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 § 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, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colin et al. (US PGPub. No. 2016/0264262).
Regarding claim 1, Colin discloses a method comprising:
storing a multi-dimensional representation of an aircraft in a data storage [10, 50] (¶0024);
causing transmission of the multi-dimensional representation of the aircraft and first control instructions to a robot for performing a first autonomous operation on the aircraft, the robot configured to identify the aircraft based on the multi-dimensional representation, the aircraft located at a premises (¶0015, ¶0038, ¶0040, ¶0069, ¶0084-0087, ¶0093, ¶0110-0111, ¶0127, ¶0153; Examiner notes Colin’s control center sends updated aircraft identification information and follow-up instructions to the inspection robot following detection of aircraft peculiarities by the inspection robot, and further that aircraft identification information includes at least geometric and graphical characteristics of the aircraft, which are a type of “multi-dimensional representation of the aircraft”; furthermore, first control instructions are understood to comprise instructions for performing initial inspection of aircraft);
processing sensor data generated at the premises (¶0065, ¶0070-0080, ¶0089, ¶0116);
generating second control instructions for performing a second autonomous operation on the aircraft based on the sensor data (¶0089, ¶0118-0122, ¶0145; second control instructions are understood to include some follow-up action once an anomaly is detected and communicated to the control center); and
causing transmission of the second control instructions to the robot for performing the second autonomous operation on the aircraft (¶0089, ¶0118-0122, ¶0145).
Regarding claim 8, Colin discloses a computing system, comprising:
one or more processors [50]; and
one or more computer-readable media including a sequence of instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
store a multi-dimensional representation of an aircraft in a data storage [10, 50] (¶0024, ¶0123);
cause transmission of the multi-dimensional representation of the aircraft and first control instructions to a robot for performing a first autonomous operation on the aircraft, the robot configured to identify the aircraft based on the multi-dimensional representation, the aircraft located at a premises (¶0015, ¶0038, ¶0040, ¶0069, ¶0084-0087, ¶0093, ¶0110-0111, ¶0127, ¶0153; Examiner notes Colin’s control center sends updated aircraft identification information and follow-up instructions to the inspection robot following detection of aircraft peculiarities by the inspection robot, and further that aircraft identification information includes at least geometric and graphical characteristics of the aircraft, which are a type of “multi-dimensional representation of the aircraft”; furthermore, first control instructions are understood to comprise instructions for performing initial inspection of aircraft);
receive sensor data generated at the premises (¶0065, ¶0070-0080, ¶0089, ¶0116);
generate second control instructions for performing a second autonomous operation on the aircraft based on the sensor data (¶0089, ¶0118-0122, ¶0145; second control instructions are understood to include some follow-up action once an anomaly is detected and communicated to the control center); and
cause transmission of the second control instructions to the robot for performing the second autonomous operation on the aircraft (¶0089, ¶0118-0122, ¶0145).
Regarding claim 15, Colin discloses one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media including a sequence of instructions that, when executed, causes one or more processors [50] to:
store a multi-dimensional representation of an aircraft in a data storage [10, 50] (¶0024, ¶0123);
cause transmission of the multi-dimensional representation of the aircraft and first control instructions to a robot for performing a first autonomous operation on the aircraft, the robot configured to identify the aircraft based on the multi-dimensional representation, the aircraft located at a premises (¶0015, ¶0038, ¶0040, ¶0069, ¶0084-0087, ¶0093, ¶0110-0111, ¶0127, ¶0153; Examiner notes Colin’s control center sends updated aircraft identification information and follow-up instructions to the inspection robot following detection of aircraft peculiarities by the inspection robot, and further that aircraft identification information includes at least geometric and graphical characteristics of the aircraft, which are a type of “multi-dimensional representation of the aircraft”; furthermore, first control instructions are understood to comprise instructions for performing initial inspection of aircraft);
receive sensor data generated at the premises (¶0065, ¶0070-0080, ¶0089, ¶0116);
generate second control instructions for performing a second autonomous operation on the aircraft based on the sensor data (¶0089, ¶0118-0122, ¶0145; second control instructions are understood to include some follow-up action once an anomaly is detected and communicated to the control center); and
cause transmission of the second control instructions to the robot for performing the second autonomous operation on the aircraft (¶0089, ¶0118-0122, ¶0145).
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) 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colin as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Willemsen et al. (US PGPub. No. 2022/0385711).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Colin discloses the method of claim 1 (Colin ¶0015, ¶0024, ¶0038, ¶0040, ¶0065, ¶0069-0080, ¶0084-0087, ¶0089, ¶0093, ¶0110-0111, ¶0116, ¶0118-0122, ¶0127, ¶0145, ¶0153), wherein the sensor data is transmitted to an external analysis service, and wherein second control instructions are further based on an analysis from the external analysis service (Colin ¶0015, ¶0038, ¶0089, ¶0118-0122), but appears to be silent on the use of an application programming interface for transmission of sensor data to the external analysis service.
Willemsen, however, teaches a server that receives sensor data from an unmanned vehicle via an application programming interface (API) and shares stored sensor data with authorized clients via the API (Willemsen Abstract, ¶0006, ¶0011, ¶0026). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Colin in view of Willemsen. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Colin, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include the use of an application programming interface for transmission of sensor data to the external analysis service, as doing so was a known way of facilitating sensor data transmission to and from a remote server, as recognized by Willemsen (Willemsen Abstract, ¶0006, ¶0011, ¶0026).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Colin in view of Willemsen teaches the computing system of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively (Colin ¶0015, ¶0024, ¶0038, ¶0040, ¶0065, ¶0069-0080, ¶0084-0087, ¶0089, ¶0093, ¶0110-0111, ¶0116, ¶0118-0122, ¶0127, ¶0145, ¶0153), wherein the data storage comprises a file store and a database, wherein the sensor data is stored in the file store and associated metadata is stored in the database (Willemsen ¶0023-0024, ¶0030-0031), and wherein the sequence of instructions that, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
update the associated metadata to indicate a state of a part of the aircraft associated with the second autonomous operation (Willemsen ¶0030-0031; Examiner notes the functionality to ‘provide annotations to supplement the stored text metadata’ represents a type of updating), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 4, 11, and 18, above .
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colin as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Laurberg et al. (US PGPub. No. 2020/0238324).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Colin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second autonomous operation is on a part of the aircraft, but appears to be silent on the method further wherein the part is a fastener, and wherein the second control instructions comprise repairing the fastener.
Laurberg, however, teaches a repair robot for use on aerodynamic surfaces that includes a screwing tool for tightening bolts (Laurberg ¶0061-0062). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Colin in view of Laurberg. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Colin, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include wherein the part is a fastener, and wherein the second control instructions comprise repairing the fastener, as doing so was a known way of maintaining aerodynamic surfaces that include fasteners, as recognized by Laurberg (Laurberg ¶0061-0062).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-7, 10, 13-14, 17, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 3, 10, and 17, Examiner deems a method comprising: storing a multi-dimensional representation of an aircraft in a data storage; causing transmission of the multi-dimensional representation of the aircraft and first control instructions to a robot for performing a first autonomous operation on the aircraft, the robot configured to identify the aircraft based on the multi-dimensional representation, the aircraft located at a premises; processing sensor data generated at the premises; generating second control instructions for performing a second autonomous operation on the aircraft based on the sensor data; and causing transmission of the second control instructions to the robot for performing the second autonomous operation on the aircraft wherein the data storage comprises a file store and a database, wherein the sensor data is stored in the file store and associated metadata is stored in the database, and wherein the method further comprises: determining an identification of a part of the aircraft; identifying an associated metadata instance of the part based on the determined identification of the part; accessing a point cloud of the aircraft based on the determined identification of the part; and determining a path to the aircraft based on the accessed point cloud to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a method for an aircraft inspection robot wherein the data storage comprises a file store and a database, wherein the sensor data is stored in the file store and associated metadata is stored in the database, and wherein the method further comprises: determining an identification of a part of the aircraft; identifying an associated metadata instance of the part based on the determined identification of the part; accessing a point cloud of the aircraft based on the determined identification of the part; and determining a path to the aircraft based on the accessed point cloud.
Regarding claim(s) 6, 13, and 20, Examiner deems a method comprising: storing a multi-dimensional representation of an aircraft in a data storage; causing transmission of the multi-dimensional representation of the aircraft and first control instructions to a robot for performing a first autonomous operation on the aircraft, the robot configured to identify the aircraft based on the multi-dimensional representation, the aircraft located at a premises; processing sensor data generated at the premises; generating second control instructions for performing a second autonomous operation on the aircraft based on the sensor data; and causing transmission of the second control instructions to the robot for performing the second autonomous operation on the aircraft wherein the method further comprises: determining receipt of the sensor data; causing transmission of a notification of the received sensor data to an analysis service; and receiving a request from the analysis service for the sensor data, wherein the sensor data is transmitted to the analysis service based on the request to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a method for an aircraft inspection robot wherein the method further comprises: determining receipt of the sensor data; causing transmission of a notification of the received sensor data to an analysis service; and receiving a request from the analysis service for the sensor data, wherein the sensor data is transmitted to the analysis service based on the request.
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 14, Examiner deems a method comprising: storing a multi-dimensional representation of an aircraft in a data storage; causing transmission of the multi-dimensional representation of the aircraft and first control instructions to a robot for performing a first autonomous operation on the aircraft, the robot configured to identify the aircraft based on the multi-dimensional representation, the aircraft located at a premises; processing sensor data generated at the premises; generating second control instructions for performing a second autonomous operation on the aircraft based on the sensor data; and causing transmission of the second control instructions to the robot for performing the second autonomous operation on the aircraft wherein the sensor data comprising image data of a part of the aircraft associated with the second autonomous operation and electrical parameters of the aircraft to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a method for an aircraft inspection robot wherein the sensor data comprising image data of a part of the aircraft associated with the second autonomous operation and electrical parameters of the aircraft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights