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 § 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 4-5, 7 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.
Claims 4-5: Examiner is interpreting the “chassis slewing mechanism”, “slewing driving part”, and “slewing driving mounting seat” in view of Applicant’s specification (para [0037] – [0039]) as well as in view of Applicant’s Figs 3 and 5, but it is unclear how all the parts are connected to allow the machine to “rotate by 360 degrees in situ” as Applicant states in para [0039]. Applicant’s specification states the front and rear leg oil cylinders lift the whole machine away from the surface and then the slewing driving part drives the chassis slewing mechanism to rotate (Applicant’s specification para [0039]). However, Applicant’s specification also states the front and rear oil cylinders are installed on the bottom of the “H-shaped chassis frame” (Applicant’s specification para [0037]). Claims 4-5 also attempt to describe these elements stating the legs are installed on the bottom of the chassis frame (claim 4) and the slewing driving part drives the slewing bearing outer ring which is connected to the slewing driving mounting seat (claim 5).
It is unclear to Examiner how the machine rotates if the legs that extend to lift the machine are connected to the chassis frame. It seems that the center “chassis slewing mechanism” (element 18; Fig 5) would rotate around while the main chassis of the machine would remain fixed and held up by the legs.
Claim 7: Examiner is interpreting “left milling drum adjusting screw” (element 35 in Applicant’s Figures) in view of Applicant’s specification (para [0041]). It appears that this components somehow works in conjunction with the “left milling suction part adjusting mechanism” (element 34), but no specific detail is given as to the function of the adjusting screw. Examiner has examined the claim as best understood.
Appropriate action is required, but Applicant should ensure that no new matter to the specification or claims is entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia et al. (CN 113914394) in further view of Kalwa et al. (US 20150211368).
Regarding claim 1, Jia discloses an underwater milling suction robot, comprising a self-propelled platform, wherein a jacking and slewing mechanism is arranged on a top surface of the self-propelled platform (Figs 1-4; the platform is considered to be self-propelled with jacking mechanism 401 and slewing mechanism 5 with cylinders 8), a powerful milling suction actuator and an obstacle cleaning mechanism are arranged on the outer side of the jacking and slewing mechanism (milling suction actuator 9 and cleaning mechanism 1).
Jia does not expressly mention the machine may be automatically controlled. However, Kalwa discloses a similar device for underwater mining (Fig 1) and teaches the machine being autonomously controlled (para [0014]).
Jia and Kalwa are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of underwater mining or milling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jia to incorporate the teachings of Kalwa and modified the machine to be operated autonomously. One would have made this modification to permit underwater tasks with large scale need for information as well as selective analyses by a single machine (Kalwa; para [0014]).
In order for the vehicle to operate autonomously, the components of the machine of Jia would need to be connected to the automatic control system. These elements include the self-propelled platform, the jacking and slewing mechanism, the powerful milling suction actuator, and the obstacle cleaning mechanism.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (CN 112593589).
Regarding claim 2, Jia discloses the underwater milling suction robot wherein the self-propelled platform comprises an H-shaped chassis frame, and a front track frame and a rear track frame are symmetrically arranged on front and rear sides of the H-shaped chassis frame, and a mechanism to drive the tracks (the chassis frame is considered to be H-shaped in Figs 3-4 as that language is broad; each track depicted is considered to be a front or rear track frame respectively; mechanism 11 is considered to drive the tracks).
Jia fails to specifically disclose the tracks being driven independently by separate driving parts. However, Liao discloses a similar submersible dredging robot (abstract; Fig 1) and teaches the use of two motors to drive the two tracks independently (Liao; para [0038]).
Jia and Liao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of underwater dredging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jia to incorporate the teachings of Liao and combined the use of a second motor to drive the tracks. One would have made this combination to allow the two tracks to act independently, synchronously, achieve differential action during movement (Liao; para [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Jia further discloses the underwater milling suction robot wherein the self- propelled platform also comprises an auxiliary supporting mechanism, the auxiliary supporting mechanism comprises a first fixed boom and a second fixed boom, and the first fixed boom and the second fixed boom are arranged between the front track frame and the rear track frame (Fig 6 depicts an auxiliary supporting mechanism in the form of boom 3 and boom 12 that are between the tracks).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia and Liao as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Clark et al. (US 6017400).
Regarding claim 6, while Jia does disclose one actuator as claimed with a pumping part, milling drum, and suction device (these parts could be considered left or right; pumping part 6, milling drum 1, suction device 9), the combination of Jia and Liao fails to specifically disclose a symmetrical actuator as claimed for the other of the right or left actuator.
However, Clark discloses a similar device for cleaning a water basin floor (Figs 1-3) and teaches the use of two sets of motors, pumps, milling drums, and suction devices (Clark; Fig 3 depicts motors 50, pumps 52/54, milling drums 14, and suction devices 26/32).
Jia, Liao, and Clark are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of underwater excavation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Jia to incorporate the teachings of Clark and used of another set of actuator components symmetrical to the existing set on the machine of Jia. One would have made this combination to allow each motor to operate at a much more efficient speed through the use of a geared drive or gear box (Clark; col 7, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jia, Liao, and Clark discloses the underwater milling suction robot wherein the right pumping part, the right milling drum and the H-shaped chassis frame are equal in width, the right pumping part, the right milling drum and the H-shaped chassis frame are in rigid connection, the left pumping part and the left milling drum are fixed together, the left pumping part and the left milling drum are hinged with the H-shaped chassis frame through a left milling drum fixed pin, and a left milling suction part adjusting mechanism and a left milling drum adjusting screw are arranged between the left pumping part and the H-shaped chassis frame (Jia; the right actuator of the combination is considered to be “equal in width” as this limitation is broad as well as being rigid with the chassis; the left actuator is considered to be the existing actuator of Jia depicted in Fig 2; the left pumping part and milling drum are fixed together because they are connected and the right pumping part and milling drum are hinged at pin 502; adjustment mechanism 402 adjusting the depth of the milling drum).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia and Liao as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Choe et al. (KR 20090052923).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jia and Liao fails to disclose the underwater milling suction robot wherein the automatic control system comprises the components as claimed. Jia does disclose a hydraulic driving mechanism for the milling drum set in a mounting cavity. There would have to be some kind of hydraulic valve control box in order for the hydraulic system of the robot to function (Jia; para [0038]).
However, Choe discloses a similar underwater dredging robot (Fig 1) and teaches the use of underwater lighting (101) and the use of cables to connect various hydraulic hoses, control lines, and power supply to the mothership (para [0043]). Choe also teaches the use of an electronic control box (117) and that the robot is able to monitor its location through the use of cameras and the robot is linked with GPS, or satellite information, of the mother ship (para [0043]).
Jia, Liao, and Choe are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of underwater machine dredging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Jia and Liao to incorporate the teachings of Choe and combined the use of the claimed hydraulic valve control and communication boxes as well as underwater lighting, monitoring, and satellite signal receiving devices. Choe teaches to connect various components of the robot to the mother ship as well. One would have made this combination to accurately understand the current dredging location (Choe; para [0043]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-9 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 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8: Examiner is interpreting the claim in view of Applicant’s Figs 8-9. Milling drums are well known in the art of underwater dredging. However, claim 8 and Fig 9 specify a pick arrangement direction (Examiner understands a “pick” to be a “tooth” arranged of the milling drum) where there is a center portion of the milling drum that has the picks arranged to sweep the muck directly into the pump and there are outer portions of the milling drum that has the picks arranged to discharge the muck towards the sides of the chassis. It cannot be considered obvious to further modify the milling drum of the combination of Jia, Liao, and Clark as Examiner believes that any further modification would require improper hindsight reasoning. For these reasons, the claim is allowable.
Regarding claim 9: Examiner believes that too large of a redesign would be required to modify the noted combination of Jia, Liao, and Clark. Upon careful search and consideration, there is neither a teaching to modify the combination to include the four mechanical arms nor a teaching to have them be symmetrically arranged as claimed. Further, any obvious combination to include further modify underwater milling suction robot as claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning. For these reason, the claim is allowable.
Regarding claims 4-5: To the best of Examiner’s understanding, the details and components of Applicant’s slewing mechanism are inventive; however, Applicant does not appear to disclose how all the parts are connected to allow the machine to “rotate by 360 degrees in situ” as Applicant states in para [0039] (see 112a rejection above). Upon careful search and consideration, there is no reference that teaches the slewing mechanism functioning as understood by Examiner. Applicant needs to correct the disclosure to more clearly explain how the components of slewing mechanism are specifically connected to either the chassis or the slewing mechanism. It should be noted that new no matter can be entered; further search and consideration may be required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jones et al. (US 9243496) discloses a similar machine for mining the seafloor that have a structure similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671