Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. The following is a Non-Final, first Office Action responsive to Application Serial Number: 19075998 filed on 03/11/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application and have been rejected below.
Claim Interpretation
3. Examiner notes that, in Claim 16, Applicant is claiming “A computer program product .. comprising: a computer-readable storage media”. Such computer-readable storage media may be broadly interpreted as signals per se which do not fall under the four categories of statutory subject matter (see MPEP 2106.03(I)). However, Applicant states at paragraph 95 of the Specification that “In these illustrative examples, computer- readable storage media 724 is a physical or tangible storage device used to store program code 718 rather than a medium that propagates or transmits program code 718. Computer readable storage media 724, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se”.
Examiner is therefore interpreting the “The computer program product” of Claims 16-20 as consisting of non-transitory computer-readable storage media to ensure statutory subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process), system (machine) or product (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
6. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A method for estimating reliability of a human inspection of a production system, the method comprising: identifying human inspection variables specific to the human inspection; assigning a weighting to the human inspection variables; receiving environment input about the human inspection variables, wherein the environment input is specific to the human inspection; and calculating an assessment of the reliability of the human inspection based on the received environment input, which under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in light of the Specification, is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, particularly fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because estimating reliability of a human inspection of a production system and receiving environment input about the human inspection variables is a business practice for mitigating risk, involving commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Furthermore, it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion), because identifying human inspection variables specific to the human inspection, assigning a weight to the variables, and calculating an assessment of the reliability of the human inspection based on the received environment input is a process that can be performed in the mind since it involves observation, evaluation and judgement. Claims 14 and 16 recite a similar abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because independent Claims 1, 14 and 16, including additional elements such as a computer system, A computer program product, a computer-readable storage media, first program code, second program code, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B of the analysis, independent Claims 1, 14 and 16 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because any such additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 7 and paragraphs 27-31, 53, 86-93 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant independent Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-13, 15 and 17-20 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent Claims from which they depend, and recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 7-12 and 15 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two for dependent Claims 2-6,13 and 17-20, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because these dependent claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for the independent claims and a graphical user interface, third program code, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 7-12 and 15 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-6,13 and 17-20 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because any such additional elements such as those listed above for the independent claims and a graphical user interface, third program code, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 7 and paragraphs 27-31, 53, 86-93 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 7- 9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US Publication Number 20020082788 A1 - hereinafter Smith).
9. As per Claim 1, Smith teaches:
A method for estimating reliability of a human inspection of a production system [SMITH reads on: Abstract (operation may be an inspection process); para 5 (quantifying the effectiveness of an inspection process); para 14 (qualifications or experience of personnel); para 35 (inspection for correct manufacture)], the method comprising:
identifying human inspection variables specific to the human inspection [SMITH reads on: Fig. 1; para 8 (identifying a set of performance shaping factors is identifying human inspection variables specific to the human inspection); para 52 (“Working Hours”, “Accessibility”)];
assigning a weighting to the human inspection variables [SMITH reads on: para 9 (allocating a probability value to each performance shaping factor)];
receiving environment input about the human inspection variables, wherein the environment input is specific to the human inspection [SMITH reads on: para 4 (environment in which inspection takes place); para 14 (conditions under which operation steps are carried out may include .. experience of personnel .., ambient conditions)]; and
calculating an assessment of the reliability of the human inspection based on the received environment input [SMITH reads on: para 11, para 20 (calculating .. an effectiveness value); para 21 (probability of undetected failure of the component); Claim 15 (single objective figure representing the effectiveness of the inspection procedure)].
10. As per Claim 7, Smith teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the human inspection variables [as above, Claim 1] comprise:
a set of attributes; and a set of performance shaping factors related to each attribute of the set of attributes [SMITH reads on: Fig. 1 (EFFECTIVE PERSONNEL, TASK COMPLEXITY are a set of attributes; EXPERIENCE, ACCESSABILITY are a set of performance shaping factors related to each attribute of the set of attributes)].
11. As per Claim 8, Smith teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein each performance shaping factor of the set of performance shaping factors [as above, Claim 7] is
associated with weighted criteria of the environment input [SMITH reads on: Fig. 5 (PSF PARENTS, PROB., EXPERIENCE – 0.9, ACCESSABILITY – 0.5 are associated with weighted criteria of the environment input)].
12. As per Claim 9, Smith teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the environment input received about the human inspection variables [as above, Claim 1] comprises
weighted criteria, the weighted criteria specific to the human inspection [SMITH reads on: Fig. 5, as above, Claim 8] and
an environment which the human inspection was performed in [SMITH reads on: para 4 (environment in which inspection takes place)].
13. As per Claim 11, Smith teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the human inspection variables [as above, Claim 1] comprise:
a set of attributes; a set of performance shaping factors related to each attribute of the set of attributes [SMITH reads on: Fig. 1, as above, Claim 7]; and
weighted criteria of the environment input associated with each performance shaping factor of the set of performance shaping factors [SMITH reads on: Fig. 5 (PSF PARENTS, PROB.)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
35 U.S.C. 103 forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
15. Claims 2, 4-6, 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Toth et al. (US Publication Number 20200394784 A1 - hereinafter Toth).
16. As per Claim 2, Smith teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above, Claim 1], further comprising:
Smith further teaches:
using a computer system to perform the steps of receiving the environment input about the human inspection variables and calculating the assessment of the reliability of the human inspection [SMITH reads on: para 24 (methods .. are embodied in computer programs, .. a computer programmed to perform a method)]; and
wherein the computer system further performs the step of: displaying results of the assessment [TOTH reads on: para 43 (identify and assess defects); para 44 (general-purpose computer; generation of an output report); para 46 (output report may be provided .. through the user interface of an interactive application for a mobile device); para 70 (inspection reports may be generated and displayed on a graphical user interface)].
Smith does not explicitly teach, but Toth more explicitly teaches:
wherein the computer system further performs the step of: displaying results of the assessment [TOTH reads on: para 43 (identify and assess defects); para 44 (general-purpose computer; generation of an output report); para 46 (output report may be provided .. through the user interface of an interactive application for a mobile device); para 70 (inspection reports may be generated and displayed on a graphical user interface)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Toth in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include wherein the computer system further performs the step of: displaying results of the assessment. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith by efficiently reporting results. See Toth, Fig. 10, Inspection Report.
17. As per Claim 4, Smith in view of Toth teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the computer system further performs the step of: displaying results of the assessment, wherein the results displayed [as above, Claim 2] are
Smith further teaches:
an overall assessment of the reliability of the human inspection [SMITH reads on: para 11 (calculating .. an effectiveness value representing the effectiveness of the operation); para 20 (effectiveness value representing the effectiveness of the inspection); para 62 (conditional probability values)] including acceptable or unacceptable [SMITH reads on: para 23 (probability of undetected failure .. withdrawing the equipment from operational service or continuing operational service)] based on a calculated probability of success [SMITH reads on: para 62 (calculate the probability of inspection success)] and a calculated estimated range of success [SMITH reads on: para 63 (probability of success ranges from 0.2-1.0)].
18. As per Claim 5, Smith in view of Toth teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the computer system further performs the step of: displaying results of the assessment, wherein the results displayed [as above, Claim 2] include
Smith further teaches:
a calculated probability of success in the form of a first percentage [SMITH reads on: para 63 (inspection will be 100% effective)] and a calculated estimated range of success in the form of a second percentage [SMITH reads on: para 63 (probability of inspection success being within the range 0.2-1.0 is the mathematical equivalent of 20%-100%); para 70 (estimate these probabilities at 85% (0.85) good and 15% (0.15) poor)].
19. As per Claim 6, Smith in view of Toth teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the receiving environment input about the human inspection variables [as above, Claim 2] is
Smith does not explicitly teach, but Toth further teaches:
captured through use of a graphical user interface of the computer system [TOTH reads on: Figs. 10-12; paras 46, 70, as above, Claim 2].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith in view of Toth to incorporate the further teachings of Toth in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include captured through use of a graphical user interface of the computer system. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith by efficiently reporting results.
20. As per Claim 13, Smith in view of Toth teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the computer system [as above, Claim 2] further performs the step of:
Smith further teaches:
providing recommendations for improvement for each human inspection variable based on the assessment [SMITH reads on: para 88 (process of deriving the effectiveness value focuses on the individual performance shaping factors .. determine areas of the inspection process which can be modified to improve the effectiveness value)].
21. As per Claim 14, Smith teaches:
A human inspection reliability evaluation system [SMITH reads on: Abstract, paras 5, 35, as above, Claim 1] comprising:
a computer system [SMITH reads on: para 24 (computer programmed to perform a method)];
a set of attributes relating to a production system [SMITH reads on: Fig. 1, as above, Claim 7] and an environment in which a human inspection of the production system is to be performed in [SMITH reads on: para 4, as above, Claim 9];
a set of performance shaping factors related to each attribute of the set of attributes [SMITH reads on: Fig. 1, as above, Claim 7];
weighted criteria of environment input, the weighted criteria related to each performance shaping factor of the set of performance shaping factors [SMITH reads on: Fig. 5, as above, Claim 8]; and
wherein the computer system: receives the environment input relating to the set of performance shaping factors specific to the human inspection [SMITH reads on: paras 4, 14, as above, Claim 1;
calculates an assessment of the reliability of the human inspection using the weighted criteria associated with the environment input received relating to the set of performance shaping factors [SMITH reads on: paras 11, 20, 21, Claim 15, as above, Claim 1]; and …
… an overall assessment of the reliability of the human inspection including acceptable or unacceptable based on a calculated probability of success and a calculated estimated range of success [SMITH reads on: paras 11, 20, 23, 62, 63 as above, Claim 4].
