DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6, 10, 15, 22, 30, & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 4,674,949 to Kroczynski in view of Design and assembly automation of the Robotic Reversible Timber Beam, by Kunic et al., published March 2021 in Automated in Construction (hereafter Kunic) and/or U.S. 5,720,090 to Dawson.
Claim 1 recites an integrated robotic repair system for repairing a surface. Kroczynski relates to such a repair system. See Kroczynski col. 2, ll. 18-31. Kroczynski teaches that the robotic system has a base translation system [that includes] a multistage platform (4, 5, 8); a repair module (9)…coupled to the translation system to move the module relative to the base translation system;…[and] deployable legs (1 2, 3) that are] coupled to the base translation system and configured to engage and disengage from the surface to allow the system to walk along the surface. See Kroczynski Figs. 1-4 and col. 3, ll. 26-67. Kroczynski further teaches an end effector selector system coupled to the repair module. See Kroczynski col. 3, ll. 62-67. These tools are designed to brush and scrape a surface to clean it. See Kroczynski col. 7, ll. 20-35. Such a task is a repair task thus each tool [is] configured to undertake a repair task on the surface.
Claim 1 further recites that the repair module [has] a rotary tool selection system [that can]…rotat[e] to allow a desired end effector repair tool to be presented to the surface. Kroczynski does not teach having a rotary tool selection system. Rather, Kroczynski teaches a system in which the robotic arm can change the tool attached to the end effector from a variety of tools in a toolbox. See Kroczynski col. 3, ll. 62-67. Thus, Kroczynski teaches the desire to have multiple tool options, it merely uses a different tool switching system. But it would have been obvious to modify Kroczynski to include a rotary tool in view of Kunic. Kunic relates to end effectors for robotic arms. See Kunic 4.1, pg. 5. Figure 8 of Kunic shows a multi-tool end-effectors that rotates to present either a gripper or a screwdriver downward to a surface. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). Kunic is analogous art because it relates to allowing end effectors to utilize multiple tools, which is the same issue being addressed in Kroczynski. In this case, it would have been obvious to modify Kroczynski to utilize a rotary tool switching system, such as that of Kunic to allow quicker and easier tool switching. As further evidence that such rotary tool switching devices are commonplace consider Dawson, which teaches a rotatable tool turret for presenting a variety of tools downward for use. See Dawson col. 4, ll. 10-61 and Figs. 1-2.
Claim 2 recites the deployable legs comprise [suction discs] for releasably engaging the repair system to the surface. Kroczynski teaches using pneumatic suction cups (2). See Kroczynski col. 3, ll. 25-28 and Figs. 1-2. Claim 2 then recites that there are a plurality of suction cups. Claim 2 recites that the deployable legs have the attachment means (i.e. the suction discs). Grammatically, this means that the term plurality could either mean each leg has multiple suction cups or that collectively legs have the plurality of suction cups. The latter, broader, interpretation is used. Figures 1-2 show four section cups, one per leg. Claim 2 then recetis that the cups are provided between an inlet sealing block and a contact surface sealing block. The contact surface sealing block, is merely the contact surface. The inlet sealing block is deemed to be the bottom of the leg to which the sealing cup is attached. The suction cups of Kroczynski are configured to engage the surface by compressing one towards the other. This is how suction cups work, pressing the cup onto a surface causes engagement and vacuum. Finally, claim 2 recites that the deployable legs are hingedly attached to the attachment means. Kroczynski teaches that the suction cups (2) are connected to the jacks (1) via swivel joints (3). Such a joint is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of hingedly.
Claim 6 recites that the multistage platform comprises a first translation stage and a second translation stage. Figures 1-2 of Kroczynski show a two-stage platform with the larger first translation stage having a smaller second…stage (8) movably attached to it. See Kroczynski Figs. 1-4. The figures further show that the repair module (9) is coupled to the first translation stage and is translatable in a first single axis be extending and retracting the arm via its joints. The remainder of claim 6 is treated as optional.
Claim 10 recites the repair module comprises a repair arm. Figures 1-2 of Kroczynski show such an arm. Claim 10 then recites the repair arm extend[s] within the base translation system. Kroczynski shows the arm extending away from the base, rather that within it. Yet it would have been obvious to modify Kroczynski place the arm on facing into the base, rather than away as a mere design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that having the arm within the base solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the arm being within the base, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). The remainder of claim 10 is treated as optional.
Claim 15 recites a sanding end-effector for performing an abrasive task. Kroczynski teaches a rotating brush which is a cleaning end-effector for performing a cleaning task. See Kroczynski col. 7, ll. 39-41. The rotating price is driven by a motor to cause the rotation. Claim 22 recites the repair module comprises a mounting mechanism for installing the robotic repair system to a mobile robotic platform. The phrase mounting mechanism is being interpreted as means-plus-function language in accordance with 35 USC 112f. It is defined solely by its intended use and the word mechanism is a nonce term. The specification teaches the mechanism may be a screw. Although not explicitly shown, one of ordinary skill would have thought it obvious as a matter of common sense that the system of Kroczynski has a screw somewhere in the system. Such a screw is capable of the intended use, even if never intended or design for the purpose. Additionally, the robot of Kroczynski is a crawler.
Claim 30 recites the repair system comprises an imaging camera, and…an image processing module for examining the surface for defects. Kroczynski teaches the robotic system can recognize target strips to properly position itself. See Kroczynski col. 5, ll. 52-62. This requires the system have a camera and processing module. Claim 30 then recites that the system initiates a repair task autonomously upon detection of a defect. This constitutes an intended use of the system. The system of Kroczynski is capable of autonomous repair since it is designed for autonomous use. Claim 33 recites a user interface for providing wireless control commands to the repair module by a remote user. Kroczynski teaches a removal control may be used with wireless control. See Kroczynski col. 19-23. This remote control also constitutes a remote motion imitator.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 12, 17, 32, 35 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 37-43 are allowed.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn and replaced with new grounds of rejection that address the rotary tool feature.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”