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 .
Response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Amendments and Remarks filed on 04/27/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follow:
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the non-final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
However, since the examiner is using some of the same cited prior art for the claimed subject matter, the examiner will address the remarks that remain relevant.
On page 6, applicant submits that the prior art references “are designed for running in steel or otherwise metallic pipelines” which does not teach “a conduit formed of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) or reinforced thermosetting resin (RTR)” as claimed. The examiner agrees that the prior art references do specify metal pipes, but the claim of a plastic or resin pipe does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. As outlined in MPEP 2114.11, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claims from the prior art. Therefore, the material of the pipe does not have an impact on the patentability of the claimed unmanned vehicle and the rejection is upheld.
On page 7, applicant submits “that the cited combination is technically inoperable” and “there is no reasonable expectation of success” in combining Skrinde and Du, because “the extreme mechanical noise and ultrasonic vibrations generated by Skrinde’s grinding/polishing tools … would blind Du’s sensitive acoustic sensors, rendering them inoperable.” The examiner disagrees because the Skrinde teaches “The SROV Inspection Tool” which includes an ultra-sonic sensor [Skrinde ¶ 0173] that is separate from “The Debris Removal Tool” [Skrinde ¶ 0171] which includes the grinding/polishing tools. Du’s sensitive acoustic sensors would be part of Skrinde’s inspection tool. The two tools work separately. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Skrinde’s grinding/polishing tools would not be used at the same time as Skrinde’s inspection tool. Also, Skrinde acknowledges that inspection activities would happen before and after the work process of debris removal [Skrinde ¶ 0173 “Inspection activities may include real-time before and after sensing of work process performance, resultant surface finish and sub-surface structural condition, or the environment mapping to support navigation, orientation, and positioning.”]. The combination of Skrinde and Du is technically operable and the rejection is upheld.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 18 and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skrinde (WO 2012/112835) in view of Du (US PGPub 2021/0062954) in further view of Little (US PGPub 2016/0298957).
With respect to claim 1: Skrinde discloses An unmanned vehicle comprising [Skrinde ¶ 0117 “A robotically operable vehicle incorporates an end-to-end automation suite”]:
a vehicle body having a central axis, wherein the vehicle body is configured to be at least partially submerged within liquid inside a conduit
at least one arm associated with the vehicle body [Skrinde ¶ 0075 “The SROV is able to utilize its sensors and obstacle avoiding or obstacle following programs to be able to negotiate a changing environment (Fig. 8) including the ability to retract its Extensible Arm Unit (1500) or to be able to angle its Wrist Unit (1520) in order to position Tools in contour with changing surface angles or conditions.” And Figure 15D];
at least one testing probe coupled to the at least one arm associated with the vehicle body, wherein the at least one testing probe is an ultrasonic or microwave testing probe configured to contact the inner wall of the conduit
a camera coupled to the vehicle [Skrinde ¶ 0198 "For example, a previously acquired and loaded visual image of the work area may be overlaid with schematics, plots, and identification of obstacles, deviations, or other data. This data may be acquired, for example, by separate inspection or by the SROV during operation." and ¶ 0174 "video"].
Skrinde does not teach an acoustic emission probe coupled to the vehicle body, wherein the acoustic emission probe is configured to detect an acoustic emission inside the conduit.
However, in a related field of invention, Du does teach an acoustic emission probe coupled to the vehicle body, wherein the acoustic emission probe is configured to detect an acoustic emission inside the conduit [Du ¶ 0068 “The extremely sensitive acoustic sensors 501 are mounted in the detecting head 201 and are configured to detect sounds indicating leakage or product loss while the robotic detector 200 traverses the pipeline. The acoustic sensors 501 may directly detect even a tiny or pinhole leak.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the testing probes as taught by Skrinde with using an acoustic sensor as taught by Du in order to more accurately determine the presence of a leak in the pipe.
Skrinde and Du do not teach a conduit formed of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) or reinforced thermosetting resin (RTR) and an ultrasonic or microwave testing probe configured to contact the inner wall of the conduit to quantitatively determine a remaining strength of the conduit.
However, in a related field of invention, Little does teach a conduit formed of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) or reinforced thermosetting resin (RTR) [Little ¶ 0006 “Modern chemical processing often involves the use of components made of dielectric materials. Common dielectric material product forms include fiber reinforced plastic (often called “fiberglass” or “FRP”) pipes and vessels. These materials are also commonly used in modern infrastructure, such as drinking water and waste water processing.”] and an ultrasonic or microwave testing probe configured to contact the inner wall of the conduit to quantitatively determine a remaining strength of the conduit [Little ¶ 0050 “As one illustration, the invention may be used to inspect fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) pipe. Commercially available FRP pipe is a complex composite structure, typically containing many layers of varying composition, density, and dielectric constant. When microwaves are directed towards an FRP pipe, reflections return from all interfaces between materials of different dielectric constant. … The present invention is capable of measuring the remaining thickness in such materials with a high degree of precision, accuracy, and repeatability.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the ultrasonic inspection testing probe on an unmanned vehicle as taught by Skrinde and Du with using a microwave transmitter on plastic pipe to determine thickness as taught by Little in order to more accurately determine the remaining thickness and therefore strength of the pipe.
With respect to claim 2: Skrinde as modified by Du and Little discloses the unmanned vehicle of claim 1. Skrinde further teaches comprising:
at least one propeller coupled to the vehicle body [Skrinde ¶ 0244 “In an alternative of the preferred embodiment, traction and propulsion achieved by tracked wheels or propellers is replaced by other locomotion means.”];
an actuator configured to effect movement of the at least one propeller to control motion of the unmanned vehicle within the liquid inside the conduit [Skrinde ¶ 0120 “Each assembly and module capable of articulation uses actuators to control power and movement”]
With respect to claim 4: Skrinde as modified by Du and Little discloses the unmanned vehicle of claim 1. Skrinde further teaches wherein
the least one arm is configured to be selectively deployed away from the vehicle body and toward an inner diameter of the conduit [Skrinde ¶ 0075 “The SROV is able to utilize its sensors and obstacle avoiding or obstacle following programs to be able to negotiate a changing environment (Fig. 8) including the ability to retract its Extensible Arm Unit (1500) or to be able to angle its Wrist Unit (1520) in order to position Tools in contour with changing surface angles or conditions.” And Figure 15D], and
each arm of the at least one arm comprises a distal end portion having a testing probe of the at least one testing probe that is configured to contact the inner diameter of the conduit [Skrinde ¶ 0173 “Types of sensors well- known in the art and easily adapted for use in the Inspection Tool or elsewhere in the SROV include, for example, video, infrared, ultra sonic, sonar imaging, and eddy- current.” And Figure 6 elements 660 and 670].
With respect to claim 5: Skrinde as modified by Du and Little discloses the unmanned vehicle of claim 4. Skrinde further teaches comprising at least one actuator that is operatively coupled to a respective arm of the at least one arm [Skrinde ¶ 0166 “The Extensible Arm Unit (1500) includes a powered extension and retraction capability”], wherein the at least one actuator is configured to move the respective arm about and between a retracted position and a deployed position in which the at least one testing probe is in contact with the inner diameter of the conduit [Skrinde ¶ 0075 “The SROV is able to utilize its sensors and obstacle avoiding or obstacle following programs to be able to negotiate a changing environment (Fig. 8) including the ability to retract its Extensible Arm Unit (1500) or to be able to angle its Wrist Unit (1520) in order to position Tools in contour with changing surface angles or conditions.” And Figure 15D and ¶ 0173 “Types of sensors well- known in the art and easily adapted for use in the Inspection Tool or elsewhere in the SROV include, for example, video, infrared, ultra sonic, sonar imaging, and eddy- current.” And Figure 6 elements 660 and 670].
With respect to claim 6: Skrinde as modified by Du and Little discloses the unmanned vehicle of claim 5. Skrinde further teaches wherein the at least one actuator comprises a linear actuator that is configured to move the at least one arm radially outwardly from the central axis [Skrinde ¶ 0146 “In response, the Track Tool MCU (527) generates a signal onto the Bus requesting forward extension. This signal is decoded by MCU (517) located within the Extensible Arm Unit (1500). In response, MCU (517) activates Linear Actuator (513) to begin a powered forward extension (515).”].
With respect to claim 7: Skrinde as modified by Du and Little discloses the unmanned vehicle of claim 1. Skrinde further teaches wherein the vehicle body has a length along the central axis, wherein the length of the vehicle body is greater than a maximum width of the vehicle body wherein the maximum width of the vehicle body is measured relative to any axis that is perpendicular to the central axis [Skrinde, Figure 6 The length of the vehicle body shown in Figure 6 is longer than the maximum width of the vehicle body.].
With respect to claim 8: Skrinde as modified by Du and Little teaches the unmanned vehicle of claim 1. Skrinde does suggest the unmanned while comprising of a global positioning framework. [Skrinde ¶ 0241 “Other embodiments may utilize additional methods and means for determining position, including satellite or other global positioning frameworks”]. Skrinde does not explicitly teach further comprising a global positioning system (GPS) module.
However, in a related field of invention, Du does teach further comprising a global positioning system (GPS) module [Du ¶ 0054 “The companioning device 404 tracks the robotic detector 402 in the pipeline 401 using the magnetic fields signals 405 and determines its geo-positions with the GPS 423.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the global positioning framework as taught by Skrinde with using GPS as taught by Du in order to more accurately determine the position of the unmanned vehicle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skrinde in view of Du in view of Little and in further view of Ghorbel (US PGPub 2004/0173116).
With respect to claim 3: Skrinde as modified by Du and Little teaches the unmanned vehicle of claim 2. Skrinde and Du do not teach wherein the at least one propeller is coaxial with the central axis of the vehicle body.
However, in a related field of invention, Ghorbel does teach wherein the at least one propeller is coaxial with the central axis of the vehicle body [Ghorbel ¶ 0052 “Turbine system 82 is preferably driven by air blown through the conduit (not shown), but may alternatively be powered by any fluid flow. Mechanical power extracted from the fluid flow as it spins the turbine is converted into electrical power by generator 86. This power can be transmitted directly to motor 56 (FIG. 1) so as to propel the robot, or it can be stored in battery 59, or any combination of these.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the maintenance and inspection robot system using propellers to move as taught by Skrinde, Du, and Little with using propellers that are coaxial with the central axis of the body as taught by Ghorbel in order to more effectively move with or against the flow of fluid through the conduit [Ghorbel ¶ 0015].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150338381 A1 to Clarkson (Teaches ultrasonic testing can be used to test the thickness or integrity of a material or object such as fiber reinforced plastics).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights