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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-4, 14 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A). All citations to Crinklaw unless specified otherwise.
Re claim 1, Crinklaw et al. show a robotic vehicle (Fig. 2) comprising:
a chassis (200) supporting a storage tank (218) in which an aqueous solution is contained;
a mobility assembly (202a-202d) operably coupled to the chassis to provide mobility for the robotic vehicle about a service area;
a positioning module (236) configured to provide guidance for the robotic vehicle during transit of the robotic vehicle over the service area;
a spray assembly (217) operably coupled to the storage tank to spray the aqueous solution during the transit of the robotic vehicle over the service area; and
control circuitry (300) operably coupled (Fig. 3) to the spray assembly (via 312, 314) and positioning module (via 352), the control circuitry being configured to adjust characteristics of the spray assembly or speed of the mobility assembly to control an amount of the aqueous solution applied to the service area (paragraph 0052),
wherein the spray assembly comprises a nozzle interface (228), disposed in a slot (see annotated figure), is configured to measure a pressure (312/314) of a nozzle of the spray assembly to determine a flow rate of the aqueous solution (paragraph 0055).
PNG
media_image1.png
870
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Crinklaw et al. does not teach the nozzle interface comprising contacts for enabling electrical interface with a nozzle and that is configured to measure a differential pressure across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle.
However, Erdmann et al. show a nozzle interface comprising contacts for enabling electrical interface with a nozzle and that is configured to measure a differential pressure (Fig. 8, 112) across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle (paragraphs 0089 & 0090).
The substitution of one known element (pressure sensor in Crinklaw) for another (differential pressure gauge as shown in Erdmann) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the differential pressure gauge shown in Erdmann et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a pressure detection in Crinklaw et al. to detect a pressure (Crinklaw – paragraph 0055; Erdmann – paragraph 0089).
Re claim 2, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. show a pump (220) to provide pressure for spraying the aqueous solution, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to maintain a constant pressure of the pump while adjusting the speed of the mobility assembly to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 3, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. show a pump (220) to provide pressure for spraying the aqueous solution, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to maintain a constant speed of the mobility assembly while adjusting pressure of the pump to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 4, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. show a pump (220) to provide pressure for spraying the aqueous solution, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to adjust both a pressure of the pump and the speed of the mobility assembly to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 14, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose a spray pattern of the spray assembly is adjustable (paragraph 0049).
Re claim 18, Crinklaw et al. show a spray assembly for a robotic vehicle (Figs. 2 & 3), the spray assembly comprising:
a pump (220) operably coupled to a storage tank (212) in which an aqueous solution is contained;
a nozzle (228) operably coupled to the storage tank via the pump to generate a spray pattern for spraying the aqueous solution responsive to operation of the pump as the robotic vehicle transits a service area; and
a flow controller (300) comprising processing circuitry,
wherein the flow controller is configured to adjust characteristics of the pump or speed of the robotic vehicle to control an amount of the aqueous solution applied to the service area (paragraph 0055)
wherein the spray assembly comprises a nozzle interface (228), disposed in a slot (see annotated figure), is configured to measure a pressure (312/314) of a nozzle of the spray assembly to determine a flow rate of the aqueous solution (paragraph 0055).
Crinklaw et al. does not teach the nozzle interface comprising contacts for enabling electrical interface with a nozzle and that is configured to measure a differential pressure across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle.
However, Erdmann et al. show a nozzle interface comprising contacts for enabling electrical interface with a nozzle and that is configured to measure a differential pressure (Fig. 8, 112) across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle (paragraphs 0089 & 0090).
The substitution of one known element (pressure sensor in Crinklaw) for another (differential pressure gauge as shown in Erdmann) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the differential pressure gauge shown in Erdmann et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a pressure detection in Crinklaw et al. to detect a pressure (Crinklaw – paragraph 0055; Erdmann – paragraph 0089).
Re claim 19, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose the flow controller is configured to maintain a constant pressure of the pump while adjusting the speed of the robotic vehicle to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 20, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose the flow controller is configured to maintain a constant speed of the robotic vehicle while adjusting pressure of the pump to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 21, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al.disclose the flow controller is configured to 10 adjust both a pressure of the pump and the speed of the robotic vehicle to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 22, Crinklaw et al. show a robotic vehicle (Fig. 2) comprising:
a chassis (200) supporting a storage tank (218) in which an aqueous solution is contained;
a mobility assembly (202a-202d) operably coupled to the chassis to provide mobility for the robotic vehicle about a service area;
a positioning module (236) configured to provide guidance for the robotic vehicle during transit of the robotic vehicle over the service area;
a spray assembly (217) operably coupled to the storage tank to spray the aqueous solution during the transit of the robotic vehicle over the service area; and
control circuitry (300) operably coupled (Fig. 3) to the spray assembly (via 312, 314) and positioning module (via 352), the control circuitry being configured to adjust characteristics of the spray assembly or speed of the mobility assembly to control an amount of the aqueous solution applied to the service area (paragraph 0052),
wherein the spray assembly comprises a nozzle interface (228) configured to measure a pressure (312/314) of a nozzle of the spray assembly to determine a flow rate of the aqueous solution (paragraph 0055),
wherein the spray assembly comprises a pump (220) to provide pressure for spraying the aqueous solution,
wherein the control circuitry is configured to adjust both a pressure of the pump and the speed of the mobility assembly to control the amount of aqueous solution applied at a given portion of the service area (paragraph 0055), and
wherein a shape or width of a spray pattern of the spray assembly is adjustable by adjusting pump speed (paragraph 0055).
Crinklaw et al. does not teach the nozzle interface is configured to measure a differential pressure across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle.
However, Erdmann et al. show a nozzle interface is configured to measure a differential pressure (Fig. 8, 112) across an orifice of a known diameter of a nozzle (paragraphs 0089 & 0090).
The substitution of one known element (pressure sensor in Crinklaw) for another (differential pressure gauge as shown in Erdmann) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the differential pressure gauge shown in Erdmann et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a pressure detection in Crinklaw et al. to detect a pressure (Crinklaw – paragraph 0055; Erdmann – paragraph 0089).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A) and further in view of Culbertson et al. (US Pat No 4,385,217).
Re claim 6, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the nozzle interface further comprises a reed switch or micro-switch operably coupled to a component in a flow path of the aqueous solution exiting the nozzle to positively confirm flow of the aqueous solution from the nozzle via a feedback signal provided to the control circuitry.
However, Culbertson et al. show a nozzle interface (Fig. 1) further comprising a micro-switch (50) operably coupled to a component (40) in a flow path (26) of a liquid solution to positively confirm flow of the liquid solution via a feedback signal provided to control circuitry (col. 3, lines 37-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the system of Crinklaw et al. with the microswitch taught by Culbertson et al. to provide an output that indicates whether the pressure in the system is greater or less than a selected pressure (Culbertson – col. 3, lines 51-53).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A) and further in view of Stupp (WO 2015/036096 A1).
Re claim 7, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the control circuitry comprises a calibration module, the calibration module receiving and recording the differential pressure measured to monitor for changes in flow rate of the nozzle over time.
However, Stupp teaches control circuitry comprising a calibration module, the calibration module receiving and recording the differential pressure measured to monitor for changes in flow rate of the nozzle over time (abstract; p. 6, lines 25-35 through p. 7, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the control circuitry of Crinklaw et al. to include a calibration module as taught by Stupp to automatically calibrate the measuring specification of the unit (Stupp – abstract).
Re claim 8, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdman et al. and Stupp disclose the calibration module is configured to compare a measured flow rate to a calculated flow rate to calibrate the spray assembly (Stupp – abstract).
Re claim 9, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. and Stupp disclose the calculated flow rate is determined based on a time taken to empty the storage tank from a first reference fill level to a second reference fill level (Stupp - p. 8, lines 21-27).
Re claim 10, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the control circuitry comprises a calibration module configured to compare a measured flow rate of a flow meter to a calculated flow rate to calibrate the spray assembly.
