DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 21-22 are newly submitted. Claims 10-17 & 20 are canceled. Claims 1-9, 18-19, & 21-22 are pending and subject to examination on the merits.
Interview Summary
In the 6/3/2025 Non-Final Action, allowable subject matter was indicated for dependent claims 5 and 18. On 8/28/2025, claim amendments were filed, but they did not place all of the claims into conditions for allowance. On 9/4/2025, in order to promote compact prosecution, the Examiner called Applicant's representative (DANIEL HUDAK) to inquire whether Applicant is willing to incorporate the abovementioned allowable subject matter into Claim 1. No agreement was reached and Applicant requested a Final Rejection.
Response to Amendments
The claim objections and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) filed on 12/17/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, as explained below.
35 USC 101 Rejections
The 35 USC § 101 rejections are still proper under the legal framework outlined in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (see also MPEP § 2106 for further guidance). The recitation of a generic computer (i.e., “controller”) does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
35 USC 102 and 103 Rejections
Regarding the 102 rejection of Claim 1, Applicant contends that SEIK—specifically ¶¶ 0013 and 0046 of SEIKI— fails to teach the “terminating” step (see Remarks at 9). This is not persuasive, and each paragraph is addressed below.
Regarding ¶ 0013, Applicant contends that:
Paragraph [0013] of Seik introduces two stops, an upper stop and a lower stop. Seik specifically states that the contact of the stops, in particularly the lower stop, allows the distance that is measured by means of the distance sensors to be reset to zero. Seik therefore does not disclose in paragraph [0013] that the axial movement is terminated when the tube reaches the end position. In other words, paragraph [0013] of Seik only relates to a calibration of the distance measurement. (Remarks at 9)
This argument is not persuasive. First, Applicant’s argument focuses on the lower stop (i.e., stop 68), which is not cited for the 102 rejection of Claim 1 (see 6/3/2025 Non-Final Action at ¶ 30); Applicant’s argument ignores the upper stop (i.e., stop 70), which is actually cited for the 102 rejection (see Non-Final Action at ¶ 30). Second, SEIK explicitly states that “When this upper stop [i.e., stop 70] comes into contact with the guide unit, the nozzle is located at the lowest point of the pipe” (¶ 0013) and that upper stop 70 is used to show “the hoses 58 are extended to their maximum extent, adjustable to the maximum length of the pipes to be cleaned” (¶ 0046). Third, as evident from their names, the two stops (i.e., stop 68 and stop 70) perform the function of stopping (i.e., terminating) the movement of the tube.
Regarding ¶ 0046, Applicant contends that:
. . . Seik does not disclose that the axial movement is terminated based upon a signal initiated by the stops. Seik does not disclose any sensor or the like that interacts with the stops in order to provide a signal, based upon which the axial movement could be terminated. (Remarks at 9)
This argument is not persuasive because those features are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also contends that SEIK does not teach “the axial movement of the tube is terminated based on said signal” (Remarks at 10). This is not persuasive because those features are not recited in the rejected claim(s), and limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Applicant relies on the arguments against Claim 1, without presenting any specific arguments for Claims 2 and 3. Thus, they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejection of Claim 4, Applicant contends that:
However, if a mechanical stop is used for terminating the axial movement, no deceleration takes place beforehand. The tube just stops. A mechanical stop that is supposed to provide a signal to an advancing unit in particular must experience the contact before being able to provide a signal at all. In this case, there is no deceleration, but the movement is stopped immediately. Still further, if it is still believed that the stops of Seik terminate the axial movement, there can be no deceleration before the tube reaches the end position. (Remarks at 10-11)
This is not persuasive. First, if a moving object traveling at a non-zero speed (e.g., 5 m/s) terminates its movement (i.e., becoming 0 m/s), then pursuant to fundamental laws of physics—e.g., Newton’s First Law of Motion—a force (i.e., a decelerating force) must have acted upon that object in order to reduce its speed from 5 m/s to 0 m/s. The Examiner is unaware of any scenario in which a moving object can instantaneously terminate its movement without decelerating—in violation of Newton’s First Law—and Applicant does not provide any supporting evidence for its assertion. Second, Applicant’s argument relies on features (e.g., “provide a signal”) not actually recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
In Claim 9 line 1, “a pipe” should be changed to “the pipe” for consistency.
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.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “the distance A” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be changed to “a distance A.”
Claim 19 recites “the distance A” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be changed to “a distance A.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, the representative independent claim, recites:
“detecting an insertion depth E of the tube of the cleaning device into the pipe,” and
“determining whether the tube of the cleaning device has reached an end position.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are processes that can be performed by the mind: i.e., detect distance/depth, determine whether a condition is met. Thus, these limitations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III. Even if the claimed invention describes a concept performed in the mind but merely claims the concept is performed on a generic computer, the claim can still fall under the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For example, the recited generic computer elements (i.e., “controller”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As another example, although the claim recites “terminating the axial movement of the tube with the controller when the tube of the cleaning device reaches the end position,” this is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See, e.g., SEIK et al. (European Publication EP3757504A1) at ¶¶ 0006, 0016, 0030, 0046, Figs. 1-2 (using a controller to perform the cleaning process); WATKINS et al. (US PGPUB 20200056851) at ¶¶ 0009, 0013, 0016, 0034, 0040, 0075, Figs. 2-3 (a controller controls the hose’s movement); KREISELMAIER (US PGPUB 20130287943) at ¶¶ 0026, 0032, 0035 (a controller controls the hose’s movement). Moreover, the “terminating” step amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the step is recited at a high degree of generality that does not amount to a particular practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Lastly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. It’s well-understood, routine, and conventional for a cleaning device to have a tube and a controller (as explained above). It’s also well-understood, routine, and conventional to clean the interior of a pipe using such cleaning device, by setting the tube of the cleaning device into an axial movement along a main axis H within the pipe. See, e.g., SEIK at ¶ 0046, Fig. 2; WATKINS at Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0005, 0030, 0051; KREISELMAIER at abstract, ¶¶ 0001, 0026, 0050-52.
Claims 2-4 and 8-9 are rejected because they recite more mental processes (see Claims 3-4 & 9, reciting steps of determining/detecting values or parameters; see Claim 2, reciting more details on the determining step of Claim 1) and/or fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Claims 4 & 8-9, reciting insignificant extra-solution activities such as setting speed, storing data, outputting signal, stopping activity).
Claim 21 is rejected because: (1) it recites mental processes—e.g., detecting depth, determining tube has reached a position, determining distance—similar to those recited in Claims 1 & 4; (2) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see discussion above for Claims 1 & 4 regarding the steps of terminating axial movement and setting speed); and (3) the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see discussion above for Claims 1 & 4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEIK et al. (European Publication EP3757504A1, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, SEIK teaches a method for cleaning an interior of a pipe (cleaning pipe 24, see, e.g., abstract, Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0055-63) using a cleaning device that has a tube (using hose 58 having nozzle 61 at its end, see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0043-46, 0055, 0058-61) and a controller (control unit 74, see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0048-50; see also ¶ 0030, the operator does not come into contact with the actual cleaning process, and ¶¶ 0001, 0063, cleaning is automated).
SEIK teaches that a high-pressure fluid is ejected from the cleaning device to clean the pipe’s interior (see ¶¶ 0001, 0024, 0063); a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the high-pressure fluid is supplied via a high-pressure pump (see ¶¶ 0027-28, 0030). SEIK also teaches that, when stopping or pausing the cleaning process, the high-pressure pump is turned off (see ¶¶ 0027-28). SEIK further teaches that the tube needs to return to the starting/zero position for new cleaning task (see ¶ 0013).
SEIK’s method comprises the steps of:
setting the tube of the cleaning device into an axial movement along a main axis H within the pipe (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0055-63, hose 58 having nozzle 61 is inserted into pipe 24);
detecting an insertion depth E of the tube of the cleaning device into the pipe (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0012, 0049-50, 0059, 0063, sensor 66 detects the insertion depth of hose 58/nozzle 61 into pipe 24);
determining whether the tube of the cleaning device has reached an end position (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046, 0063, using stop 70 to determine whether hose 58/nozzle 61 has reached the end of pipe 24); and
terminating the axial movement of the tube when the tube of the cleaning device reaches the end position (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046, stop 70 terminates the movement of hose 58/nozzle 61).
SEIK teaches that each tube (hose 58) has an upper stop 70 and a lower stop 68 (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046, 0050, 0063); wherein the upper stop is used for determining the end position of the tube and the lower stop is used for determining the starting/zero position of the tube (see id.); wherein the controller (control unit 74) monitors the position/depth of the tube (see ¶¶ 0030, 0049), including when the lower stop 68 has an abutment with guide unit 62 (see ¶ 0050).
SEIK also teaches that the controller (control unit 74) is connected to “all active components of the device . . . all electric motors and all sensors” (¶ 0048). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand this to mean that the controller is connected to a base unit 60 having a motorized drive device for the propulsion and return of each tube (see ¶ 0043).
SEIK does not explicitly teach that:
the abovementioned step of “determining whether the tube of the cleaning device has reached an end position” is performed “with the controller”;
the abovementioned step of “terminating the axial movement of the tube” is performed “with the controller.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify SEIK to perform the step of “determining whether the tube of the cleaning device has reached an end position” with the controller (control unit 74), with reasonable expectation of increasing automation. When upper stop 70 comes into contact with guide unit 62, the cleaning device has reached the end position (see ¶¶ 0013, 0046), which means the cleaning process has completed and the high-pressure fluid needs to be stopped (e.g., by turning off the pump, see ¶¶ 0027-28). A person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to automate the determining step with the controller, given the following considerations: automation is generally considered obvious (see MPEP § 2144.04.III.) and SEIK already teaches using the controller to automate the operations of the cleaning device (see ¶ 0048); using the controller to determine whether the tube has reached the end position allows the pump to be stopped in a timely manner, thereby conserving resources.
In the resulting modification of SEIK: when upper stop 70 comes into contact with guide unit 62, the controller (control unit 74) would make the determination that the tube of the cleaning device has reached the end position.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify SEIK to perform the step of “terminating the axial movement of the tube” with the controller (control unit 74), with reasonable expectation of increasing automation. When upper stop 70 comes into contact with guide unit 62, the cleaning device has reached the end position (see ¶¶ 0013, 0046), which means the cleaning process has completed and the tube needs to be returned (e.g., by using a motorized drive device, see ¶ 0043). Indeed, SEIK teaches that the tube needs to return to the starting/zero position for new cleaning task (see ¶ 0013). A person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to automate the terminating step with the controller, given the following considerations: automation is generally considered obvious (see MPEP § 2144.04.III.) and SEIK already teaches using the controller to automate the operations of the cleaning device (see ¶ 0048), including the motorized drive device that propels and returns the tube; using the controller to terminate the tube’s axial movement allows the tube to return to zero position in a timely manner, thereby saving time and increasing output.
Regarding Claim 2, SEIK teaches the method according to claim 1. SEIK teaches wherein the end position is a first end position in which the tube at least partially extends into the pipe (see ¶¶ 0013, 0046, hose 58/nozzle 61 is inserted to reach the bottom of pipe 24 or the maximum length of pipe 24).
Regarding Claim 3, SEIK teaches the method according to claim 1. SEIK teaches wherein it is determined whether the tube has reached the end position by detecting an abutment of the tube on an end switch (as explained above, the controller 74 determines that the tube has reached the end position when upper stop 70—which is attached to hose 58—comes into contact with guide unit 62).
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEIK, in view of EISERMANN et al. (US PGPUB 20180281030).
Regarding Claim 4, SEIK teaches the method according to claim 1. SEIK teaches inserting the tube into the pipe (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0055-63); this means the tube inherently has an advancing speed during the tube’s axial movement in the pipe.
SEIK does not explicitly teach:
“wherein during the axial movement, the detected insertion depth E is used in order to continuously determine the distance A of the tube from a target value associated with the end position in whose direction the tube moves”;
The tube’s advancing speed is “set as a function of the determined distance A.”
But the step of determining distance A is still reasonably expected in SEIK’s method because SEIK already teaches the following:
the full length of the pipe 24 is known (see ¶¶ 0023, 0056);
the insertion depth of the tube (hose 58/nozzle 61) into pipe 24 is detected as the tube moves through the pipe (as explained above; see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0012, 0049-50, 0059, 0063);
the tube extends through the full length of pipe 24 in order to reach the end of pipe 24 (as explained above; see ¶¶ 0013, 0046).
Given these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the tube’s insertion depth and the tube’s distance A from the end of pipe 24—i.e., the recited “target value associated with the end position in whose direction the tube moves”—are two closely related parameters regarding the tube’s relative position: the former is the tube’s position relative to the pipe’s entrance and the latter is the tube’s position relative to the pipe’s end. Indeed, the two parameters are inversely related, as illustrated by the simple equation below:
distance A from pipe’s end = full length of pipe – insertion depth of tube
For example, suppose the full length of pipe 24 is 10 meters: when the insertion depth of the tube (hose 58/nozzle 61) is 2 meters, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the tube’s distance A from the end of pipe 24 is 8 meters; and when the insertion depth of the tube is 7 meters, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the distance A from the end of pipe 24 is 3 meters.
As for determining a parameter “continuously,” it’s already well understood, routine, and conventional to continuously detect a tube’s insertion depth into a pipe. See EISERMANN at ¶ 0015. EISERMANN teaches a method for cleaning the interior of a pipe (pipe 4) using a cleaning device (cleaning device 12) which has a tube (lance 14), comprising the steps of: setting the tube into an axial movement along a main axis H within the pipe (see ¶¶ 0012-13, 0115, Figs. 1-2) and detecting an insertion depth E of the tube into the pipe (see ¶¶ 0012-13, 0015-16, 0115). EISERMANN teaches that by detecting the tube’s insertion depth continuously, it’s possible to monitor the cleaning progress (see ¶ 0015).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify SEIK to incorporate determining the distance A continuously during the tube’s axial movement in the pipe, with reasonable expectation of monitoring the cleaning progress.
First, by continuously detecting the tube’s insertion depth into the pipe—and conversely, by continuously detecting the tube’s distance A from the end of the pipe—it’s possible to monitor the cleaning progress. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to detect the tube’s insertion depth (and conversely, determine the tube’s distance A from the pipe’s end) in a continuous manner.
Second, it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to continuously detect a tube’s insertion depth into a pipe (see EISERMANN at ¶ 0015) and it would’ve been obvious to apply this technique when determining the tube’s distance A from the pipe’s end. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, C. Here, the tube’s insertion depth and the tube’s distance A from the pipe’s end are two closely related parameters regarding the tube’s relative position: the former is the tube’s position relative to the pipe’s entrance and the latter is the tube’s position relative to the pipe’s end. Therefore, applying the known technique (i.e., determining continuously) to the similar parameter (i.e., distance A from the pipe’s end) would be considered obvious.
The combination of SEIK and EISERMANN does not explicitly teach that the tube’s advancing speed of its axial movement is “set as a function of the determined distance A.” But this is still reasonably suggested by SEIK’s teachings. SEIK already teaches: setting the tube into an axial movement along a main axis H within the pipe (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0055-63, hose 58 having nozzle 61 is inserted into pipe 24); and terminating the axial movement when the tube reaches the end position (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046, stop 70 terminates the movement of hose 58/nozzle 61). Pursuant to the fundamental principles of Physics (see, e.g., Newton’s First Law of Motion), this means that:
(1) the tube travels at a non-zero speed towards the pipe’s end;
(2) the tube’s speed decreases right before the tube comes to a stop (see SEIK at Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046, stop 70 terminates the movement of hose 58/nozzle 61, which means a decelerating force is applied to the tube, thereby decreasing the tube’s speed);
(3) the tube’s speed reaches zero when the tube comes to a stop at the pipe’s end, regardless of how long or how short the stop is.
In other words, as the tube approaches the pipe’s end (i.e., as the determined distance A decreases), the tube’s advancing speed decreases; this means the tube’s advancing speed is set as a function of the determined distance A from the pipe’s end.
Regarding Claim 21, SEIK teaches a method for cleaning an interior of a pipe (cleaning pipe 24, see, e.g., abstract, Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0055-63) using a cleaning device that has a tube (using hose 58 having nozzle 61 at its end, see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0043-46, 0055, 0058-61).
SEIK’s method comprises the steps of:
setting the tube of the cleaning device into an axial movement along a main axis H within the pipe (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0055-63, hose 58 having nozzle 61 is inserted into pipe 24);
detecting an insertion depth E of the tube of the cleaning device into the pipe (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0012, 0049-50, 0059, 0063, sensor 66 detects the insertion depth of hose 58/nozzle 61 into pipe 24);
determining whether the tube of the cleaning device has reached an end position (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046, 0063, using stop 70 to determine whether hose 58/nozzle 61 has reached the end of pipe 24); and
terminating the axial movement of the tube when the tube of the cleaning device reaches the end position (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046, stop 70 terminates the movement of hose 58/nozzle 61).
SEIK teaches inserting the tube into the pipe (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0055-63); this means the tube inherently has an advancing speed during the tube’s axial movement in the pipe.
SEIK does not explicitly teach:
“wherein, during the axial movement, the detected insertion depth E is used in order to continuously determine the distance A of the tube from a target value associated with the end position in whose direction the tube moves”;
The tube’s advancing speed is “set as a function of the determined distance A.”
But the step of determining distance A is still reasonably expected in SEIK’s method because SEIK already teaches the following:
the full length of the pipe 24 is known (see ¶¶ 0023, 0056);
the insertion depth of the tube (hose 58/nozzle 61) into pipe 24 is detected as the tube moves through the pipe (as explained above; see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0012, 0049-50, 0059, 0063);
the tube extends through the full length of pipe 24 in order to reach the end of pipe 24 (as explained above; see ¶¶ 0013, 0046).
Given these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the tube’s insertion depth and the tube’s distance A from the end of pipe 24—i.e., the recited “target value associated with the end position in whose direction the tube moves”—are two closely related parameters regarding the tube’s relative position: the former is the tube’s position relative to the pipe’s entrance and the latter is the tube’s position relative to the pipe’s end. Indeed, the two parameters are inversely related, as illustrated by the simple equation below:
distance A from pipe’s end = full length of pipe – insertion depth of tube
For example, suppose the full length of pipe 24 is 10 meters: when the insertion depth of the tube (hose 58/nozzle 61) is 2 meters, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the tube’s distance A from the end of pipe 24 is 8 meters; and when the insertion depth of the tube is 7 meters, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the distance A from the end of pipe 24 is 3 meters.
As for determining a parameter “continuously,” it’s already well understood, routine, and conventional to continuously detect a tube’s insertion depth into a pipe. See EISERMANN at ¶ 0015. EISERMANN teaches a method for cleaning the interior of a pipe (pipe 4) using a cleaning device (cleaning device 12) which has a tube (lance 14), comprising the steps of: setting the tube into an axial movement along a main axis H within the pipe (see ¶¶ 0012-13, 0115, Figs. 1-2) and detecting an insertion depth E of the tube into the pipe (see ¶¶ 0012-13, 0015-16, 0115). EISERMANN teaches that by detecting the tube’s insertion depth continuously, it’s possible to monitor the cleaning progress (see ¶ 0015).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify SEIK to incorporate determining the distance A continuously during the tube’s axial movement in the pipe, with reasonable expectation of monitoring the cleaning progress.
First, by continuously detecting the tube’s insertion depth into the pipe—and conversely, by continuously detecting the tube’s distance A from the end of the pipe—it’s possible to monitor the cleaning progress. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to detect the tube’s insertion depth (and conversely, determine the tube’s distance A from the pipe’s end) in a continuous manner.
Second, it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to continuously detect a tube’s insertion depth into a pipe (see EISERMANN at ¶ 0015) and it would’ve been obvious to apply this technique when determining the tube’s distance A from the pipe’s end. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, C. Here, the tube’s insertion depth and the tube’s distance A from the pipe’s end are two closely related parameters regarding the tube’s relative position: the former is the tube’s position relative to the pipe’s entrance and the latter is the tube’s position relative to the pipe’s end. Therefore, applying the known technique (i.e., determining continuously) to the similar parameter (i.e., distance A from the pipe’s end) would be considered obvious.
The combination of SEIK and EISERMANN does not explicitly teach that the tube’s advancing speed of its axial movement is “set as a function of the determined distance A.” But this is still reasonably suggested by SEIK’s teachings. SEIK already teaches: setting the tube into an axial movement along a main axis H within the pipe (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0055-63, hose 58 having nozzle 61 is inserted into pipe 24); and terminating the axial movement when the tube reaches the end position (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046, stop 70 terminates the movement of hose 58/nozzle 61). Pursuant to the fundamental principles of Physics (see, e.g., Newton’s First Law of Motion), this means that:
(1) the tube travels at a non-zero speed towards the pipe’s end;
(2) the tube’s speed decreases right before the tube comes to a stop (see SEIK at Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046, stop 70 terminates the movement of hose 58/nozzle 61, which means a decelerating force is applied to the tube, thereby decreasing the tube’s speed);
(3) the tube’s speed reaches zero when the tube comes to a stop at the pipe’s end, regardless of how long or how short the stop is.
In other words, as the tube approaches the pipe’s end (i.e., as the determined distance A decreases), the tube’s advancing speed decreases; this means the tube’s advancing speed is set as a function of the determined distance A from the pipe’s end.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of SEIK and EISERMANN (as applied to Claim 4 above), in view of FOX et al. (UK Publication GB2525496A).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of SEIK and EISERMANN teaches the method according to claim 4. As explained above, the tube inherently has an advancing speed during the tube’s axial movement in the pipe.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the tube’s advancing speed is “between 1 mm/s and 500 mm/s.” But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional that the tube’s advancing speed in the pipe may be set as 400 or 500 mm/s—see FOX at pg. 5 lines 20-24; FOX teaches inserting a lance/nozzle into a pipe to clean the pipe’s interior, see pg. 5 lines 13-27—a speed that falls within the claimed range of “between 1 mm/s and 500 mm/s.” Given this overlap, the claimed range is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 5-7 and 18-19 are not allowed but they contain allowable subject matter:
Claims 5-7 are 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.
Claim 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to (1) overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action; and (2) include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest the subject matter of Claims 5-7, 18-19, and 22. The most relevant prior art references are: SEIK et al. (European Publication EP3757504A1); EISERMANN et al. (US PGPUB 20180281030); and FOX et al. (UK Publication GB2525496A).
SEIK teaches a method for cleaning the interior of a pipe (pipe 24) using a cleaning device which has a tube (hose 58 having nozzle 61), comprising: setting the tube into an axial movement along a main axis H within the pipe (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0055-63); detecting an insertion depth E of the tube into the pipe (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0012, 0049-50, 0059, 0063); determining whether the tube has reached an end position (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046, 0063); and terminating the axial movement when the tube reaches the end position (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0046).
EISERMANN teaches a method for cleaning the interior of a pipe (pipe 4) using a cleaning device (cleaning device 12) which has a tube (lance 14), comprising the steps of: setting the tube into an axial movement along a main axis H within the pipe (see ¶¶ 0012-13, 0115, Figs. 1-2) and detecting an insertion depth E of the tube into the pipe (see ¶¶ 0012-13, 0015-16, 0115). EISERMANN teaches that by detecting the tube’s insertion depth continuously, it’s possible to monitor the cleaning progress (see ¶ 0015).
FOX teaches inserting a lance/nozzle into a pipe to clean the pipe’s interior (see pg. 5 lines 13-27), wherein the lance/nozzle’s advancing speed may be set as 400 or 500 mm/s (see pg. 5 lines 20-24).
Regarding Claim 5—which depends on Claims 1 & 4—the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the specific method as recited in Claim 5, such method including, inter alia: “wherein the advancing speed is set to a constant first value W1 at a distance of A > 50 cm and to a constant second value W2 < W1 at a distance of A ≤ 50 cm.”
Regarding Claim 6—which depends on Claims 1 & 4—the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the specific method as recited in Claim 6, such method including, inter alia: “wherein the advancing speed is set to a constant first value W1 at a distance of A > 50 cm and to a second value W2 at a distance of A ≤ 50 cm, wherein the second value W2 is selected as a function of the distance A and decreases with decreasing distance A.”
Claim 7, dependent on Claim 6, contains all of the allowable subject matter of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 18—which depends on Claims 1 & 2—the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the specific method as recited in Claim 18, such method including, inter alia: “wherein the advancing speed is set to a constant first value W1 at a distance of A > 50 cm and to a constant second value W2 < W1 at a distance of A ≤ 50 cm.”
Regarding Claim 19—which depends on Claims 1 & 2—the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the specific method as recited in Claim 19, such method including, inter alia: “wherein the advancing speed is set to a constant first value W1 at a distance of A > 50 cm and to a second value W2 < W1 at a distance of A ≤ 50 cm, wherein the second value W2 is selected as a function of the distance A and decreases with decreasing distance A.”
Regarding Claim 22—an independent claim— the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the specific method as recited in Claim 22, such method including, inter alia: “wherein either a) the advancing speed is set to a constant first value W1 at a distance of A > 50 cm and to a constant second value W2 < W1 at a distance of A ≤ 50 cm, or b) the advancing speed is set to a constant first value W1 at a distance of A > 50 cm and to a second value W2 at a distance of A ≤ 50 cm, wherein the second value W2 is selected as a function of the distance A and decreases with decreasing distance A.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714