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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 5/15/2026, have been entered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 10. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 are noted, specifically arguing that the prior art is silent with respect to the prior art failing the modifying the deployment plan related to obstacles. The examiner disagrees based on the explicit statement of paragraph 0072, which discloses mapping and determining the perimeter of the cavity, obstructions, cabling, other issues using the robot to map.
As for the argument related to the prior art disclosure of interior versus exterior, the examiner disagrees and noted the cavity of Lipinski can reasonably read on the exterior as claimed, exterior to the building.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose information related to the texture of the ceiling, arguing that the floor joists are integral part of the floor system and therefore does not read on the claim as drafted. Here, the examiner disagrees and notes that the floor joists create a texture as claimed that is measured and the information is provided.
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art is configured to replicate surface texture or ornamentation, the examiner disagrees and notes the reference discloses the robotic system is “provides texture, colour and protection from the elements. Patterns such as stone walls, pebble dash or brick work may be applied to give the construction a more natural appearance.”, see e.g. 0039-0040.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose a system that includes an application head that both senses a characteristic and applies the insulation. The examiner notes the prior art discloses an application turret does both the application and the sensing and therefore meets the claims as broadly drafted. At the very least, Hargadon discloses the application head including the sensor and being fully autonomous (abstract, Figure 1, 3A and accompanying text) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to include the various mechanisms, including the sensors and shaping tools on the robot head to achieve fully autonomous application.
Applicant argues that the prior art Koivuharju fails to disclose the information is presented to the use through a VR system, specifically arguing that control over the UAV is not the same as presentation of the invention. The examiner notes that the control over the robot using VR system would encompass presentation of information, otherwise no control would exist. Please note that the test of obviousness is not an express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references, but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them (In re Rosselet, 146 USPQ 183).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12-13, 16-17, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20160121486 by Lipinski et al. taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20190255551 by Hargadon.
Claim 1: Lipinski discloses a method for building envelope retrofits (abstract, “covering a surface of a building”), the method comprising:
Applying, by a robotic system, insulation or finish to an exterior of a building (0001, “spraying expanding building materials such as polyurethane foam onto the interior or exterior surfaces of a building”);
sensing, by a robotic system, at least one characteristic of an exterior of a building (0032, 0072, Figure 33 and accompanying text,)
in response to the at least one sensed characteristic, adjusting application of insulation or finish to the exterior by the robotic system (see e.g. 0072, 0185-0188, Figure 33 and accompanying text).
Lipinski discloses the robotic system is configured to alter the application of the insulation or finish to the exterior of the building in response to real- time sensor feedback (“real time position sensing, orientation and automatic head adjustment” at 0051, “depth feedback”).
As for the sensing a characteristic of the building during application of the insulation of finish, where the application includes real-time sensor feedback and adjusting the application during the application in response to the sensed characteristic. Hargadon, also in the art of applying a surface finish to exterior surface of a building (abstract “surface of the exterior of the structure, with little or no human intervention or assistance.”), including insulation application (“foams which may be used for example for insulation.”, 0023). Hargadon discloses a robotic system similar to that of Lipinski and discloses including during application of the coating by the robotic system, sensing a characteristic of the building and in response to the characteristic adjusting the application during the application by using a real time sensor feedback (Figure 8 and accompanying text, see e.g. 845 “Monitor coating process and modify coating process as needed . . . to maintain effective coverage”, 0100, “recognize and paint, or paint around, a new type of obstacle or feature”, 0159 “The apparatus 100 uses its sensors 150 and software to recognize surfaces, objects, features, obstacles and environments, and to properly position itself and its fluid dispenser 160 to coat designated objects or surfaces” and 0161 “The apparatus 100 uses its sensors 150 and software to recognize surfaces, objects, features, obstacles and environments, and to properly position itself and its fluid dispenser 160 to coat designated objects or surfaces.”, see also 0198-200). Hargadon discloses the real time sensor feed back and spraying application adjustment allows for the coating ”with little or no human intervention or assistance” and therefore taking the references collectively it would have bene obvious to have modified Lipinksi to use the feedback control as set forth by Hargadon to reap the benefits of complete and accurate coating with little or no human intervention or assistance.
Claim 2: Lipinski discloses the robotic system comprises a 3D-articulated robot that applies the insulation or finish (see e.g. Figure 4, Figure 11-12 and accompanying text). Hargadon discloses such at Figure 1.
Claim 3: Lipinski discloses the 3D-articulated robot adjusts thickness of the insulation or finish in response to the at least one sensed characteristic (Figure 9). Hargadon discloses such at 0198 (the apparatus 100 recognizes an object, obstacle or feature in the surface being painted, such as an electrical outlet or a window, it may navigate the object similar to a floor or ceiling or wall border—first cut in using the fine line spray, then widened with the medium spray pattern, and then later overlapping using the wide spray pattern.)
Claim 4: Lipinski discloses the at least one sensed characteristic is thickness of the insulation or finish (0024).
Claim 5: Lipinski discloses the at least one sensed characteristic being sensed comprises one of deviations in building materials, discontinuities in building materials, or thermal or moisture conditions of the exterior of the building (0052, 0174 relates to sensing the contours of the building). Hargadon discloses such at 0198 (the apparatus 100 recognizes an object, obstacle or feature in the surface being painted, such as an electrical outlet or a window)
Claim 6: Lipinski discloses scanning, by the robotic system, the exterior of the building to obtain information about the at least one sensed characteristic of the exterior of the building; and generating a 3D model of at least a portion of the building based at least in part upon the information, wherein the application of the insulation or finish is based upon the 3D model (0051-0052, 0171 related to 3D map, Figure 31).
Claim 7: Lipinski comprising generating a deployment plan based upon the 3D model of the building, wherein the application of the insulation or finish to the exterior of the building by the robotic system is based upon the deployment plan (0051 related to create and follow set of instructions that includes where to apply, how much, surface finish, etc).
Claim 8: Lipinski discloses identifying obstacles or anomalies in the building based upon the information about the building, wherein the deployment plan is modified based upon the identified obstacles or anomalies (0072 related to “obstacles” and feedback control)
Claim 9: Lipinski discloses the application of the insulation or finish by the robotic system is autonomously controlled based upon the deployment plan (automated robotic device at 0053, see also 0051 related to automatically positioning, 00054 related to automation)
Claim 12: Lipinski discloses the information about the building comprises surface texture or ornamentation of the building (see 0171 related to measure ceiling which measures “texture” as claimed including joists).
Claim 13: Lipinski discloses robotic system is configured to replicate the surface texture or ornamentation in the insulation or finish (see 0039-0040, 0136).
Claim 16: Lipinski discloses the robotic system comprises a scaffold-bound robot, an x-y-z-stage mounted robot, an electrostatic adhesion robot, or a free-climbing robot that applies the insulation or finish (see e.g. Figure 7, 8, 11).
Claim 17: Lipinski discloses the robotic system comprises at least one of a proximity sensor or a coating thickness sensor to obtain at least a portion of the at least one sensed characteristic of the exterior of the building (Figure 33 and accompanying text, 0024, 0052).
Claim 19: Lipinski discloses the robotic system comprises a turret or application head configured to sense at least a portion of the at least one sensed characteristic of the exterior of the building and to apply the insulation or finish to the exterior of the building (0024, 0051, Figure 11-15, reasonably reads on the broadly drafted “application head” or “turret” as the prior art discloses a robot that senses and applies as claimed). Hargadon discloses the application head including the sensor and being fully autonomous (abstract, Figure 1, 3A and accompanying text) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to include the various mechanisms, including the sensors and shaping tools on the robot head to achieve fully autonomous application.
Claim 20: Lipinski discloses the wherein the turret or application head comprises a molding, shaping, or routing tool for finishing the insulation or finish (figures 11-15 and accompanying text, see e.g. Figure 13 related to shaping with cutting tool). Hargadon discloses the application head including the sensor and being fully autonomous (abstract, Figure 1, 3A and accompanying text) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to include the various mechanisms, including the sensors and shaping tools on the robot head to achieve fully autonomous application.
Claim 21: Hargadon discloses a application head that comprises a spraying nozzle for applying the insulation of finish and sensors as claimed (Figure 3A and accompanying text)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipinski with Hargadon taken collectively with CN 110714598 A, hereinafter CN 598.
Lipinski with Hargadon discloses all that is taught above and discloses distance measuring the thickness (0024 of Lipinksi stating “The robotic device may comprise a sensing device configured to monitor the thickness of the covering applied to the surface. The sensing device may simply be a camera arranged to identify that the covering has been applied to the surface. The sensing device may be a rangefinder, for example a laser rangefinder”); however, fails to explicitly disclose inductive sensing.
However, CN 598, also in the art of robotic coating discloses of structures using distance sensor on the robot includes known sensors, such as laser sensor and optical sensor, as well as inductive proximity sensor (“distance detecting member . . . including, but not limited to, laser ranging sensor, an ultrasonic ranging sensor, a capacitive proximity sensor, an inductive proximity sensor, a vision sensor.”). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the known sensors, including inductive sensing, as such is taught by CN 598 to be included in robots to evaluate the substrate as well as a known alternative to laser ranging sensors as specifically taught by Lipinski. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipinski with Hargadon taken collectively with WO 2020260877, hereinafter WO 877.
Claim 11: Lipinski with Hargadon discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to disclose the 3D point cloud. However, WO 877, also in the art of building retrofit insulation using robotics (0031) and discloses scanning the building element using a rangefinder system (such as taught by Lipinski) and discloses that such can include a 3D point cloud (0074) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Lipinski to use the 3D point cloud as such is taught by WO 877 as a known and suitable method for 3D model of the building.
Claim 18: Lipinski with Hargadon fails to disclose the thermal sensor. However, WO 877, as discussed above, discloses the scanning and mapping of the existing building and discloses forming the 3D point cloud for the 3D model and discloses using various sensors including spatial, optical and thermal and therefore it would have been obvious to have modified Lipinski to include the thermal sensor as claimed to build/achieve the 3D mapping of the building.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipinski with Hargadon taken collectively with GB 2551565, hereinafter GB 565.
Claim 14: Lipinski with Hargadon discloses all that is taught above and disclose control over the robot for surface treatment; however fails to disclose the information about the building is presented to a user through one of a virtual reality (VR) system, an augmented reality (AR) system, or a mixed reality (MR) system based upon the 3D model of the building. However, GB 565, also in the art of surface treatment using a robot (page 5, lines 9-30), including insulation, and discloses transmitting the information via VR system (column 15, lines 34-35) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified Lipinski with Hargadon to include a VR system to achieve control over the robotic application.
Claim 15: Lipinski with Hargadon discloses all that is taught above and discloses robotic application of insulation and finishing coatings to buildings; however, fails to discloses airborne robot as claimed. However, GB 565 discloses using an airborne robot to apply insulation and/or coatings to e.g. building (page 5, lines 9-30, abstract, Figure 9 and accompanying text) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to modify Lipinski with Hargadon to use an airborne robot as suggested by GB 565 as GB 565 explicitly discloses airborne robots to apply coatings to buildings will provide predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipinski with Hargadon taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20150344136 by Dahlstrom, hereinafter Dahlstrom.
Lipinski with Hargadon discloses all that is taught above and discloses robotic application of insulation and finishing coatings to buildings; however, fails to discloses airborne robot as claimed. However, Dahlstrom discloses using an airborne robot to apply insulation and/or coatings to e.g. building (0030) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to modify Lipinski to use an airborne robot as suggested by Dahlstrom as Dahlstrom explicitly discloses airborne robots to apply coatings to buildings will provide predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights