DETAILED ACTION
1. The Amendment filed 02/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 11-12 & 14-16 in the application remain pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 14 & 16 were amended. Claims 9-10 & 13 were cancelled.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “robotic arm” recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
5. The amendment filed 02/02/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “such that the leveling tool is placed by the robotic arm in a horizontal position to carry our vertical passes to level vertical surfaces that have a curvature in a vertical axis or in a vertical position to carry our horizontal passes to level horizontal surfaces that have a curvature in a” of claim 1, lines 11-14.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
6. Claim objections on claims 1 & 10 are rendered moot per amendments.
7. As regards to claim 1, line 1 previously recited “A levelling” which is currently underlined but not added subject matter, thus should not be underlined.
Applicant is reminded of proper amendment procedures. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. See MPEP 714.
Claim Rejections
8. The claim rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b), of claims 1-16 are partially withdrawn per cancellation of claim 13 and amendments of claims 1, 3-4, 7, 12 & 16.
9. The claim rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 111255194 A) of claims 9-10 & 13 are withdrawn per cancellation of claims 9-10 & 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
11. Claims 1-8, 11-12 & 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment to claim 1, lines 11-14 which recites “such that the leveling tool is placed by the robotic arm in a horizontal position to carry our vertical passes to level vertical surfaces that have a curvature in a vertical axis or in a vertical position to carry our horizontal passes to level horizontal surfaces that have a curvature in a” is not supported by the original specification or claims and therefore considered new matter.
Claims 2-8, 11-12 & 14-16 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
12. Claims 1-8, 11-12 & 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 1, line 14 recites the limitation “curvature in a.” which appears to be an incomplete limitation and thus unclear what the limitation is encompassing. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “curvature in a.” as “curvature.”. To correct this problem, amend line 14 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 1, lines 12 & 13 recite the limitation “our”, wherein it is unclear what “our” is referencing thus unclear what the limitation is encompassing. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “our” as “out”. To correct this problem, amend lines 12 & 13 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 14, line 2 recites the limitation “the surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the surface” as “the surface of the wall or floor” recited in claim 1, line 2 and referenced as such in claim 4, lines 2-3. To correct this problem, amend line 2 to recite “the surface of the wall or floor”.
As regards to claim 14, lines 2-3 recite the limitation “of the without”, wherein it is unclear what “of the without” is referencing thus unclear what the limitation is encompassing. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “of the without” as “without”. To correct this problem, amend lines 2-3 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 16, lines 4 (twice) & 4-5 recite the limitation “the tool”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the tool” as “the levelling tool” as recited in lines 2 & 3. To correct this problem, amend lines 4 (twice) & 4-5 to recite “the levelling tool”.
Claims 2-8, 11-12 & 14-16 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. Claims 1-8 & 14-16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 111255194 A) hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “a robotic arm… such that the leveling tool is placed by the robotic arm in a horizontal position to carry our vertical passes to level vertical surfaces that have a curvature in a vertical axis or in a vertical position to carry our horizontal passes to level horizontal surfaces that have a curvature in a”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Chen since Chen meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of coupling the leveling tool to a robotic arm such that the leveling tool is placed by the robotic arm in a horizontal position to carry our vertical passes to level vertical surfaces that have a curvature in a vertical axis or in a vertical position to carry our horizontal passes to level horizontal surfaces that have a curvature in a, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Chen discloses a levelling tool for depositing a material in fluid state on a surface of a wall or floor, evenly distributing and levelling the material (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), comprising:
anchoring means capable of coupling the leveling tool (fig 1-8) to a robotic arm ([0002]; [0059]; fig 1-8);
a supporting structure 10 in which levelling and finishing means 50+110+121+122 are coupled, having a variable shape, in addition, distributing means 80 existing in the supporting structure 10 located between, at least, a material input pipeline 43+70 and the levelling and finishing means 50+110+121+122, that are distributing the material along a full extent of the distributing means 80 ([0054-[0056]; [0058]-[0060]; [0063]-[0065]; [0069]-[0071]; [0075]; [0078]-[0079]; [0082]; fig 1-8; clm 1); and
a pump 100 external to the supporting structure 10 that propels the material to the material input pipeline 43+70 such that the leveling tool (fig 1-8) can be placed by the robotic arm in a horizontal position capable of carrying out vertical passes to level vertical surfaces that have a curvature in a vertical axis or in a vertical position to carry out horizontal passes to level horizontal surfaces that have a curvature ([0065]-[0067]; [0072]-[0074]; [0079]-[0081]; fig 1-8).
As regards to claim 2, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that the levelling and finishing means 50+110+121+122 comprise, at least, a rule 50 ([0017]; [0031]; [0058]-[0060]; [0064]-[0065]; [0069]-[0071]; [0075]; [0078]; [0082]; fig 1-8; clm 2, 9).
As regards to claim 3, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that the rule 50 is a piece of sheet plate ([0017]; [0031]; [0058]-[0060]; [0064]-[0065]; [0069]-[0071]; [0075]; [0078]; [0082]; fig 1-8; clm 2, 9).
As regards to claim 4, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that the rule 50 has an adjustable position to be able to vary 1 distance with the surface of the wall or floor ([0017]; [0031]; [0058]-[0060]; [0064]-[0065]; [0069]-[0071]; [0075]; [0078]; [0082]; fig 1-8; clm 2, 9).
As regards to claim 5, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that the rule 50 is coupled to the supporting structure 10 so that it can be moved independently of it, as well lengthwise and crosswise or in both senses at same time and/or even rotating ([0017]; [0031]; [0054-[0056]; [0058]-[0061]; [0063]-[0065]; [0069]-[0071]; [0075]; [0078]-[0079]; [0082]; fig 1-8; clm 2, 9).
As regards to claim 6, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that the levelling and finishing means 50+110+121+122 comprise, at least, a compaction roller 122 ([0033]-[0034]; [0070]-[0071]; fig 1-8; clm 10).
As regards to claim 7, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that the compaction roller 122 has an adjustable position to be able to vary a gap with the surface of the floor ([0033]-[0034]; [0070]-[0071]; fig 1-8; clm 10).
As regards to claim 8, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that the levelling and finishing means comprise, at least, a compaction roller 122 and a rule 50 ([0033]-[0034]; [0070]-[0071]; fig 1-8; clm 10).
As regards to claim 14, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that the supporting structure 10 possesses wheels 121+122 to sustain it on the surface of the without interfering in the material positioning and levelling ([0033]-[0034]; [0070]-[0071]; fig 1-8; clm 10).
As regards to claim 15, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that the levelling and finishing means 50+110+121+122 comprise, at least, a levelling roller 121 ([0033]-[0034]; [0070]-[0071]; fig 1-8; clm 10).
As regards to claim 16, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that in vertical position, the material input pipeline 43+70 in the levelling tool (fig 1-8) is placed on the top part of the levelling tool (fig 1-8) and having a canal 81 within the levelling tool (fig 1-8), the material is distributed along the levelling tool (fig 1-8) before exiting from the levelling tool (fig 1-8) and be deposited on the surface via the levelling and finishing means 50+110+121+122 ([0017]; [0031]; [0058]-[0060]; [0064]-[0065]; [0069]-[0071]; [0075]; [0078]; [0082]; fig 1-8; clm 2, 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above.
As regards to claims 11-12, Chen discloses a levelling tool (fig 1-8; clm 1-10), characterized in that the distributing means 80 of the material consists of a piston pump 100 ([0065]-[0067]; [0072]-[0074]; [0079]-[0081]; fig 1-8), however Chen does not disclose a helical screw that presents a symmetrical toothing, oriented towards two opposite sides in each of half of the helical screw. However, a helical screw that presents a symmetrical toothing oriented towards two opposite sides in each of half of the helical screw and a piston pump are considered functionally equivalent material distribution means. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a helical screw that presents a symmetrical toothing oriented towards two opposite sides in each of half of the helical screw for the piston pump disclosed by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
(a) Chen et al. is submitted to being limited ton only being used in leveling a vertical wall without any kind of curvature in the vertical axis as the device on Chen et al. only moves vertically. Furthermore, while Chen et al. can be connected with outside arm, Chen et al. fails to teach or motivate attachment to robotic arm or a pump incorporated externally to the supporting structure. Claim 1 in amended form is submitted to now include several recitations that are not taught in Chen et al. that renders the claims novel over Chen et al.
(b) Applicant respectfully submits that dependent claims 2-8, 11-12 and 13-16 also encompass patentable subject matter distinct from dependency from independent claim 1, now believed to be in allowable form.
16. In response to applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
(a) As already discussed above in detail in regards to claim 1, the recitation “a robotic arm… such that the leveling tool is placed by the robotic arm in a horizontal position to carry our vertical passes to level vertical surfaces that have a curvature in a vertical axis or in a vertical position to carry our horizontal passes to level horizontal surfaces that have a curvature in a”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Chen since Chen meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of coupling the leveling tool to a robotic arm such that the leveling tool is placed by the robotic arm in a horizontal position to carry our vertical passes to level vertical surfaces that have a curvature in a vertical axis or in a vertical position to carry our horizontal passes to level horizontal surfaces that have a curvature in a, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
Further, as regards to claim 1, Chen discloses anchoring means capable of coupling the leveling tool (fig 1-8) to a robotic arm ([0002]; [0059]; fig 1-8); and a pump 100 external to the supporting structure 10 that propels the material to the material input pipeline 43+70 such that the leveling tool (fig 1-8) can be placed by the robotic arm in a horizontal position capable of carrying out vertical passes to level vertical surfaces that have a curvature in a vertical axis or in a vertical position to carry out horizontal passes to level horizontal surfaces that have a curvature ([0065]-[0067]; [0072]-[0074]; [0079]-[0081]; fig 1-8).
(b) In view of the foregoing, Examiner respectfully contends the limitations of claim 1 are indeed satisfied. Claims 2-8, 11-12 & 14-16 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1, as well as for their own rejections on the merits, respectively.
Conclusion
17. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717