining, based on the analyzing, to send an alert regarding the vehicle; and
sending the alert regarding the vehicle (See at least: [0034] via “The system may be used to inspect the underside of a vehicle by visual inspection with the camera and lighting elements or by laser inspection wherein a laser unit scans the undercarriage for detection of known and/or unknown conditions. The visual or laser inspection results are compared to a database containing the standard specifications and schematics of a variety of vehicles and/or carriages, for example, a train carriage or the undercarriage of a coach bus. This database is populated with and stores the specifications and standard dimensions, components, arrangement, positioning, depth etc. of the undercarriage of various makes and models. The inspection data gathered by the system is then compared for recognition. If the recognition process indicates there is an unknown or alternatively, a missing dimension or object in the undercarriage, a warning indicator is sent to the viewing unit, monitor and/or control pad. The warning indicator may be a warning light, an annunciation or other type of visual or audial signal. This warning indicates that further inspection, with the system or additionally with human intervention, may be required. If the recognition step indicates that the no abnormal conditions exist an “OK” signal may be sent to the control pad, viewing unit and/or monitor.”),
but fails to teach upon initialization of an inspection action, automatically traversing a vehicle lot to inspect the vehicle. However, Reverie teaches this limitation (See at least: [0032] The present invention is generally directed to an autonomous robotic camera for pipe infrastructure inspection with an optional dual use as a surveillance platform. Specifically, the autonomous inspector mobile platform ("AIMP") is a compact, autonomous mobile robot that performs imaging and inspection of pipe and pipe networks (including main lines and interconnecting laterals). As described above, operators traditionally inspect pipe by manually "driving" (through teleoperation) a camera tractor down a pipe and recording video that is sent back to the surface via a tether. This traditional method consumes the entirety of an operator's time and attention, and the review of video to identify and classify defects in the pipe is laborious and inefficient. Long-term archival of video is expensive and information retrieval is cumbersome. Moreover, large trucks and equipment are required to support the camera and operator during inspection.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ramsey in view of Reverie to teach upon initialization of an inspection action, automatically traversing a vehicle lot to inspect the vehicle so that the system for inspecting a vehicle does not need to consume an operator's time and attention to operate the system and analyze the sensor data to determine if an alert is needed.
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly 13), Ramsey teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one camera, wherein the at least one camera is configured to capture at least one image of a surface beneath the vehicle, and wherein the sensor data comprises the at least one image of the surface beneath the vehicle (See at least: [0021] The center mount 14 and each arm 16 and 18 may have a camera 22 mounted thereto. Light sources may be mounted around the perimeter of the frame 12 to aid in camera inspection and recognition. For example, light source 24 is mounted on a respective upward facing surface of the frame 12 on opposing sides and on adjacent opposing sides with respect to the arms. The cameras 22 and light sources 24 are each mounted so as to be directed upwardly and outwardly from the frame allowing the light sources and the cameras to be used for inspection and surveillance of the underside of a vehicle which is positioned over the unit 10 and/or which the unit 10 may pass under.”). Regarding claim 4 (and similarly 14), Ramsey teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one camera, wherein the at least one camera is configured to capture at least one image of at least a portion of an underside of the vehicle, and wherein the sensor data comprises the at least one image (See at least: [0021] The center mount 14 and each arm 16 and 18 may have a camera 22 mounted thereto. Light sources may be mounted around the perimeter of the frame 12 to aid in camera inspection and recognition. For example, light source 24 is mounted on a respective upward facing surface of the frame 12 on opposing sides and on adjacent opposing sides with respect to the arms. The cameras 22 and light sources 24 are each mounted so as to be directed upwardly and outwardly from the frame allowing the light sources and the cameras to be used for inspection and surveillance of the underside of a vehicle which is positioned over the unit 10 and/or which the unit 10 may pass under.”). Regarding claim 5 (and similarly 15), Ramsey teaches wherein the comparison data comprises at least one of: a prior image of at least a portion of the vehicle, an image of at least a portion of another vehicle, or data derived from at least one technical drawing (See at least: [0034] Alternatively, the cameras may be used in connection with recognition software to capture and automatically compare the dimensions and structure of the undercarriage inspected to a database of schematics, makes, models and undercarriage clearance specifications relating to the specific make/model being inspected to make an initial indication of compliant undercarriage structure or to indicate that a deviation in the undercarriage is present that requires further inspection by the system or human intervention. The system may be used to inspect the underside of a vehicle by visual inspection with the camera and lighting elements or by laser inspection wherein a laser unit scans the undercarriage for detection of known and/or unknown conditions. The visual or laser inspection results are compared to a database containing the standard specifications and schematics of a variety of vehicles and/or carriages, for example, a train carriage or the undercarriage of a coach bus. This database is populated with and stores the specifications and standard dimensions, components, arrangement, positioning, depth etc. of the undercarriage of various makes and models. The inspection data gathered by the system is then compared for recognition. If the recognition process indicates there is an unknown or alternatively, a missing dimension or object in the undercarriage, a warning indicator is sent to the viewing unit, monitor and/or control pad.).
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly 17), Ramsey teaches wherein the comparison data comprises data regarding the vehicle, and wherein the analyzing comprises detecting a difference between the comparison data and the sensor data (See at least: [0034). Regarding claim 8 (and similarly 18), Ramsey teaches wherein the obtaining sensor data regarding the vehicle comprises obtaining sensor data regarding a portion of the vehicle that has been identified as potentially having an issue based on a previous analysis of a plurality of vehicles (See at least: [0034).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey in view of Reverie and further in view of Riley (US 20070040911 hereinafter Riley).
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly 16), Ramsey fails to teach the following limitation, but Riley teaches wherein the analyzing comprises submitting the sensor data to a machine learning classifier trained using the comparison data (See at least: [0056] via “In another embodiment, the data analysis element will comprise a digital logic system receiving digital data from the plurality of sensors and classifying the data using machine learning techniques such as simple template comparisons or more sophisticated approaches including various pattern recognition or data mining techniques, or a simple threshold based system, whereby a predetermined response (e.g. an alarm) is triggered anytime a certain parameter exceeds an allowable threshold.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ramsey in view of Riley to teach wherein the analyzing comprises submitting the sensor data to a machine learning classifier trained using the comparison data so that the vehicle inspection system can learn and improve its inspection method over time to catch any abnormalities on the under side of a vehicle.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey in view of Reverie and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20030033061 hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 9 (and similarly 19), Ramsey fails to teach the following limitation, but Chen teaches wherein the robot is further configured to retrieve vehicle data from an onboard computer of the vehicle, and wherein the back end system computer is further configured to receive the vehicle data from the robot (See at least: 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein step e) includes transferring the service data and the vehicle warranty data from the onboard computer to the portable handheld computing device and conducting a wireless transmission to transmit the service data and the vehicle warranty data from the portable handheld computing device to a remote location.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ramsey in view of Chen to teach wherein the robot is further configured to retrieve vehicle data from an onboard computer of the vehicle, and wherein the back end system computer is further configured to receive the vehicle data from the robot so that the vehicle inspection system can transfer the most recent vehicle data to the back end system for processing and determining the vehicle condition and next steps.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey in view of Reverie and further in view of Taveira et al. (US 20190310628 hereinafter Taveira).
Regarding claim 10 (and similarly 20), Ramsey fails to teach the following limitation, but Taveira teaches wherein the sending the alert comprises at least one of sending a text message or sending an email (See at least: [0106] via “For example, if the processor selects a local police office as the “safe” location to which the robotic vehicle will escape, an address of that police office may be transmitted to the owner or authorized operator. In some embodiments, the notification may be sent as an e-mail containing an indication of the “safe” location. In some embodiments, the notification may be sent as a text, Simple Message Service (SMS), Multimedia Message Service (MMS) or similar type message containing an indication of the “safe” location”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ramsey in view of Taveira to teach wherein the sending the alert comprises at least one of sending a text message or sending an email so an operator can be directly notified when an alert is generated while inspecting a vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights