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.
Status of Claims
Responsive to communication filed 07/06/2026
Claims 1-23 are pending
Claims 8-15 have been withdrawn
Claim 23 has been added
Claim 1 and 16 have been amended
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) 1-2, 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), Landberg (US 20110266805), and Garber et al. (US 20210101804).
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.
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 (drive element 6) that comprises a power source (there may be a rechargeable energy storage unit) and a motor (generator unit 8) [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 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.
Landberg teaches a flow turbine (turbine 9) coupled to the power source (the turbine 9 is operatively connected to a generator (not shown) arranged to produce electrical energy distributed via an electrical cable integrated within or secured to the wire) 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 (submersible plant 1 is attached to a stream-driven vehicle 3, which itself can be secured to a moving vehicle and generates energy) [Fig. 1a, 2 & 0007, 0029, 0031, 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the robot of Modified Hazuku to include a flow turbine capable of generating energy while the robot is moving, as in Landberg, to add an additional way to efficiently generate cost effective energy [Landberg - 0008, 0010]. It is noted that it would be reasonable to connect the power source of Grote to the flow turbine 9 of Landberg since the flow turbine 9 of Grote can be arranged to distribute its generated energy. Furthermore, the power source of Grote can already be connected to power generators (drive element 6) [Grote - 0030, 0045].
Modified Hazuku does not specifically disclose a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool.
Garber teaches and a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool (cathode 50) [Fig. 1a & 0070, 0073].
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 Garber discloses that plasma cleaning treats contaminants in water and wastewater that are highly resistant to destruction by other means [Garber - 0003, 0011-0012]. 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 [Grote - 0030, 0045]. It’s further noted that Garber creates an electrical discharge arcing between the cathode (50) and the anode (52) [Garber - 0074]. It is noted that the pipe 100 of Hazuku could serve as an anode if the cathode 50 of Garber was utilized in the robot (pig 2) of Grote; the anode 52 of Garber is submerged underwater and can be reasonably considered to be analogous to the pipe surface of Modified Hazuku. Since the cathode 50 generates an electric discharge with a surface, it would be capable of performing electrolysis and generating plasma.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Hazuku (Hazuku modified by Grote and Landberg) does not specifically disclose wherein the plasma tool comprises at least one high voltage electrode.
Garber teaches wherein the plasma tool comprises at least one high voltage electrode (cathode 50) [Fig. 1a & 0070, 0073].
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 Garber discloses that plasma cleaning treats contaminants in water and wastewater that are highly resistant to destruction by other means [Garber - 0003, 0011-0012].
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Hazuku (Hazuku modified by Grote and Landberg) does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises an array of a plurality of high voltage electrodes.
Garber teaches wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises an array of a plurality of high voltage electrodes (as evidenced by Fig. 1a, the cathode 50 comprises a plurality of downwardly extending electrodes) [Fig. 1a & 0070, 0073].
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 Garber discloses that plasma cleaning treats contaminants in water and wastewater that are highly resistant to destruction by other means [Garber - 0003, 0011-0012].
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 Garber creates an electrical discharge arcing between the cathode (50) and the anode (52) [Garber - 0074]. It is noted that the pipe 100 of Hazuku could serve as an anode if the cathode 50 of Garber was utilized in the robot (pig 2) of Grote; the anode 52 of Garber is submerged underwater and can be reasonably considered to be analogous to the pipe surface of Modified Hazuku. Since the cathode 50 generates an electric discharge with a surface, it would be capable of performing electrolysis and generating plasma.
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) 3 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), Landberg (US 20110266805), and Garber et al. (US 20210101804), as applied to claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20040036397).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Hazuku does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises a capillary tube electrode.
Kim discloses 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 plasma tool of Modified Hazuku to have capillary electrodes, as in Kim, to protect internal electrodes and prevent unnecessary discharge/arcing [Kim - 0010, 0034, 0038].
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), Landberg (US 20110266805), and Garber et al. (US 20210101804), as applied to claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 above, and further in view of Pierce et al. (US 20100187091).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Hazuku teaches a voltage generator coupled to the at least one high voltage electrode (an unshown power supply is utilized to power the cathode 50) [Garber - Fig. 1a & 0070, 0073].
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 (an unshown power supply is utilized to power the cathode 50) of Grote 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) 16-17, 19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grote et al. (US 20220213999) in view of Landberg (US 20110266805), and Garber et al. (US 20210101804).
Regarding Claim 16:
Grote teaches an autonomous robot for descaling a pipeline, comprising: a streamlined housing (pig body 4); a propulsion system (drive element 6) 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) [Fig. 1-3 & 0045-0046].
Grote does not specifically disclose a flow turbine coupled to the power source and configured to generate electrical power based on a flow of water in the pipeline through the flow turbine as the housing moved through the liquid in the pipeline.
Landberg teaches a flow turbine (turbine 9) coupled to the power source (the turbine 9 is operatively connected to a generator (not shown) arranged to produce electrical energy distributed via an electrical cable integrated within or secured to the wire) 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 (submersible plant 1 is attached to a stream-driven vehicle 3, which itself can be secured to a moving vehicle and generates energy) [Fig. 1a, 2 & 0007, 0029, 0031, 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the robot of Grote to include a flow turbine capable of generating energy while the robot is moving, as in Landberg, to add an additional way to efficiently generate cost effective energy [Landberg - 0008, 0010]. It is noted that it would be reasonable to connect the power source of Grote to the flow turbine 9 of Landberg since the flow turbine 9 of Grote can be arranged to distribute its generated energy. Furthermore, the power source of Grote can already be connected to power generators (drive element 6) [Grote - 0030, 0045].
Grote does not specifically disclose a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool.
Garber teaches and a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool (cathode 50) [Fig. 1a & 0070, 0073].
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 Grote to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Garber discloses that plasma cleaning treats contaminants in water and wastewater that are highly resistant to destruction by other means [Garber - 0003, 0011-0012]. 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 [Grote - 0030, 0045]. It’s further noted that Garber creates an electrical discharge arcing between the cathode (50) and the anode (52) [Garber - 0074]. It is noted that the a pipe wall could serve as an anode if the cathode 50 of Garber was utilized in the robot (pig 2) of Grote; the anode 52 of Garber is submerged underwater and can be reasonably considered to be analogous to the pipe surface of Modified Hazuku. Since the cathode 50 generates an electric discharge with a surface, it would be capable of performing electrolysis and generating plasma.
Regarding Claim 17:
Grote does not specifically disclose wherein the plasma tool comprises at least one high voltage electrode.
Garber teaches wherein the plasma tool comprises at least one high voltage electrode (cathode 50) [Fig. 1a & 0070, 0073].
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 Grote to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Garber discloses that plasma cleaning treats contaminants in water and wastewater that are highly resistant to destruction by other means [Garber - 0003, 0011-0012].
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.
Garber teaches wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises an array of a plurality of high voltage electrodes (as evidenced by Fig. 1a, the cathode 50 comprises a plurality of downwardly extending electrodes) [Fig. 1a & 0070, 0073].
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 Grote to have a scale removal sub-assembly comprising a plasma tool since Garber discloses that plasma cleaning treats contaminants in water and wastewater that are highly resistant to destruction by other means [Garber - 0003, 0011-0012]. Kim et al. (US 20040036397) also discloses that plasma cleaning is advantageous in providing sterilization under a larger variety of pressure conditions [Kim - 0004, 0082-0083]. 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 Garber creates an electrical discharge arcing between the cathode (50) and the anode (52) [Garber - 0074]. It is noted that the pipe 100 of Hazuku could serve as an anode if the cathode 50 of Garber was utilized in the robot (pig 2) of Grote; the anode 52 of Garber is submerged underwater and can be reasonably considered to be analogous to the pipe surface of Modified Hazuku. Since the cathode 50 generates an electric discharge with a surface, it would be capable of performing electrolysis and generating plasma.
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].
Regarding Claim 23:
The limitations of claim 23 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 Garber creates an electrical discharge arcing between the cathode (50) and the anode (52) [Garber - 0074]. It is noted that the pipe 100 of Hazuku could serve as an anode if the cathode 50 of Garber was utilized in the robot (pig 2) of Grote; the anode 52 of Garber is submerged underwater and can be reasonably considered to be analogous to the pipe surface of Modified Hazuku. Since the cathode 50 generates an electric discharge with a surface, it would be capable of performing electrolysis and generating plasma.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grote et al. (US 20220213999) in view of Landberg (US 20110266805), and Garber et al. (US 20210101804), as applied to claims 16-17, 19, and 21-22 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20040036397).
The limitations of claims 16-17, 19, and 21-22 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 18:
Modified Grote does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one high voltage electrode comprises a capillary tube electrode.
Kim discloses 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 plasma tool of Modified Grote to have capillary electrodes, as in Kim, to protect internal electrodes and prevent unnecessary discharge/arcing [Kim - 0010, 0034, 0038].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grote et al. (US 20220213999) in view of Landberg (US 20110266805), and Garber et al. (US 20210101804), as applied to claims 16-17, 19, and 21-22 above, and further in view of Pierce et al. (US 20100187091).
The limitations of claims 16-17, 19, and 21-22 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Grote teaches a voltage generator coupled to the at least one high voltage electrode (an unshown power supply is utilized to power the cathode 50) [Garber - Fig. 1a & 0070, 0073].
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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/06/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 6-23 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “that generates a plasma by creating a gas bubble via an electrolysis reaction of the liquid within the pipeline and applying a voltage sufficient for a breakdown voltage of the scale within the gas bubble near the scale to remove at least a portion of the scale from the inner surface of the pipeline.” This argument has been fully considered but is moot because the argument does not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Garber et al. (US 20210101804) and Landberg (US 20110266805) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
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 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
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights