DETIALED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on August 7th 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the newly amended claim 11 would no longer required restriction. This is found persuasive.
The Restriction is withdrawn, and all withdrawn claims are rejoin for examination.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 11 is amended.
Claims 1-20 are being examined as follow:
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “gas pulse regenerable filtration system” in claims 1 and 11 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system" coupled with functional language “for removing radioactive particles…. ” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “gas pulse regenerable filtration system" has been described in Paragraph 0044 as some kind of filtering device or filter that involve gas pulses.
Claim limitation “filtration system” in claims 2 and 16 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system" coupled with functional language “for removing particles….” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “filtration system" has been described in Paragraph 0044 as some kind of filter.
Claim limitation “deployment system” in claims 7 and 18 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system" coupled with functional language “for transporting… ” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “deployment system" has been described in Paragraph 0057-0060 as some kind of system that assisted in movement or lunching or transporting of essential parts and including the laser head and crawler.
Claim limitation “cable management system” in claims 8 and 20 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system" coupled with functional language “configured to spool and unspool ….” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “cable management system" has been described in Paragraph 0062-0064 as some kind of machine that manage, roll or unroll connection cable/hose/wire.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “the hose” in line 12, is lack of antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 10, the limitation “comprising a hose for …” is indefinite in line 1, because the limitation “a hose” is already cited in claim 1, which claim 10 is dependent on. It is unclear how many hoses are being claimed, or they are the same hose. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that they are the same “hose”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claim 13, the limitation of “…wherein filtering the ablated radioactive particles from the airflow comprises passing the airflow through a gas pulse regenerable filtration system…” is already recited in claim 11.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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, 3-4, 6-7, 10-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN et al (US2021/0343441A1 newly cited) herein set forth as AHN, in view of Richard (US2007/0175328A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Richard.
Regarding claim 1, AHN discloses a laser ablation system for decontamination of radioactive particles, the system (refer to fig.2) comprising:
a laser head assembly (#20, fig.2), comprising:
a laser (#1, fig.2) for ablating radioactive particles (#2, fig.2) from an underlying material (#100, fig.2);
a shroud (#80, fig.2) surrounding the laser (#1, fig.2) for containing the ablated radioactive particles (#2, fig.2); and
a suction nozzle (refer to opening of #70 located close to #80 in fig.2) for receiving an airflow (refer to the “arrow” in #70 close to #80 in fig.2) from the shroud (#80, fig.2) and releasing the airflow (refer to the “arrow” in #70 close to #80 in fig.2), wherein the airflow (refer to the “arrow” in #70 close to #80 in fig.2) contains the ablated radioactive particles (#2, fig.2); and
a waste management system (#60, fig.2) for removing and containing the ablated radioactive particles (#2, fig.2), comprising:
a referring to the filter in #60, fig.2 refer to Paragraph 0043 cited: “…The dust collector 60 may include a filter (not shown) that may filter the dust 2…”) for removing radioactive particles (#2, fig.2) from the airflow (refer to the “arrow” in #70 close to #80 in fig.2) and depositing them in a containment flask (Refer to the dictionary definition of “flask”1 as a container, Examiner note: a containment is inherently disclosed because of the idea of #60 dust collector”); and
a vacuum (refer as suction pump in Paragraph 0043 cited below) for moving the airflow (refer to the “arrow” in #70 close to #80 in fig.2) through the hose (#70, fig.2) into the containment flask (Refer to the dictionary definition of “flask”2 as a container, Examiner note: a containment is inherently disclosed because of the idea of #60 “dust collector”)(refer to Paragraph 0043 cited: “…The dust collector 60 may collect the dust 2 generated from the pipe 100 by the laser ablation. The dust collector 60 may include a suction pump (not shown) to collect the dust 2 inside the pipe 100. The dust collector 60 may include a filter (not shown) that may filter the dust 2…”).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AHN does not explicitly disclose the use of gas pulse in the regenerable filtration system.
In the field of dust collector, Richard discloses the use of gas pulse in the regenerable filtration system (refer to abstract cited: “…A jet pulse chamber venturi collector wherein a venturi is provided between the upper end portions of adjacent columns of filter stacks mounted in a dust collector housing wherein particulate laden gases flow downwardly through the venturi and are accelerated to such a degree so as to be pushed directly into the dust collecting hopper…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified AHN’s invention filtration system with the use of gas pulse regenerable filtration system, as taught by Richard, in order to provide a longer filter usage and reduce in human maintenance requirement, such that would reduce the possible exposure to the human operator to the contaminated particles.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, AHN further discloses wherein the laser ablation system (refer to fig.2) is remotely (refer to #10 and #11 location in fig.2, clearly remotely from the laser ablation site) controlled by at least one control panel (Examiner note: at least one control panel for the laser ablation system is inherently disclosed).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, AHN further discloses wherein the at least one control panel (#41 and control panel inherently disclosed in every disclosed #10, #11 or #60, fig.2) is located outside a containment barrier (refer to the air gap between the #100 in fig.2) of a radioactive particle site (#100, fig.2).
Regarding claim 5, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, AHN does not discloses wherein the filtration system is controlled by the control panel.
In the field of dust collector, Richard further discloses wherein the filtration system (refer to fig.1) is controlled by the control panel (#13, noted that #13 are remoted from the dust collector in fig.1, refer to Paragraph 0014 cited: “…Each nozzle 10 is operatively connected to an electrically operated valve 12 which is connected to a controller, such as a microprocessor 13 …”).
PNG
media_image2.png
745
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified AHN’s system with the filtration system is controlled by the control panel, as taught by Richard, in order to provide a better gas pulses to the filter and therefore would increase efficiency with the dust removal from the filter, and also increase operational life span of the filter and the gas injector too.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, AHN further discloses wherein a crawler (#90, fig.2) moves the laser head assembly (#20, fig.2) to an ablation site (refer to the #1 contacting #100 in fig.2).
Regarding claim 7, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 6, AHN further discloses wherein the crawler (#90, fig.2) is deployed by a deployment system (Examiner note: AHN’s system inherently had a deployment system, such as storage container, shipping cart for transporting or even the vehicle that transport or shipped the system, it would be impossible for AHN’s system to appear at the worksite without any shipping container or transporting vehicle) for transporting the crawler (#90, fig.2) and laser head assembly (#20, fig.2) to a deployment location (refer to the location that whole AHN’s system is setup).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 6, AHN further discloses a hose (#70, fig.2) for receiving the airflow (refer to the “arrow” in #70 close to #80 in fig.2) from the laser head assembly (#20, fig.2) at a first end (refer to the #70 end connected to #80 in fig.2) and releasing the airflow to a waste management system (#60, fig.2) at a second end (refer to the #70 end connected to #60 in fig.2).
Regarding claim 11, AHN discloses a method for decontamination of radioactive particles using a laser ablation system, the method (refer to fig.2) comprising:
laser ablating radioactive particles (#2, fig.2) from an underlying material (#100, fig.2) using a laser (#1, fig.2) in a laser head assembly (#20, fig.2) of the laser ablation system (refer to fig.2);
generating an airflow (refer to the “arrow” in #70 close to #80 in fig.2) to move the ablated radioactive particles (#2, fig.2) using a suction nozzle (refer to #70 opening located close to #80 in fig.2) of the laser head assembly (#20, fig.2); and
filtering the ablated radioactive particles (#2, fig.2) from the airflow (refer to the “arrow” in #70 close to #80 in fig.2) using a referring to the filter in #60, fig.2 refer to Paragraph 0043 cited: “…The dust collector 60 may include a filter (not shown) that may filter the dust 2…”.) of a waste management system (#60, fig.2) in the laser ablation system (refer to fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AHN does not explicitly disclose the use of gas pulse in the regenerable filtration system.
In the field of dust collector, Richard discloses the use of gas pulse in the regenerable filtration system (refer to abstract cited: “…A jet pulse chamber venturi collector wherein a venturi is provided between the upper end portions of adjacent columns of filter stacks mounted in a dust collector housing wherein particulate laden gases flow downwardly through the venturi and are accelerated to such a degree so as to be pushed directly into the dust collecting hopper…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified AHN’s invention filtration system with the use of gas pulse regenerable filtration system, as taught by Richard, in order to provide a longer filter usage and reduce in human maintenance requirement, such that would reduce the possible exposure to the human operator to the contaminated particles.
Regarding claim 12, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, AHN further discloses depositing the ablated radioactive particles in a containment flask (Refer to the dictionary definition of “flask”3 as a container, Examiner note: a containment is inherently disclosed because of the idea of #60 dust collector”)(refer to Paragraph 0043 cited: “…The dust collector 60 may collect the dust 2 generated from the pipe 100 by the laser ablation. The dust collector 60 may include a suction pump (not shown) to collect the dust 2 inside the pipe 100. The dust collector 60 may include a filter (not shown) that may filter the dust 2…”).
Regarding claim 13, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, the limitation “…wherein filtering the ablated radioactive particles from the airflow comprises passing the airflow through a gas pulse regenerable filtration system…” already rejected in claim 11 above (refer to claim 11 rejection above).
Regarding claim 14, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, AHN further discloses wherein the laser ablation system (refer to fig.2) is remotely (refer to #10 and #11 location in fig.2, clearly remotely from the laser ablation site) controlled by at least one control panel (Examiner note: at least one control panel for the laser ablation system is inherently disclosed).
Regarding claim 15, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 14, AHN further discloses wherein the at least one control panel (#41 and control panel inherently disclosed in every disclosed #10, #11 or #60, fig.2) is located outside a containment barrier (refer to the air gap between the #100 in fig.2) of a radioactive particle site (#100, fig.2).
Regarding claim 17, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, AHN further discloses wherein a crawler (#90, fig.2) moves the laser head assembly (#20, fig.2) to an ablation site (refer to the #1 contacting #100 in fig.2).
Regarding claim 18, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 17, AHN further discloses wherein the crawler (#90, fig.2) is deployed by a deployment system (Examiner note: AHN’s system inherently had a deployment system, such as storage container, shipping cart for transporting or even the vehicle that transport or shipped the system, it would be impossible for AHN’s system to appear at the worksite without any shipping container or transporting vehicle) for transporting the crawler (#90, fig.2) and laser head assembly (#20, fig.2) to a deployment location (refer to the location that whole AHN’s system is setup).
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN et al (US2021/0343441A1 newly cited) herein set forth as AHN, in view of Richard (US2007/0175328A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Richard, and further in view of YouTube video http:youtube.com/watch?v=9b7ine4n_wc (newly cited, and refer to attached NPL-Prefilter) herein set forth as Prefilter.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, AHN or Richard does not explicitly disclose wherein the waste management system further comprises a second filtration system for removing particles from the airflow.
In the field of dust filtering, Prefilter discloses the use of the second filtration system before the main dust collector (refer to the YouTube url attached and the NPL for reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified AHN’s invention with a second filtration system, as taught by Prefilter, in order to improve filtration, improve the operational life span and protect the other more complex and expensive filtration system.
Regarding claim 16, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, AHN or Richard does not explicitly disclose wherein the filtering the ablated radioactive particles from the airflow comprises passing the airflow through a second filtration system.
In the field of dust filtering, Prefilter discloses the use of the second filtration system before the main dust collector (refer to the YouTube url attached and the NPL for reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified AHN’s invention with a second filtration system, as taught by Prefilter, in order to improve filtration, improve the operational life span and protect the other more complex and expensive filtration system.
Claims 8-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN et al (US2021/0343441A1 newly cited) herein set forth as AHN, in view of Richard (US2007/0175328A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Richard, and further in view of Kepes (US5332166 newly cited).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 6, AHN or Richard does not explicitly disclose a cable management system for spooling and unspooling the hose when the crawler delivers the laser head assembly to the ablation site.
In the field of cable spooling and unspooling, Kepes discloses a cable management system (refer to fig.2) for spooling and unspooling.
PNG
media_image3.png
518
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified AHN’s invention with the use of Kepes’ cable management system, in order to provide easier cable, wire and hose management, such that faster setup and reduce of tripping accident.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of AHN, Richard and Kepes discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, AHN or Richard does not explicitly disclose wherein the cable management system is further configured to spool and unspool power and data cables connected to the crawler and the laser head assembly.
However, Claim 8 already discloses the use of a cable management system.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified AHN’s invention with the use of Kepes’ cable management system, in order to provide easier cable, wire and hose management, Such that faster setup and reduce of tripping accident.
Regarding claim 19, the modification of AHN and Richard discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 17, AHN or Richard does not explicitly disclose spooling and unspooling a hose when the crawler delivers the laser head assembly to the ablation site.
In the field of cable spooling and unspooling, Kepes discloses a cable management system (refer to fig.2) for spooling and unspooling.
PNG
media_image3.png
518
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified AHN’s invention with the use of Kepes’ cable management system, in order to provide easier cable, wire and hose management, such that faster setup and reduce of tripping accident.
Regarding claim 20, the modification of AHN, Richard and Kepes discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 19, AHN or Richard does not explicitly disclose wherein a cable management system is further configured to spool and unspool power and data cables connected to the crawler and the laser head assembly.
However, Claim 19 already discloses the use of a cable management system.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified AHN’s invention with the use of Kepes’ cable management system, in order to provide easier cable, wire and hose management, such that a faster setup and reduce of tripping accident.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 December 27th 2025
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 Referring to FLASK Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flask.
2 Referring to FLASK Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flask.
3 Referring to FLASK Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flask.