Smith does not explicitly teach, but Toth more explicitly teaches:
… displays results of the assessment, wherein the results displayed [TOTH reads on: paras 43, 44, 46, as above, Claim 2] include …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Toth in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include displays results of the assessment. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith by efficiently reporting results.
22. Claims 3 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Toth in further view of Chokappa et al. (US Publication Number 20220138701 A1 - hereinafter Chokappa).
23. As per Claim 3, Smith in view of Toth teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the computer system further performs the step of: displaying results of the assessment, wherein the results displayed [as above, Claim 2] are
Smith in view of Toth does not explicitly teach, but Chokappa teaches:
color coded and each color indicates a status for each human inspection variable of no action needed [CHOKAPPA reads on: para 21, 27 (visual inspection); para 42 (highlight/identify portions of a component 20 that have been scanned in a first color (e.g., green)); para 43 (highlight portions of the component 20 for which sufficient data has been obtained (e.g., via scanning) in a first color (e.g., green))], consider improvement [CHOKAPPA reads on: para 43 (highlight portions for which some data/insufficient data has been obtained in a third color (e.g., yellow/orange))], or needing attention [CHOKAPPA reads on: para 42 (highlight portions that have not been scanned in a second color (e.g., red)); para 43 (highlight portions for which no data has been obtained in a second color (e.g., red))].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith in view of Toth to incorporate the teachings of Chokappa in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include color coded and each color indicates a status for each human inspection variable of no action needed, consider improvement, or needing attention. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith in view of Toth by efficiently determining types of defects. See Chokappa, Abstract, “evaluating the defect to determine, according to the defect type, whether to repair the defect or to replace a section of the component containing the defect”.
24. As per Claim 15, Smith in view of Toth teaches:
The system of claim 14, wherein the results displayed [as above, Claim 14] are
Smith further teaches:
… each performance shaping factor of the set of performance shaping factors [SMITH, as above, Claim 14] comprising …
Smith in view of Toth does not explicitly teach, but Chokappa teaches:
… color coded and each color indicates a status for … one of no action needed, consider improvement, or needing attention [CHOKAPPA reads on: paras 42, 43, as above, Claim 3].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith in view of Toth to incorporate the teachings of Chokappa in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include color coded and each color indicates a status for … one of no action needed, consider improvement, or needing attention. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith in view of Toth by efficiently determining types of defects.
25. Claims 10 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Summers (US Publication Number 20050065842 A1 - hereinafter Summers).
26. As per Claim 10, Smith teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the human inspection variables [as above, Claim 1] comprise:
Smith further teaches:
a set of attributes; a set of performance shaping factors related to each attribute of the set of attributes; and wherein each performance shaping factor of the set of performance shaping factors [SMITH reads on: Fig. 1, as above, Claim 7] is
Smith does not explicitly teach, but Summers teaches:
a question pertaining to a respective related attribute and an environment which the human inspection was performed in [SUMMERS reads on: para 16 (frequency-of-occurrence data associated with the inspection process are in question is a question pertaining to a respective related attribute; information about improved repair practices .. is known .. but not collected and indexed in a useable manner is an environment which the human inspection was performed in)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Summers in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include a question pertaining to a respective related attribute and an environment which the human inspection was performed in. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith by efficiently managing changes. See Summers, paragraph 21 “The change control process 19 of the present invention will receive and analyze all proposed changes to the standard baseline, and determine what impact those proposed change[s] have on the standard baseline information”.
27. As per Claim 12, Smith teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the human inspection variables [as above, Claim 1] are
Smith does not explicitly teach, but Summers teaches:
tailored to the production system based on human factors engineering [SUMMERS reads on: paras 54-56 (Maintenance Provider environment .. The combination of these data sources will greatly improve the quality of the inspection process. This is important from a Human Factors standpoint); paras 89, 94-96, 100].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Summers in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include (wherein the human inspection variables are) tailored to the production system based on human factors engineering. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith by efficiently managing human factors. See Summers, paragraph 17 “In today's environment, the inspection and repair process is greatly dependent on the experience level of the inspectors and mechanics”.
28. Claims 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Chokappa.
29. As per Claim 16, Smith teaches:
A computer program product for estimating reliability of an inspection of a production system, the computer program product [SMITH reads on: Abstract, paras 5, 24, 35, as above, Claim 14] comprising: …
…collect environment input about human inspection variables specific to the inspection, wherein the human inspection variables includes a weighting [SMITH reads on: Fig. 1, paras 4, 8, 9, 14, as above, Claim 1]; and
… calculate an assessment of the reliability of the inspection based on the collected environment input, wherein the assessment [SMITH reads on: paras 11, 20, 21, Claim 15, as above, Claim 1] is used to provide recommendations for improvement for each human inspection variable [SMITH reads on: para 88, as above, Claim 13].
Smith does not explicitly teach, but Chokappa teaches:
… a computer-readable storage media; first program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by a computer system to cause the computer system [CHOKAPPA reads on: para 51 (programmable microprocessor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, programming instructions); para 59] to …
… second program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by the computer system to cause the computer system [CHOKAPPA, as above] to …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Chokappa in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include a computer-readable storage media; first program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by a computer system, second program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by the computer system. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith by efficiently carrying out the inspection process. See Chokappa, Abstract, “A maintenance method for servicing a component includes generating, via an electronic control unit, a digital model of the component, detecting, via the electronic control unit, a defect of the component, classifying, via the electronic control unit, the defect as a defect type, and evaluating the defect to determine, according to the defect type, whether to repair the defect or to replace a section of the component containing the defect”.
30. As per Claim 17, Smith in view of Chokappa teaches:
The computer program product of claim 16 [as above, Claim 16] further comprising:
Smith does not explicitly teach, but Chokappa further teaches:
third program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by the computer system [CHOKAPPA, as above, Claim 16] to
display results of the assessment, wherein the results displayed [CHOKAPPA reads on: para 42 (highlighting/identifying those portions on the display)] are
color coded and each color indicates a status for each human inspection variable of no action needed, consider improvement, or needing attention [CHOKAPPA reads on: paras 21, 27, 42, 43, as above, Claim 3].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith in view of Chokappa to incorporate the further teachings of Chokappa in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include third program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by the computer system to display results of the assessment, wherein the results displayed are color coded and each color indicates a status for each human inspection variable of no action needed, consider improvement, or needing attention. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith in view of Chokappa by efficiently carrying out the inspection process.
See Chokappa, Abstract, “A maintenance method for servicing a component includes generating, via an electronic control unit, a digital model of the component, detecting, via the electronic control unit, a defect of the component, classifying, via the electronic control unit, the defect as a defect type, and evaluating the defect to determine, according to the defect type, whether to repair the defect or to replace a section of the component containing the defect”.
31. As per Claim 18, Smith in view of Chokappa teaches:
The computer program product of claim 16 [as above, Claim 16] further comprising: …
Smith further teaches:
… an overall assessment of the reliability of the inspection including acceptable or unacceptable based on a calculated probability of success and a calculated estimated range of success [SMITH reads on: paras 11, 20, 23, 62, as above, Claim 4].
Smith does not explicitly teach, but Chokappa further teaches:
third program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by the computer system [CHOKAPPA, as above, Claim 16] to
display results of the assessment, wherein the results displayed [CHOKAPPA, as above, Claim 17] are …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith in view of Chokappa to incorporate the further teachings of Chokappa in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include third program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by the computer system to display results of the assessment. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith in view of Chokappa by efficiently carrying out the inspection process.
32. As per Claim 19, Smith in view of Chokappa teaches:
The computer program product of claim 16 [as above, Claim 16] further comprising: …
Smith further teaches:
… a calculated probability of success in the form of a first percentage and a calculated estimated range of success in the form of a second percentage [SMITH reads on: paras 63, 70, as above, Claim 5].
Smith does not explicitly teach, but Chokappa further teaches:
third program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by the computer system to display results of the assessment, wherein the results displayed [CHOKAPPA, as above, Claim 18] include …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith in view of Chokappa to incorporate the further teachings of Chokappa in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include third program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by the computer system to display results of the assessment. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith in view of Chokappa by efficiently carrying out the inspection process.
33. As per Claim 20, Smith in view of Chokappa teaches:
The computer program product of claim 16 wherein, the first program code [as above, Claim 16]
Smith further teaches:
collects the environment input about the human inspection variables [SMITH reads on: paras 4, 14, as above, Claim 1] through use of
Smith does not explicitly teach, but Chokappa further teaches:
a graphical user interface of the computer system [CHOKAPPA reads on: para 51 (ECU, I/O interface, touch-screen display)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith in view of Chokappa to incorporate the further teachings of Chokappa in the same field of endeavor of inspection management to include third program code, stored on the computer-readable storage media, executable by the computer system to display results of the assessment. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the inspection management of Smith in view of Chokappa by efficiently carrying out the inspection process.
Conclusion
34. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chadwick (US Publication Number 20160055442 A1) describes systems and methods for real-time assessment of human operators based on performance assessment criteria.
Hall et al. (US Publication Number 20030229509 A1) describes a system and method for risk assessment of a structure using previously quantified drop-down menus or boxes from which an inspector can choose defined selections based upon initial selections by the inspector, such as defining the location and environment of the structure.
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights