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 .
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 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.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-7 and 16-22 in the
reply filed on 01/06/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as
being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/06/2026.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazuku et al. (US 20210108917) in view of Grote et al. (US 20220213999) and Kim et al. (US 20040036397), with Roth (US 5938854), Andrews et al. (US 20030085113), Dale et al. (US 20220041000), Zajac et al. (US 4230515), Iseda et al. (US 20070272358), and Koulik et al. (US 20030165636) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Hazuku teaches a pipeline scale removal system, comprising: a pipeline (pipe 100) that carries a liquid (a fluid flows through pipe 100) and includes scale formed on an inner surface of the pipeline (the information-processing apparatus 10 estimates thickness of scale deposits on the inner surface of the pipe 100) [Fig. 1 & 0041, 0044].
Hazuku does not specifically disclose and at least one autonomous robot configured to move through the liquid in the pipeline, the at least one autonomous robot comprising: a housing; a propulsion system that comprises a power source and a motor, the propulsion system configured to move the housing through the liquid in the pipeline; a flow turbine coupled to the power source and configured to generate electrical power based on a flow of the liquid through the flow turbine as the housing moved through the liquid in the pipeline.
Grote teaches and at least one autonomous robot (pig 2) configured to move through the liquid in the pipeline (the pig 2 may be used to carry out maintenance or repair work in a pipeline), the at least one autonomous robot comprising: a housing (pig body 4); a propulsion system that comprises a power source (there may be a rechargeable energy storage unit) and a motor (generator unit 8), a flow turbine (drive element 6) coupled to the power source (an energy storage unit may be connected to the generator unit 8, wherein the generator unit 8 may be connected to the drive element 6) [Fig. 1-3 & 0045-0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hazuku to include an autonomous robot for scale removal to reduce maintenance cost [Grote - 0050].
Modified Hazuku does not specifically disclose a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool.
Kim teaches a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool (the CED plasma shower of Fig. 1) [Fig. 1 & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous robot of Modified Hazuku to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Kim discloses that plasma cleaning is advantageous in providing sterilization under a larger variety of pressure conditions [Kim - 0004, 0082-0083]. It is noted that a use case of the pipe of Hazuku is in delivering hot spring water, therefore sterilization would be beneficial [Hazuku - 0003]. Roth (US 5938854) discloses that plasma cleaning may be advantageous over abrasive cleaning [Roth - Col. 2 lines 39-44]. Andrews et al. (US 20030085113) also discloses that plasma cleaning provides more rapid cleaning and helps readies a surface for passivation [Andrews - 0017]. Dale et al. (US 20220041000) also discloses that plasma cleaning can more effectively remove contaminants at smaller (atomic and molecular) scales compared to traditional cleaning methods [Dale - 0029]. It's further noted that the pig of Grote may include cleaning elements [Grote - 0021].
Furthermore, the limitations “the propulsion system configured to move the housing through the liquid in the pipeline; and configured to generate electrical power based on a flow of the liquid through the flow turbine as the housing moved through the liquid in the pipeline; configured to generate plasma near the scale to remove at least a portion of the scale from the inner surface of the pipeline,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the generator of Grote acts as a motor to move the pig relative to a fluid flowing inside a pipe; the drive element of Grote is designed to be rotated by a fluid that flows past the pig when in a fixed state and to provide electrical energy for the electrical systems disposed on the pig [Grote – 0012, 0030, 0045]. Furthermore, the CED plasma shower of Kim may be used for cleaning, etching, or surface modification [Kim - 0008].
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Hazuku (Hazuku modified by Grote) does not specifically disclose wherein the plasma tool comprises at least one high voltage electrode.
Kim teaches wherein the plasma tool comprises at least one high voltage electrode (second metal electrode 12) [Fig. 1 & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous robot of Modified Hazuku to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Kim discloses that plasma cleaning is advantageous in providing sterilization under a larger variety of pressure conditions [Kim - 0004, 0082-0083]. It is noted that a use case of the pipe of Hazuku is in delivering hot spring water, therefore sterilization would be beneficial [Hazuku - 0003]. Roth (US 5938854) discloses that plasma cleaning may be advantageous over abrasive cleaning [Roth - Col. 2 lines 39-44]. Andrews et al. (US 20030085113) also discloses that plasma cleaning provides more rapid cleaning and helps readies a surface for passivation [Andrews - 0017]. Dale et al. (US 20220041000) also discloses that plasma cleaning can more effectively remove contaminants at smaller (atomic and molecular) scales compared to traditional cleaning methods [Dale - 0029]. It's further noted that the pig of Grote may include cleaning elements [Grote - 0021].
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Hazuku (Hazuku modified by Grote) does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises a capillary tube electrode.
Kim teaches wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises a capillary tube electrode (the second metal electrode 19 is completely encapsulated in the capillary dielectric) [Fig. 1 & 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous robot of Modified Hazuku to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Kim discloses that plasma cleaning is advantageous in providing sterilization under a larger variety of pressure conditions [Kim - 0004, 0082-0083]. It is noted that a use case of the pipe of Hazuku is in delivering hot spring water, therefore sterilization would be beneficial [Hazuku - 0003]. Roth (US 5938854) discloses that plasma cleaning may be advantageous over abrasive cleaning [Roth - Col. 2 lines 39-44]. Andrews et al. (US 20030085113) also discloses that plasma cleaning provides more rapid cleaning and helps readies a surface for passivation [Andrews - 0017]. Dale et al. (US 20220041000) also discloses that plasma cleaning can more effectively remove contaminants at smaller (atomic and molecular) scales compared to traditional cleaning methods [Dale - 0029]. It's further noted that the pig of Grote may include cleaning elements [Grote - 0021].
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Hazuku (Hazuku modified by Grote) does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises an array of a plurality of high voltage electrodes.
Kim teaches wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises an array of a plurality of high voltage electrodes (the number of capillaries may range from one to thousands) [Fig. 1, 3 & 0031, 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous robot of Modified Hazuku to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Kim discloses that plasma cleaning is advantageous in providing sterilization under a larger variety of pressure conditions [Kim - 0004, 0082-0083]. It is noted that a use case of the pipe of Hazuku is in delivering hot spring water, therefore sterilization would be beneficial [Hazuku - 0003]. Roth (US 5938854) discloses that plasma cleaning may be advantageous over abrasive cleaning [Roth - Col. 2 lines 39-44]. Andrews et al. (US 20030085113) also discloses that plasma cleaning provides more rapid cleaning and helps readies a surface for passivation [Andrews - 0017]. Dale et al. (US 20220041000) also discloses that plasma cleaning can more effectively remove contaminants at smaller (atomic and molecular) scales compared to traditional cleaning methods [Dale - 0029]. It's further noted that the pig of Grote may include cleaning elements [Grote - 0021].
Regarding Claim 6:
The limitations of claim 6 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the CED plasma shower of Kim may be used for cleaning, etching, or surface modification, and as such, would be capable of applying appropriate power and chemistry to clean any surface (it's also noted that virtually any kind of material can be treated by the CED plasma shower) [Kim - 0004, 0008, 0034, 0078]. Furthermore, Zajac et al. (US 4230515) and Iseda et al. (US 20070272358) disclose that plasma ignition generates UV radiation [Zajac - Col. 1 lines 35-39; Iseda - 0019]. Koulik et al. (US 20030165636) also discloses that plasma may generate acoustic vibrations [Koulik - 0044].
Regarding Claim 7:
Hazuku does not specifically disclose wherein the power source comprises a rechargeable battery.
Grote teaches wherein the power source comprises a rechargeable battery (there may be a rechargeable energy storage unit) [Fig. 1-3 & 0045-0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hazuku to include an autonomous robot for scale removal to reduce maintenance cost [Grote - 0050].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazuku et al. (US 20210108917) in view of Grote et al. (US 20220213999) and Kim et al. (US 20040036397), with Roth (US 5938854), Andrews et al. (US 20030085113), Dale et al. (US 20220041000), Zajac et al. (US 4230515), Iseda et al. (US 20070272358), and Koulik et al. (US 20030165636) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Pierce et al. (US 20100187091).
The limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Hazuku teaches a high voltage generator (power supply 15) coupled to the at least one high voltage electrode [Kim - Fig. 1 & 0029].
Modified Hazuku does not specifically disclose a high voltage generator coupled to the at least one high voltage electrode and the power source.
Although Pierce does not specifically disclose "a voltage generator coupled to the at least one high voltage electrode," Pierce does disclose that plasma voltage is a result effective variable. Specifically, Pierce discloses that plasma behavior is dependent on numerous factors including voltage applied to an electrode [Pierce - 0020]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum voltage (such as a high voltage) to obtain a desired plasma profile [Pierce - 0020].
It is further noted that the combination of references would disclose "wherein the at least one autonomous robot further comprises a high voltage generator coupled to the at least one high voltage electrode and the power source," since the rechargeable energy storage unit of Grote could be used to power all electrical components of the autonomous robot [Grote - 0045]. Furthermore, it can be reasonably inferred that one of ordinary skill in the art would connect the high voltage electrode (power supply 15) of Kim to the rechargeable energy storage unit or generator unit of Grote since the high voltage electrode would need to be connected to a power source to function. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [MPEP 2144.01].
Claim(s) 16-19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazuku et al. (US 20210108917) in view of Grote et al. (US 20220213999) and Kim et al. (US 20040036397), with Roth (US 5938854), Andrews et al. (US 20030085113), Dale et al. (US 20220041000), Zajac et al. (US 4230515), Iseda et al. (US 20070272358), and Koulik et al. (US 20030165636) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 16:
Grote teaches an autonomous robot for descaling a pipeline, comprising: a streamlined housing (pig body 4); a propulsion system at least partially enclosed in the streamlined housing and comprising a power source (there may be a rechargeable energy storage unit) and a motor (generator unit 8), a flow turbine (drive element 6) coupled to the power source (an energy storage unit may be connected to the generator unit 8, wherein the generator unit 8 may be connected to the drive element 6) [Fig. 1-3 & 0045-0046].
Grote does not specifically disclose a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool.
Kim teaches a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool (the CED plasma shower of Fig. 1) [Fig. 1 & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous robot of Grote to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Kim discloses that plasma cleaning is advantageous in providing sterilization under a larger variety of pressure conditions [Kim - 0004, 0082-0083]. Roth (US 5938854) discloses that plasma cleaning may be advantageous over abrasive cleaning [Roth - Col. 2 lines 39-44]. Andrews et al. (US 20030085113) also discloses that plasma cleaning provides more rapid cleaning and helps readies a surface for passivation [Andrews - 0017]. Dale et al. (US 20220041000) also discloses that plasma cleaning can more effectively remove contaminants at smaller (atomic and molecular) scales compared to traditional cleaning methods [Dale - 0029]. It's further noted that the pig of Grote may include cleaning elements [Grote - 0021].
Furthermore, the limitations “the propulsion system configured to move the housing through the liquid in the pipeline; and configured to generate electrical power based on a flow of the liquid through the flow turbine as the housing moved through the liquid in the pipeline; configured to generate plasma near the scale to remove at least a portion of the scale from the inner surface of the pipeline,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the generator of Grote acts as a motor to move the pig relative to a fluid flowing inside a pipe; the drive element of Grote is designed to be rotated by a fluid that flows past the pig when in a fixed state and to provide electrical energy for the electrical systems disposed on the pig [Grote – 0012, 0030, 0045]. Furthermore, the CED plasma shower of Kim may be used for cleaning, etching, or surface modification [Kim - 0008].
Regarding Claim 17:
Grote does not specifically disclose wherein the plasma tool comprises at least one high voltage electrode.
Kim teaches wherein the plasma tool comprises at least one high voltage electrode (second metal electrode 12) [Fig. 1 & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous robot of Grote to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Kim discloses that plasma cleaning is advantageous in providing sterilization under a larger variety of pressure conditions [Kim - 0004, 0082-0083]. Roth (US 5938854) discloses that plasma cleaning may be advantageous over abrasive cleaning [Roth - Col. 2 lines 39-44]. Andrews et al. (US 20030085113) also discloses that plasma cleaning provides more rapid cleaning and helps readies a surface for passivation [Andrews - 0017]. Dale et al. (US 20220041000) also discloses that plasma cleaning can more effectively remove contaminants at smaller (atomic and molecular) scales compared to traditional cleaning methods [Dale - 0029]. It's further noted that the pig of Grote may include cleaning elements [Grote - 0021].
Regarding Claim 18:
Grote does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises a capillary tube electrode.
Kim teaches wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises a capillary tube electrode (the second metal electrode 19 is completely encapsulated in the capillary dielectric) [Fig. 1 & 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous robot of Grote to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Kim discloses that plasma cleaning is advantageous in providing sterilization under a larger variety of pressure conditions [Kim - 0004, 0082-0083]. Roth (US 5938854) discloses that plasma cleaning may be advantageous over abrasive cleaning [Roth - Col. 2 lines 39-44]. Andrews et al. (US 20030085113) also discloses that plasma cleaning provides more rapid cleaning and helps readies a surface for passivation [Andrews - 0017]. Dale et al. (US 20220041000) also discloses that plasma cleaning can more effectively remove contaminants at smaller (atomic and molecular) scales compared to traditional cleaning methods [Dale - 0029]. It's further noted that the pig of Grote may include cleaning elements [Grote - 0021].
Regarding Claim 19:
Grote does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises an array of a plurality of high voltage electrodes.
Kim teaches wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises an array of a plurality of high voltage electrodes (the number of capillaries may range from one to thousands) [Fig. 1, 3 & 0031, 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous robot of Grote to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Kim discloses that plasma cleaning is advantageous in providing sterilization under a larger variety of pressure conditions [Kim - 0004, 0082-0083]. Roth (US 5938854) discloses that plasma cleaning may be advantageous over abrasive cleaning [Roth - Col. 2 lines 39-44]. Andrews et al. (US 20030085113) also discloses that plasma cleaning provides more rapid cleaning and helps readies a surface for passivation [Andrews - 0017]. Dale et al. (US 20220041000) also discloses that plasma cleaning can more effectively remove contaminants at smaller (atomic and molecular) scales compared to traditional cleaning methods [Dale - 0029]. It's further noted that the pig of Grote may include cleaning elements [Grote - 0021].
Regarding Claim 21:
The limitations of claim 21 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the CED plasma shower of Kim may be used for cleaning, etching, or surface modification, and as such, would be capable of applying appropriate power and chemistry to clean any surface (it's also noted that virtually any kind of material can be treated by the CED plasma shower) [Kim - 0004, 0008, 0034, 0078]. Furthermore, Zajac et al. (US 4230515) and Iseda et al. (US 20070272358) disclose that plasma ignition generates UV radiation [Zajac - Col. 1 lines 35-39; Iseda - 0019]. Koulik et al. (US 20030165636) also discloses that plasma may generate acoustic vibrations [Koulik - 0044].
Regarding Claim 22:
Grote teaches wherein the power source comprises a rechargeable battery (there may be a rechargeable energy storage unit) [Fig. 1-3 & 0045-0046].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazuku et al. (US 20210108917) in view of Grote et al. (US 20220213999) and Kim et al. (US 20040036397), with Roth (US 5938854), Andrews et al. (US 20030085113), Dale et al. (US 20220041000), Zajac et al. (US 4230515), Iseda et al. (US 20070272358), and Koulik et al. (US 20030165636) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 16-19 and 21-22 above, and further in view of Pierce et al. (US 20100187091).
The limitations of claims 16-19 and 21-22 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Grote teaches a high voltage generator (power supply 15) coupled to the at least one high voltage electrode [Kim - Fig. 1 & 0029].
Modified Grote does not specifically disclose a high voltage generator coupled to the at least one high voltage electrode and the power source.
Although Pierce does not specifically disclose "a voltage generator coupled to the at least one high voltage electrode," Pierce does disclose that plasma voltage is a result effective variable. Specifically, Pierce discloses that plasma behavior is dependent on numerous factors including voltage applied to an electrode [Pierce - 0020]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum voltage (such as a high voltage) to obtain a desired plasma profile [Pierce - 0020].
It is further noted that the combination of references would disclose "wherein the at least one autonomous robot further comprises a high voltage generator coupled to the at least one high voltage electrode and the power source," since the rechargeable energy storage unit of Grote could be used to power all electrical components of the autonomous robot [Grote - 0045]. Furthermore, it can be reasonably inferred that one of ordinary skill in the art would connect the high voltage electrode (power supply 15) of Kim to the rechargeable energy storage unit or generator unit of Grote since the high voltage electrode would need to be connected to a power source to function. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [MPEP 2144.01].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Starr et al. (US 20180085798) and Angle et al. (US 5947213) teach autonomous robots [Starr – Fig. 1; Angle – Fig. 1]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights