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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroczynski (US 4,674,949) in view of Lipinski et al. (US 2016/0121486 A1).
Claim 1: Kroczynski discloses a method that includes engaging one or more rear adhesion devices of a repair robot (feet of 1 shown in Figure 3A), extending a body of the repair robot (see movement of 2 of Figures B and C); disengaging the one or more rear adhesion devices (see upward movement of 1 of Figures 4D and 4E); engaging one or more front adhesion devices of the repair robot (after Figure 4F the feet of 1 are reengaged to complete the step); contracting the body of the repair robot (see movement of 6 from Figure 3C to 4F); and disengaging the one or more front adhesion devices (see Figure 3B where feet are released to support the tool on 1). This movement of 6 is considered extension and contraction because the distance between the rear of 1 is increased and decreased repetitively in order to move the repair robot, Col. 4, Lines 4-28 describe these repetitive actions to move the robot.
While Kroczynski discloses a portion of the limitations recited in claim 1, Kroczynski fails to disclose that the device includes a crevasse 3D printer.
However, Lipinski et al. teaches a robot that includes a crevasse 3D printer for performing additive manufacturing operations (paragraphs [0171]-[0172]). The nozzle 312 is considered a crevasse 3D printer because it forms a 3D structure in a crevasse under the floorboards of a house.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the crevasse 3D printer of Lipinski et al. for the tool of Kroczynski (Col. 6, Line 65 to Col. 7, Line 12) because it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to achieve a predictable result. In this case the predictable result would be that the robot of Kroczynski would be equipped with the crevasse 3D printer of Lipinski et al. This modification would be advantageous as it would increase the capability of the repair robot of Kroczynski such that it was capable of performing additional operations.
Claim 2: Kroczynski further discloses that the front and rear adhesion devices are vacuum adhesion devices (Col. 3, Lines 26-28).
Claim 3: Kroczynski further discloses that the front and rear adhesion devices are magnetic adhesion devices (Col. 3, Lines 29-32).
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein the body includes a spring to aid in contraction.
Claim 5: Lipinski et al. further teaches that the crevasse 3D printer comprises a material delivery nozzle (312 of Figure 32).
Claims 6-8 and 10: Kroczynski further discloses a control that requires a computer readable storage medium that control the device of Kroczynski/Lipinski et al to perform the method steps addressed above (Kroczynski Figures 5-6; Col. 4, Line 62 to Col. 5, Line 25; Lipinski et al. paragraph [0050]-[0051]).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroczynski (US 4,674,949) in view of Lipinski et al. (US 2016/0121486 A1) and Montero SanJuan et al. (US 8,019,472 B2).
Claims 4 and 9: Neither Kroczynski nor Lipinski et al. disclose or reasonably suggests a spring to aid in the contraction.
However, Montero SanJuan et al. teaches a spring that aids the movement of the legs of robotic device (14 of Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a spring such as that of Montero SanJuan et al. with the device of Kroczynski such the contraction of Kroczynski was aided by the spring. This modification would have been advantageous as the spring would dampen and aid in the control of the movement of the body of Kroczynski. Further, this medication would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements by known methods in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)). In the instant case the predictable results would that the spring would be located on either side of the body and aid in its movement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726