Ex Parte Georgeson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 2017

12787226 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/787,226 05/25/2010 Gary E. Georgeson 10-0114-US-NP (24691-302) 4123 60476 7590 06/02/2017 PATENT DOCKET DEPARTMENT ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 EXAMINER PATTON, SPENCER D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): USpatents @ armstrongteasdale. com patentadmin @ boeing. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GARY E. GEORGESON, WILLIAM P. MOTZER, and JOSEPH L. HAFENRICHTER1 Appeal 2015-007859 Application 12/787,226 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1—20. Appeal Br. 1—2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company. See Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2015-007859 Application 12/787,226 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for maintaining an object using a control system, said method comprising: coupling at least one sensor to at least one of a plurality of serpentine bodies, each of the plurality of serpentine bodies sized to be inserted into an access defined in the object being maintained, wherein the at least one sensor is in communication with the control system; coupling at least one tool to the at least one of the plurality of serpentine bodies, wherein the at least one tool is in communication with the control system; transmitting sine waves through the at least one of the plurality of serpentine bodies, the transmitted sine waves causing the at least one of the plurality of serpentine bodies to move to a desired location in the object; inspecting, using the at least one sensor, the object at the desired location; determining, by the control system, whether at least a portion of the object satisfies at least one predefined quality standard associated with the object; and modifying the object using the at least one tool such that at least the portion of the object satisfies the at least one predefined quality standard. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chiel (US 2010/0287928 Al, pub. Nov. 18, 2010) and Buckingham (“Snake-arm robots: a new approach to aircraft assembly,” pub. Sept. 2007, SAE AeroTech Congress). Claims 2—4, 10-13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable of Chiel, Buckingham, and Safai (US 2006/0043303 Al, pub. Mar. 2, 2006). 2 Appeal 2015-007859 Application 12/787,226 Claims 5, 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chiel, Buckingham, and Tobey (US 2008/0302200 Al, pub. Dec. 11, 2008). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chiel, Buckingham, Safai, and Tobey. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 19 as unpatentable over Chiel and Buckingham Appellants argue claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 19 as a group. Appeal Br. 4—7. We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 6, 8, 9, 16, and 19 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner found that Chiel teaches the method of claim 1, except for coupling a sensor and tool to the serpentine bodies, inspecting an object, determining if a predefined quality standard is satisfied, and modifying the object. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner relied on Buckingham to teach a robotic snake-arm with sensors and tools that autonomously perform tasks such as inspection, sealing, and swaging. Id. at 4; Ans. 3^4. Appellants argue that Buckingham discloses fully automatic operation for routine tasks, except for quality control checks or inspections as claimed. Appeal Br. 5—6. Appellants argue that Buckingham teaches that an operator manually controls the snake-arm robot to perform maintenance checks. Id. at 6. Appellants argue that Buckingham does not teach a control system that automatically determines if an object satisfies a predefined quality standard, or modifies the object using a tool to satisfy the predefined quality standard. Id. Appellants argue that Buckingham discloses that future developments may include inspection and repair. Id. at 5. 3 Appeal 2015-007859 Application 12/787,226 Buckingham teaches robotic snake-arms configured with inspection, swaging, and sealing tools, wherein the swaging and sealant operations are performed automatically. Buckingham, 4. This teaching indicates that the robotic snake-arm system first determines if a portion of an object satisfies a predefined quality standard for swaged bolts or sealant and then modifies the object using a swaging or sealant tool to provide swaged bolts and sealant that meet predefined quality standards. Id. In fact, Buckingham teaches that “inspection is the most straightforward of the three tasks.” Id. Buckingham also teaches a system that was built to “snake into a rib bay to inspect, apply sealant, and swage lockbolts . . . .” Id. at 2. The Examiner’s finding that Buckingham teaches a robotic control system that determines if a portion of an object satisfies a predefined quality standard and then modifies the object to satisfy that standard is supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4—6. Buckingham’s robotic snake-arm automatically inspects, swages, and seals. Buckingham, 2, 4. The control system inspects a portion of a wing box using a non-contact end effector inspection tool to identify portions that need swaging or sealing. Id. at 4. The snake-arm uses a vision system to guide a swaging tool onto a bolt that does not meet a predefined standard and then swages lockbolts of 1/4”, 5/16”, and 3/8” to predefined quality standards. Id. Buckingham’s control system also operates a sealant tool to apply sealant to portions of an object that are identified as lacking sufficient sealant, and the robotic snake-arm “can drive the [sealant] tool along complex paths, such as following around a rib foot profile” to satisfy the predefined standards for sealing. Id. Non routine tasks and quality control checks require manual operation as they fall outside the three tasks automated for Buckingham’s project. Id. at 1, 2, 4. 4 Appeal 2015-007859 Application 12/787,226 However, even when semi-automatic operation is used, the operator merely initiates a program that the robot executes. Id. at 4. The operator drives the robot to a position where a task is to be completed and initiates a program that the robot executes automatically. Id. Thus, the control system determines a part of the object that does not meet a predefined standard and executes a program to bring that portion of the object up to standards. The Examiner also points out where Buckingham teaches that these snake-arm robots will be used for in-service inspection and repair, thereby providing a teaching to motivate a skilled artisan to provide such a system.2 Ans. 3^4. The Examiner reasons that this teaching would motivate a skilled artisan to develop robotic snake-arm systems that perform post-production inspection and repair using similar tools and controls to those disclosed by Buckingham for inspecting, swaging, and sealing for “production.” Id. at 4. Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. For example, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not supported the finding that skilled artisans can program robots to operate autonomously and to perform inspections and repairs. Reply Br. 1; Appeal Br. 5. Buckingham describes fully autonomous operation and even semi- autonomous operation that involves fully automatic operation of programs by the robotic snake-arm, as discussed above. These programs require the control system to identify portions of objects that do not meet predefined quality standards for swaging and sealant and then perform swaging and sealing to improve those portions without any human intervention. 2 Buckingham teaches that other tasks include engine inspection and repair, deburring, drilling, extracting foreign bodies, installing components, inserting wire looms, welding, leak detection, non-destructive testing, nut running, painting, removing debris, and thermal imaging. Buckingham, 5. 5 Appeal 2015-007859 Application 12/787,226 We find that the automated tasks performed in Buckingham satisfy claim 1 by inspecting an aircraft to identify portions that lack sealant or swaged bolts and operating a robotic snake-arm under a control to modify the aircraft to meet predefined quality standards for sealing and swaging. Claim 1 requires no more. Automatic programs that meet production quality standards satisfy the requirements of claim 1 and “maintain” an object, as recited in the intended use in the preamble of claim 1. Buckingham teaches the suitability and desirability of its automatic snake-arm for post-production inspection, maintenance, and repair tasks that also use sensors and machine vision operating under a control system to identify features of objects that do not meet predefined quality standards (such as the end of a sealant bead) and automated tools to modify those portions to meet standards. Buckingham, 5. The Examiner’s reason for combining these features with Chiel also is supported by a rational underpinning in that both references teach the use of snake-arms for inspections and maintenance so that Buckingham’s features would enhance the ability of Chiefs snake-arm to perform such functions. Final Act. 4—5. Appellants’ argument that there is no teaching that Chiefs mesh body could be used with an industrial robot does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings and reasons for combining the teachings of both references. See Appeal Br. 6—7. In this regard, Chiel teaches the use of its snake-arms with robots to provide locomotion capabilities. Chiel 1 5. Chiel also teaches the use of its snake-arms for inspections and repairs of pipelines, plumbing systems, and buildings to carry many different tools and associated actuators, spare parts, and viewing devices (i.e., sensors). Id. Tffl 4, 80. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 19. 6 Appeal 2015-007859 Application 12/787,226 Claims 2—5, 7, 10—15, 17, 18, and 20 as unpatentable over Chiel, Buckingham, and Safai/Tobey The Examiner relies on Safai and Tobey to teach or suggest features of dependent claims 2—5, 7, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20. See Final Act. 7—11. Appellants argue that Safai and Tobey do not cure the deficiencies of Chiel and Buckingham as to claims 1 and 9 from which these claims depend. See Appeal Br. 7. As we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 9, this argument is not persuasive. Thus, we sustain the rejections of claims 2—5, 7, 10—13, 15, 17, 18, and 20. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1—20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7