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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-18, 199, 200 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryner et al (US 20200264614) in view of Brignac (US 20190128850).
As per claim 1, Bryner teaches the following:
collecting inspection surface data at a first location proximate to an inspection surface of an asset at para 1067-9;
transmitting the inspection surface data to a second location distinct from the first location at para 1063, 1077;
receiving an inspection control parameter from the second location; and
performing an inspection operation with an inspection robot having a sensor, in response to the inspection control parameter, wherein the inspection control parameter comprises an inspection trajectory value at para 235, 239, 1065, 1067, Fig 175.
Bryner does not teach a phased array sensor, but Brignac does teach a phased array sensor in a pipe inspection device at Fig 5, para 26, 52.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bryner with a phased sensor array of Brignac in order to enhance precision and performance such as scanning broader areas.
As per claim 2, Bryner teaches inspection surface description and data collected the the robot operating on the surface at para 291-293.
As per claim 3, Bryner teaches analyzing inspection data and determining the control parameter at para 742, 746.
As per claim 4, Bryner teaches an inspection robot configuration parameter at para 663.
As per claim 5, Bryner teaches configuring a payload or circuit layout of the inspection robot at para 305.
As per claim 6, Bryner teaches configuring a sensor selection value at para 293.
As per claim 7, Bryner teaches performing an inspection of the surface at para 235.
As per claim 8, Bryner teaches moving the robot in response to the trajectory value at para 1006 and Fig 98.
As per claims 9 and 15, Bryner teaches the following:
an inspection surface description circuit structured to interpret inspection surface data from a sensor at para 1067-9 and 21102 of Fig 209, 217;
a remote inspection evaluation circuit structured to transmit the inspection surface data to an external device, and to receive an inspection control parameter from the external device at Figs 208- 209, and an inspection execution circuit structured to perform an inspection operation configure in response to the inspection control parameter at para 1063, 1077,
wherein the inspection control parameter comprises an inspection trajectory value at para 235, 239, 1065, 1067, Figs 175, 208-209.
Bryner does not teach a phased array sensor, but Brignac does teach a phased array sensor in a pipe inspection device at Fig 5, para 26, 52.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bryner with a phased sensor array of Brignac in order to enhance precision and performance such as scanning broader areas.
As per claim 10, Bryner teaches controlling motive operations at para 1006 and Fig 98.
As per claim 11, Bryner teaches transmitting the inspection trajectory value to a robot controller at para 235, 239, 1065, 1067, Fig 175.
As per claims 12 and 16, inspection data received from the robot at para 235.
As per claims 13 and 17, Bryner teaches an inspection robot configuration parameter at para 293.
As per claim 14, Bryner teaches configure an aspect of the robot at para 1006 and Fig 98.
As per claim 18, Bryner teaches a couplant flow rate at Fig 165 and para 270.
As per claim 199, Bryner teaches indicating robot to active at a region at para 314.
As per claim 200, Bryner teaches defines a wait time at para 1030.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E BREENE whose telephone number is (571)272-4107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571)272-4483. 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.
/JOHN E BREENE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights