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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 1, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the
Drawings have overcome each and every objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, in claims 1, the limitations describe a “the first elongated track member and the second elongated track member overlap the end of the cleaning head”, however in figures 4 – 9, the “frond end” or the “back end” of the cleaning head is not overlapped by the track members and are instead placed forward or above the track members, respectively also the disclosed overlap of the cleaning head by the track members does not proved “the end of the cleaning head”, see [0004], [0030], and [0037]. Thus, it appears that the inventor(s), at the time the application was file, did not have possession of the claimed invention. For examination purposes the “the first elongated track member and the second elongated track member overlap the end of the cleaning head” has been construed to be met by prior art having tracks overlap any portion of the cleaning head.
Claims 2 - 12 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9 – 14, and 19 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al (CN 110695029 A).
In re claim 1. Lin et al discloses a robotic cleaner for removing material from a vessel (The preamble describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2111.02(11). In other words, the limitations of "a vessel" is not a positively recited structure of claim 1 and it does not receive patentable weight. However, the limitation is mapped to the prior art for the purpose of compact prosecution. Prior art discloses the claimed limitation of a robotic cleaner (vertical tank oil cleaning device, see [0001]) for removing material from a vessel (intended use that does not get patentable weight; oil cleaning device for a vertical storage tank, see [0006]), the robotic cleaner (vertical tank oil cleaning device, see [0001]) comprising:
a chassis (body, of vertical tank oil cleaning device, see Fig. 1);
a first elongated track member (crawler track, 4 on left) coupled to a first side of the chassis (coupled to a first side of body, see Fig. 1);
a second elongated track member (crawler track, 4 on right) coupled to a second side of the chassis (coupled to a second side of body, see Fig. 1); and such that the chassis is between the first elongated track member and the second elongated track member (body, 110 is between crawler track, 4, on left and right; see Fig. 1),
wherein the robotic cleaner (vertical tank oil cleaning device, see [0001]) is movable along a surface using the first elongated track member and the second elongated track member (crawler tracks, 4, steer the device, see [0006]), and
a cleaning head (mechanical dozer, 7) supported by the chassis (supported by body, vertical tank oil cleaning device, see Fig. 1),
the cleaning head (mechanical dozer, 7) comprising a body (body of mechanical dozer, 7, see Fig. 4) defining an inlet (dozer suction port, 701) at an end of the cleaning head facing a forward direction of the robotic cleaner (at the end of mechanical dozer, 7, facing forward direction, see Fig. 4), the end of the cleaning head being elongated in a lateral direction (mechanical dozer, 7, elongated in lateral direction see Fig. 4) and,
wherein the body (body of mechanical dozer, 7, see Fig. 1) is positioned between the first elongated track member and the second elongated track member such that the first elongated track member and the second elongated track member overlap the end of the cleaning head in the lateral direction (crawler tracks, 4 overlap mechanical dozer, 7 in the lateral direction, see Fig. 2),
wherein the inlet (dozer suction port, 701) is configured to receive debris during a cleaning operation of the robotic cleaner (The device combines the suction port of the vacuum cleaner with the collection part of the mechanical dozer. When the device starts working, it moves forward. At this time, the oily mud and water are collected into the oil barrel under the action of inertia force and the sewage pump, see [0015]).
In re claim 3. Lin et al discloses the robotic cleaner of claim 1,
further comprising a pump (sewage pump, 10) supported on the chassis (supported on body, see Fig. 2) and connected to an outlet end of the cleaning head (connected to back end mechanical dozer, 7, see Fig. 2) such that the pump is in fluid communication with the cleaning head (in fluid communication with mechanical dozer, 7, via sewage pump inlet pipe, 14, see Fig. 2),
wherein the pump (sewage pump, 10) is configured to draw the debris into the cleaning head during the cleaning operation (sludge pumped into barrel through cleaning port, see [0011]).
In re claim 9. Lin et al discloses the robotic cleaner of claim 1,
further comprising a sensor support (support holding an infrared explosion-proof camera 13, see Fig. 2) on the cleaning head (support is connected to frame of the mechanical dozer, 7, see Fig. 1),
the sensor support (support holding an infrared explosion-proof camera 13, see Fig. 2) configured to support a sensor on the robotic cleaner (holding an infrared explosion-proof camera 13, see Fig. 2).
In re claim 10. Lin et al discloses the robotic cleaner of claim 1,
further comprising a sensor support (support holding an infrared explosion-proof camera 13, see Fig. 2) configured to support camera (infrared explosion-proof camera 13) or LIDAR sensor defining sensing region in the forward direction (a cameras monitor working conditions inside the tank and can therefore sense a forward direction, see [0006]).
In re claim 11. Lin et al discloses the robotic cleaner of claim 1,
configured for being operationally controlled by an on board controller (operator is able to control with on board camera, 13 see [0006], the on board device pan/tilt control system, 5 monitors working conditions and adjustments are made, see [0015]; and the on board PTZ control system, 6, monitors environment and supplies water to area to be cleaned, see [0039]).
In re claim 12. Lin et al discloses a cleaning system (oil cleaning device, with vertical storage tank, multipole devices, and operators, see [0006]) comprising the robotic cleaner (vertical tank oil cleaning device, see [0001]) of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above),
configured for being controlled remotely from the robotic cleaner ((operator is able to control with on board camera, 13 see [0006], the on board device pan/tilt control system, 5 monitors working conditions and adjustments are made, see [0015]; and the on board PTZ control system, 6, monitors environment and supplies water to area to be cleaned, see [0039]).
In re claim 13. Lin et al discloses a robotic cleaner for removing material from a vessel (The preamble describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2111.02(11). In other words, the limitations of "a vessel" is not a positively recited structure of claim 13 and it does not receive patentable weight. However, the limitation is mapped to the prior art for the purpose of compact prosecution. Prior art discloses the claimed limitation of a robotic cleaner (vertical tank oil cleaning device, see [0001]) for removing material from a vessel (intended use that does not get patentable weight; oil cleaning device for a vertical storage tank, see [0006]), the robotic cleaner (vertical tank oil cleaning device, see [0001]) comprising:
a chassis (body, of vertical tank oil cleaning device, see Fig. 1);
a first elongated track member (crawler track, 4 on left) coupled to the chassis and defining a first lateral side of the robotic cleaner (coupled to the body, and defining a first lateral side of the cleaning robot; see Fig. 1);
a second elongated track member (crawler track, 4 on right) coupled to the chassis and defining a second lateral side of the robotic cleaner (coupled to the body and defining a second lateral side of the cleaning robot; see Fig. 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
532
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 1 –Lin et al: illustrates a first and second lateral side, being the greatest dimension
wherein a distance (see annotated Fig. 1, above) from the first lateral side to the second lateral side is a greatest dimension of the robotic cleaner in a lateral direction (see annotated Fig. 1, above),
wherein the robotic cleaner (vertical tank oil cleaning device, see [0001]) is movable along a surface using the first elongated track member and the second elongated track member (crawler tracks, 4, steer the device, see [0006]); and
a cleaning head (mechanical dozer, 7) supported by the chassis (supported by body, see Fig. 1) and nested between the first elongated track member and the second elongated track member (mechanical dozer, 7 nested between crawler tracks, 4, see Fig. 1),
the cleaning head (mechanical dozer, 7) comprising a body (body of mechanical dozer, 7, see Fig. 4) defining an inlet (dozer suction port, 701) at an end of the cleaning head facing a forward direction of the robotic cleaner (at an end and facing forward direction, see Fig 4), the end of the cleaning head being elongated in the lateral direction (mechanical dozer, 7, elongated in lateral direction see Fig. 4).
In re claim 14. Lin et al discloses the robotic cleaner of claim 13,
wherein the body of the cleaning head (mechanical dozer, 7) is elongated and extends upwardly at an oblique angle relative to an axis of the robotic cleaner extending in the forward direction (elongated and extends upward, with dozer slope, 702 at an oblique angle extending forward, see Fig. 4).
In re claim 19. Lin et al discloses the robotic cleaner of claim 13,
further comprising a sensor support (support holding an infrared explosion-proof camera 13, see Fig. 2) on the cleaning head (support is connected to frame of the mechanical dozer, 7, see Fig. 1), the sensor support (support holding an infrared explosion-proof camera 13, see Fig. 2) configured to support a sensor on the robotic cleaner (holding an infrared explosion-proof camera 13, see Fig. 2).
In re claim 20. Lin et al discloses the robotic cleaner of claim 13,
further comprising a sensor support (support holding an infrared explosion-proof camera 13, see Fig. 2) configured to support a camera (infrared explosion-proof camera 13) or LIDAR sensor defining a sensing region in the forward direction (a cameras monitor working conditions inside the tank and can therefore sense a forward direction, see [0006]).
Claim Rejections - 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, 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.
Claim(s) 4 – 6 and 16 - 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (CN 110695029 A) in view of Ford (US 4651376 A).
In re claim 4 and 16. Lin et al discloses the robotic cleaner of claim 3 and 13,
further comprising a mounting plate (see annotated Fig. 2, below) connecting the pump with the cleaning head (connecting sewage pump, 10 to mechanical dozer, 7, see Fig. 2) of claim 4 and connecting an outlet of the cleaning head (outlet end of mechanical dozer, 7, see annotated Fig. 2, below) of claim 16.
PNG
media_image2.png
433
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 2 – Lin et al: illustrates mounting plate
Lin et al does not disclose the mounting plate at an oblique angle relative to an axis of the robotic cleaner extending in the forward direction.
However, Ford teaches an underwater self-contained cleaning assembly having the mounting plate at an oblique angle relative to an axis of the robotic cleaner extending in the forward direction (conduit means inlet portion, Fig. 2: 50 connected to pump assembly, 34 is at an oblique angle, see annotated Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
309
769
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig 2 – Ford: illustrates an oblique angle
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Lin et al. with the teachings of the mounting plate at an oblique angle relative to an axis of the robotic cleaner extending in the forward direction as taught by Ford because allows for a more uniform flow distribution, which is crucial for the efficient operation of the pump to suck up debris.
In re claim 5. Lin et al as modified teaches the robotic cleaner of claim 4.
Lin et al as modified does not teach having an oblique angle.
However, Ford teaches an underwater self-contained cleaning assembly having an oblique angle (Ford: see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Lin et al. with the teachings of the mounting plate at an oblique angle relative to an axis of the robotic cleaner extending in the forward direction as taught by Ford because allows for a more uniform flow distribution, which is crucial for the efficient operation of the pump to suck up debris.
In addition, Ford does not explicitly teach wherein the oblique angle is a 450 angle relative to the axis.
Lastly, the degree of this angle is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the degree of angle that describes the mounting plate is directly proportional to the complete design of the suction inlet/cleaning head, and thus this design improves the direct flow/movement of the dust/debris in their most concentrated plane of movement from the cleaning surface through the pump.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the angle has a degree, was disclosed in the prior art by Ford, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the degree of Lin et al as modified having degree angled at 45 degrees.
In re claim 6. Lin et al discloses the robotic cleaner of claim 3,
wherein the pump (sewage pump, 10) comprises a pump outlet (outlet end of sewage pump, 10, see Fig. 2) and a pump inlet (sewage pump inlet pipe 14).
Lin et al does not disclose wherein the pump outlet is offset in the lateral direction relative to the pump inlet.
However, Ford teaches an underwater self-contained cleaning assembly having the pump outlet offset in the lateral direction relative to the pump inlet (impeller, Fig. 3: 36 of pump assembly, 34 has the outlet portion, 52 that extends to the outwardly extending portion, 53 that is offset from the impeller, 36, see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Lin et al. with the teachings of having the pump outlet offset in the lateral direction relative to the pump inlet as taught by Ford because it allows a reduction in pressure or force of fluid flow as it reaches a structure (ie filter) and when extended upward allows for filtered water to be directed away from the surface to be cleaned (Ford.: Col. 4: Lines 50 – 68 and Col. 5: Lines 1 - 32).
In re claim 17. Lin et al as modified teaches the robotic cleaner of claim 16,
further comprising a pump (sewage pump, 10) supported on the mounting plate (supported on mounting plate, see Fig. 2) and connected to the outlet of the cleaning head using the mounting plate (connected to outlet of mechanical dozer, 7, see Fig. 2).
Lin et al as modified does not teach,
wherein the pump is supported at the oblique angle.
However, Ford teaches an underwater self-contained cleaning assembly wherein the pump is supported at the oblique angle (at oblique angle, see annotated Fig. 2, above).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Lin et al. with the teachings of the wherein the pump is supported at the oblique angle as taught by Ford because it allows for a more uniform flow distribution, which is crucial for the efficient operation of the pump to suck up debris.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 - 7, filed August 1, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent amended claim(s) 1 and 13 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered. In regards to applicant’s argument that the Hong et al reference does not have the same structural elements or even functional equivalents thereof of amended claims 1 and 13, specifically failing to disclose “a forward facing end of a cleaning head being elongated in a lateral direction while being overlapped by its track members in the lateral direction”. And that Hong et al teaches away from the claimed combination of disclosing a laterally elongated cleaning head (the forward-most portion of the suction part, 130 that encloses screw, 132) that rather than being nested between its tracks is disposed entirely in front of them, while extending laterally the full with of robot 100. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lin et al (CN 110695029 A) that provides “a cleaning head, having an inlet in a forward facing end of the cleaning head being elongated in a lateral direction while being overlapped by its track members in the lateral direction”; see rejection of the same above.
Therefore, claims 1 and claim 13 as set forth is rejected and therefore regarding the dependent claims 3 - 6, 9 – 12, 14, 16 - 17 and 19 – 20 are not allowable over the art of record.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARONDA TIYILLE FELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached on (571) 272-4475. 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.
/SHARONDA T FELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723