However, Stupp teaches the control circuitry comprises a calibration module configured to compare a measured flow rate of a flow meter to a calculated flow rate to calibrate the spray assembly (abstract; p. 6, lines 25-35 through p. 7, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the control circuitry of Crinklaw et al. to include a calibration module as taught by Stupp to automatically calibrate the measuring specification of the unit (Stupp – abstract).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A) and further in view of Choi (JP 2007520638 A).
Re claim 11, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention including a pump (Crinklaw – 220) to provide pressure for spraying the aqueous solution, but does not teach wherein the spray assembly comprises a nozzle interface configured to enable the nozzle to be rotated about an axis substantially parallel to a ground surface to adjust a direction of a spray pattern generated by the spray assembly.
However, Choi teaches the spray assembly comprises a nozzle interface configured to enable the nozzle (Figs. 10 & 11, 7e) to be rotated about an axis substantially parallel to a ground surface to adjust a direction of a spray pattern generated by the spray assembly (paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the system of Crinklaw et al. with the nozzle interface of Choi to perform uniform spraying over the entire area to be sprayed (Choi – paragraph 0034).
Re claim 12, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a pressure of the pump changes as an amount of rotation of the nozzle increases.
However, Choi teaches a pressure of the pump changes as an amount of rotation of the nozzle increases (paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the system of Crinklaw et al. with the nozzle rotation taught by Choi to increase efficiency (Choi – paragraph 0005).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A) and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 109420575 A).
Re claim 13, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the aqueous solution is a deicing solution.
However, Zhao et al. show a robotic vehicle including an aqueous solution which is a deicing solution (paragraph 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the system of Crinklaw et al. to include deicing solution as taught by Zhao et al. to spray snow-removing agent cleaning for roads (Zhao – paragraph 0009).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crinklaw et al. (US Pub No 2018/0160672 A1) in view of Erdmann et al. (CN 107110601 A) and further in view of Dahlstrom (US Pat No 10,011,352 B1).
Re claim 16, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the control circuitry is configured to receive weather forecast information and determine solution application estimates including a start time and density of application of the aqueous solution on the service area based on the weather forecast information.
However, Dahlstrom discloses a robotic vehicle with control circuitry that is configured to receive weather forecast information and determine solution application estimates including a start time and density of application of the aqueous solution on the service area based on the weather forecast information (col. 17, lines 47-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the control circuitry of Crinklaw et al. to receive weather forecast information as taught by Dahlstrom in order to determine when to apply a subsequent spray or initiate specific actions (Dahlstrom – col. 17, lines 53-54).
Re claim 17, Crinklaw et al. as modified by Erdmann et al. and Dahlstrom disclose the control circuitry is further configured to receive local weather data from a sensor network of the robotic vehicle during the transit of the robotic vehicle over the service area, and determine an adjustment to the solution application estimates based on the local weather data (Dahlstrom – col. 17, lines 56-61).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments as directed to the newly amended claim limitations present in claims 1 and 18, first, Erdmann explicitly teaches electrical contacts which interface with a nozzle as the differential pressure gauge in Erdmann specifically requires voltage measurements. Second, the nozzle interface demonstrated in Crinklaw is in fact shown in a “slot” much in the same way that applicant demonstrates the “slot” now claimed. More specifically, the annotated figure directly demonstrates interface 228 is embedded in 232.
Regarding applicant’s argument related to newly added claim 22, applicant specifically and repeatedly points to paragraph 0069 in Crinklaw, however this paragraph is no longer replied upon in the rejection presented. However, paragraph 0055 of Crinklaw explicitly teaches spray control and explicitly recites adjusting spray pressure and spray volume along with speed and direction of the vehicle. Furthermore, any adjustment to a pump moving fluid through a system will result in a change to any spray pattern at the end of the fluid path. As a general example, if a pump were running at a quarter of normal speed, the flow would be a quarter of what it was and the resultant output would be less thus modifying the spray pattern.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
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 STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752