Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 2-25-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 4, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning module and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the cleaning module is detailed as one or more rotating brushes, one or more brushes that move linearly along with the body, a container configured to output a cleaning material and the cleaning module is removable from the body as seen in applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 12, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed tether mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the tether mechanism is detailed as a push-pull mechanism for extending and shortening a length of the tether as detailed in page 4 lines 14-15 of applicant’s originally filed specification, the length of the tether 520 may vary, for example using pulling mechanisms as detailed in page 11 lines 17-18 of applicant’s originally filed specification and the tether 930 may be attached to the vehicle on one side and to a mobile actively actuated tether mechanism on the other side. The mechanism can allow to an increase or decrease in the length of the tether 930. The actuated tether mechanism can move along a horizontal track or cable allowing the tether 930 to move horizontally from one side to another side of the building. Using the actuated tether mechanism, the tether 930 attached to the vehicle can move and remain substantially above the vehicle, to increase the vertical force applied by the tether and in parallel reduce the friction forces that the vehicle must apply on the surface 903 to remain attached to the wall as detailed in page 15 lines 8-15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the vehicle’s weight" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed tether mechanism as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action and applicant does not provide specific structure related to the claimed tether mechanism in that applicant does not provide specific structure for the push-pull mechanisms and pulling mechanisms as detailed in applicant’s originally filed specification and horizontal track and cable detailed in page 15 lines 8-15 of applicant’s originally filed specification are structures on which the tether mechanism moves and are not disclosed as parts of the tether mechanism. Applicant does disclose the tether is coupled to a weight and the weight is coupled to a pulley as seen in page 14 lines 14-27 of applicant’s originally filed specification, but the weight and pulley are not detailed in applicant’s originally filed specification as being part of the tether mechanism. Further, the phrase “for example” in page 11 lines 17-18 of applicant’s originally filed specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other tether mechanisms than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear to whether the speed detailed in claim 20 is the same or different than the rotational speed detailed in parent claim 15. Further, claim 20 lacks antecedent basis for “the driving interface” in line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 13, 15-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,265,855 to Myeong et al.
Referring to claims 1 and 21, Myeong et al. discloses a flying driving vehicle comprising, a body – at 210, a driving interface operably coupled to/with the body – see wheels shown but not labeled in figure 2 and see column 4 lines 51-64, and configured to drive the body on an inclined surface – at 220 – see figures 1-2 and column 4 lines 51-64, and a driving actuator configured to provide power to the driving interface – see generation of thrust in column 4 lines 51-64 and motor/power source detailed in column 10 line 64 to column 11 line 40, a set of propellers coupled to/with the body – see four propellers shown but not labeled in figures 1 and 4, wherein movement of the set of propellers keeps the vehicle in place when the inclined surface – at 220, is inclined relative to the ground – see figure 2 and column 2 lines 43-48, column 6 lines 26 to 46 and column 14 lines 37-57, one or more force sensors configured to collect measurements that represent forces applied on the flying driving vehicle when the flying driving vehicle is in physical contact with the inclined surface – at 220 – see figure 2, and sensors detailed in column 9 line 53 to column 11 line 8 and column 13 lines 60 to column 14 line 19, and a controller – at 810, for controlling one of the following for preventing the driving interface to drive without sliding on the surface the speed of the driving interface, a rotational speed of the set of propellers and a magnitude and direction of thrust applied by the set of propellers – see figures 2-8 and column 6 lines 18-46 and column 10 lines 30-61, wherein the set of propellers and the driving interface are coupled with the body – at 210, such that it is not required to flip over the vehicle during flight to enable operable engagement of the driving interface – wheels, with the inclined surface – at 220 – see figures 1-7 where the device rotates from a horizontal to a vertical orientation but does not completely flip over so that an upper surface in a first orientation rotates to a position so that the upper surface becomes the lower surface of the device, and wherein the controller – at 810, adapts the thrust force provided by the set of propellers until reaching a minimal thrust force required to keep the flying driving vehicle attached to the inclined surface – at 220 – see figures 6-9 and column 4 lines 9-11, column 12 lines 49-56, column 14 lines 34-47 detailing minimal thrust force and see figures 1-9 and column 2 lines 32-42, column 3 lines 19-42, column 5 lines 14-21, column 5 lines 32-41, column 6 line 65 to column 7 line 8, column 12 line 12 to column 13 line 34 and column 14 lines 34-57 detailing keeping the vehicle attached to the inclined surface via thrust control of the device. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis with respect to the claimed driving interface, Myeong et al. discloses wheels and tracks consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 2, Myeong et al. further discloses the driving interface comprises a caterpillar track – see column 4 lines 51-64 and a set of wheels – see figures 1-2 and column 4 lines 51-64, and the combination of caterpillar track and wheels is not required by the claim given the or clause.
Referring to claim 8, Myeong et al. further discloses a motion sensor for collecting movement measurements of the aerial vehicle when in contact with the inclined surface – see for example column 12 line 63 to column 13 line 20 and see for example column 9 line 53 to column 11 line 8 and column 13 lines 60 to column 14 line 19, wherein the controller sets a speed of the set of propellers according to the collected measurements – see for example line 53 to column 11 line 8 and column 13 lines 60 to column 14 line 19, the propellers’ movement prevents the driving interface from sliding from/on the surface – see figure 8, column 9 lines 20-35 and column 14 lines 20-57.
Referring to claim 9, Myeong et al. further discloses a set of propeller actuators – see figures 1-4 and column 4 lines 51-64 and column 10 line 64 to column 11 line 40, each propeller actuator of the set of propeller actuators is coupled to the controller – at 810, and outputs power according to a command from the controller – at 810 – see figures 1-4 and column 4 lines 51-64 and column 10 line 64 to column 11 line 40.
Referring to claim 13, Myeong et al. further discloses at least some of the propellers in the set of propellers are used for flying the vehicle and applying a negative thrust – see for example column 4 lines 51-64 and motor/power source detailed in column 10 line 64 to column 11 line 40, a set of propellers coupled to the body – see four propellers shown but not labeled in figures 1 and 4 and see thrust detailed in columns 7-9.
Referring to claim 15, Myeong et al. discloses a method for controlling a flying driving vehicle having propellers – see figures 1 and 4, and moving on an inclined surface – at 220, the method comprising, placing the flying driving vehicle in physical contact with the inclined surface – at 220, having an inclination angle relative to the ground – see figure 2, using force sensors coupled to the flying driving vehicle to collect measurements that represent forces applied on the flying driving vehicle when the flying driving vehicle is in physical contact with the inclined surface – see figures 1-8 and column 9 line 53 to column 11 line 8 and column 13 lines 60 to column 14 line 19, based on the measurements, calculating negative thrust forces that the propellers are required to apply in order to keep the flying driving vehicle attached to the inclined surface – see figures 1-8 and column 6 lines 18-46, column 9 lines 20-35, column 10 lines 30-61 and column 14 lines 20-57, and moving the propellers at a rotational speed that matches the negative thrust – see figures 1-8 and 4 lines 51-64, and a driving actuator configured to provide power to the driving interface – see column 4 lines 51-64 and column 10 line 64 to column 11 line 40 and further see thrust detailed in columns 7-9 and see column 14 lines 20-57. the set of propellers and the driving interface are coupled with the body – at 210, such that it is not required to flip over the vehicle during flight to enable operable engagement of the driving interface – wheels, with the inclined surface – at 220 – see figures 1-7 where the device rotates from a horizontal to a vertical orientation but does not completely flip over so that an upper surface in a first orientation rotates to a position so that the upper surface becomes the lower surface of the device, and wherein the controller – at 810, adapts the thrust force provided by the set of propellers until reaching a minimal thrust force required to keep the flying driving vehicle attached to the inclined surface – at 220 – see figures 6-9 and column 4 lines 9-11, column 12 lines 49-56, column 14 lines 34-47 detailing minimal thrust force and see figures 1-9 and column 2 lines 32-42, column 3 lines 19-42, column 5 lines 14-21, column 5 lines 32-41, column 6 line 65 to column 7 line 8, column 12 line 12 to column 13 line 34 and column 14 lines 34-57 detailing keeping the vehicle attached to the inclined surface via thrust control of the device.
Referring to claim 16, Myeong et al. further discloses evaluating components of the forces that the inclined surface – at 220, applies on the flying driving vehicle when the flying driving vehicle is in physical contact with the inclined surface – at 220 – see figures 1-9, and component of the forces applied by the inclined surface – at 220, are parallel to the inclined surface (tangential direction) and normal to the inclined surface (vertical direction) – see figures 1-9 and see for example column 9 line 53 to column 11 line 8 and column 13 lines 60 to column 14 line 19.
Referring to claim 17, Myeong et al. further discloses computing a ratio of the tangential forces divided by the normal forces and calculating a friction coefficient of the inclined surface based on the ratio – see columns 7-9 detailing forces and ratio of forces and see calculation of frictional forces and coefficient in column 4 line 51 to column 5 line 31 and in column 13 line 29 to column 14 line 20.
Referring to claim 19, Myeong et al. further discloses determining forces required to be provided by the propellers to keep the flying driving vehicle in physical contact with the inclined surface – see figures 1-9 and column 6 lines 18-46, column 9 lines 20-35, column 10 lines 30-61 and column 14 lines 20-57.
Referring to claim 20, Myeong et al. further discloses increasing the speed of the set of propellers in case friction forces between the driving interface and the inclined surface are too small – see figures 1-9 and column 6 lines 18-46, column 9 lines 20-35, column 10 lines 30-61 and column 13 line 29 to column 14 lines.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myeong et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Referring to claim 3, Myeong et al. further discloses the driving interface is a set of wheels – see figure 2 and column 4 lines 51-64, but does not disclose that the wheels are omni drive wheels that are actuated by separate motors. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Myeong et al. and use any suitable wheels including the claimed omni wheels and use any suitable wheel actuators including the claimed separate motors, so as to yield the predictable result of providing more precise control of the wheels to more accurately move the device along the inclined surface during operation.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myeong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN Patent No. 207826554 to Chen et al.
Referring to claim 4, Myeong et al. further discloses a module coupled to the body to complete a task – see item 360 and figures 1-3 and further discloses a cleaning task to clean the inclined surface in the background of the invention section, but does not specifically disclose a cleaning module coupled to the body. Chen et al. does disclose a cleaning module – at 5, coupled to the body – at 1, wherein the cleaning module is configured to clean the inclined surface – see figures 1-2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Myeong et al. and add the cleaning module of Chen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the device to automatically remove any dirt and debris from the inclined surface during operation. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning module the cleaning module – at 5 of Chen et al., includes one or more brushes – at 53 and therefore is consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 5, Myeong et al. as modified by Chen et al. further discloses the cleaning module comprises one or more brushes – at 53 of Chen et al., but does not disclose the one or more brushes is/are rotating brush(es). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Myeong et al. as modified by Chen et al. and make the brush(es) rotating brush(es), so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring a better cleaning/scrubbing effect on the surface being cleaned.
Referring to claim 6, Myeong et al. as modified by Chen et al. further discloses the cleaning module – at 5, comprises one or more brushes – at 53, that move linearly along the inclined surface – see figures 1-2 of Chen et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Myeong et al. and add the cleaning module with brush of Chen et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the device to automatically remove any dirt and debris from the inclined surface during operation.
Referring to claim 7, Myeong et al. as modified by Chen et al. further discloses the one or more force sensors detect normal forces applied to the body/cleaning module when the body/cleaning module is in physical contact with the inclined surface – at 220 – see figures 1-2 and 6B, and column 9 line 53 to column 11 line 8 and column 13 lines 60 to column 14 line 19 of Myeong et al.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myeong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,235,890 to Dahlstrom et al.
Referring to claim 10, Myeong et al. does not disclose a tether coupled to the body for securing the flying driving vehicle to another object and configured to at least partially hold the vehicle’s weight, wherein the force sensors also collect measurements of a tensional force applied by the tether on the flying driving vehicle. Dahlstrom et al. does disclose a tether – at 1416, coupled to the body – at 1414 – see figure 14, for securing the flying driving vehicle – at 1400, to another object – at 1401,1412 – see figure 14, configured to at least partially hold the vehicle’s weight – see figure 14 where the tether is capable of holding some portion of the vehicle’s weight given the direct attachment to the vehicle, wherein the force sensors also collect measurements of a tensional force applied by the tether on the flying driving vehicle – see sensors detailed in column 9 line 53 to column 11 line 8, and column 13 lines 60 to column 14 line 19 of Myeong et al. which are capable of measuring tensional forces on a tether when attached to the body – at 210 of Myeong et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Myeong et al. and add the tether of Dahlstrom et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring sufficient cleaning liquid is supplied to the device during use.
Referring to claim 11, Myeong et al. as modified by Dahlstrom et al. further discloses an encoder – see ultrasonic sensor in column 12 lines 22-27 of Myeong et al., to detect the direction in which the tensional force is applied – see figures 1-9 and column 12 lines 22-27 of Myeong et al., and movement of the set of propellers is controlled based on the detected direction – see figures 1-9 and column 12 lines 22-27 of Myeong et al., such that the vehicle drives on the surface without sliding – see figures 1-4 and 8, and see column 9 lines 20-35 and column 14 lines 20-57 of Myeong et al.
Referring to claim 12, Myeong et al. does not disclose the tether includes an actuated tether mechanism configured to an increase or decrease in the length of the tether, and the tether is a tube capable of carrying an object selected from liquids, power supply, cleaning equipment, communication equipment and a combination thereof. Dahlstrom et al. does disclose the tether includes a tether mechanism – at 1402, configured to an increase or decrease in the length of the tether – see figure 14 and column 38 lines 3-42, and the tether – at 1416, is a tube capable of carrying an object selected from liquids, power supply, cleaning equipment, communication equipment and a combination thereof – see figure 14 and column 38 lines 11-42. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Myeong et al. and add the tether of Dahlstrom et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring sufficient cleaning liquid is supplied to the device during use. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed tether mechanism item 1402 of Dahlstrom et al. is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed tether mechanism in that applicant does not provide specific structure for the claimed tether mechanism and item 1402 of Dahlstrom et al. provides the claimed function of increasing/decreasing the length of the tether as detailed earlier.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myeong et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0101565 to Caillot et al.
Referring to claim 18, Myeong et al. does not disclose estimating a cleanliness level of the inclined surface based on the friction coefficient of the inclined surface. Caillot et al. does disclose estimating a cleanliness level of an inclined surface/window as seen in paragraph [0080]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the device performing the method based on the coefficient of friction as detailed in columns 7-9 of Myeong et al., detailing forces and ratio of forces and see calculation of frictional forces and coefficient in column 4 line 51 to column 5 line 31 and in column 13 line 29 to column 14 line 20 of Myeong et al. and further control the device by determining the level of cleanliness as disclosed by Caillot et al., so as to yield the predictable result of determining the effectiveness of the device performing the method in real time so as to effect a better cleaning operation.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 2-25-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 7-9, 12-16, 18 and 20 detailed in the last office action dated 10-30-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 15, the Myeong et al. reference discloses the newly added claim limitations of applicant’s claim amendments dated 2-25-26 in that Myeong et al. discloses the set of propellers and the driving interface are coupled with the body – at 210, such that it is not required to flip over the vehicle during flight to enable operable engagement of the driving interface – wheels, with the inclined surface – at 220 – see figures 1-7 where the device rotates from a horizontal to a vertical orientation but does not completely flip over so that an upper surface in a first orientation rotates to a position so that the upper surface becomes the lower surface of the device, and wherein the controller – at 810, adapts the thrust force provided by the set of propellers until reaching a minimal thrust force required to keep the flying driving vehicle attached to the inclined surface – at 220 – see figures 6-9 and column 4 lines 9-11, column 12 lines 49-56, column 14 lines 34-47 detailing minimal thrust force and see figures 1-9 and column 2 lines 32-42, column 3 lines 19-42, column 5 lines 14-21, column 5 lines 32-41, column 6 line 65 to column 7 line 8, column 12 line 12 to column 13 line 34 and column 14 lines 34-57 detailing keeping the vehicle attached to the inclined surface via thrust control of the device.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-13 and 16-21, applicant relies upon the same remarks/arguments related to parent claims 1 and 15 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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 J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643