DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/490,763 is responsive to communications filed on 10/03/2025, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 06/04/2025. Currently, claims 1-19 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In regard to claim 1, the Applicant submits that, with regard to ‘a control element having one or more processors for generating control commands relating to the dispensing and retracting forces imparted by the drive element,’ Kreiselmaier only describes control in terms of speed, length, and synchronization, i.e., all movement parameters, not force parameters. There is no disclosure of force-based controls. Kreiselmaier, para. [0033], discloses the capability of programming and varying the feed length of the application hose and its retraction speed in combination with the discharge of the treatment agent... Furthermore, when discussing a force, i.e., pressure, in para. [0033], Kreiselmaier is only describing pressure as it relates to system fluid parameters, not the forces imparted by the drive element on a push-cable, as recited in Claim 1. Since Kreiselmaier does not teach all of the elements of Claim 1, the Applicant submits that the rejection of the claim is improper. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations of claim 1 require generating control commands related to the dispensing and retracting forces imparted by the drive element in generating push-cable movements that correspond with the dispensing/retracting movements. As such, the control signals need to merely be related to the act of the drive element imparting dispensing or retracting forces to generate movements. Paragraph 20 of Kreiselmaier discloses that the hose is moved forward and back via a driving means with a motor such as a servomotor, that enables the hose to be advanced and retracted, and the motor exerts sufficient pressure to move the hose into a pipe to lengths of 20 meters or more. As such, it can be seen that the driving element is producing forces that generate cable movements for dispensing and retracting movements. Additionally, paragraph 33 notes that a control system can control feed lengths, feed speed, retraction amount, retraction speed. These are control signals that are related to the action of dispensing or retracting the hose, and as such, are related to the dispensing and retracting forces that the drive element would be imparting. For example, setting control signals to feed the hose a certain length or at a certain speed would be related to the drive element imparting forces to achieve dispensing the hose to such a length as requested. As such, it can be seen that the teachings of Kreiselmaier include all of the limitations presented in claim 1.
In regard to claim 17, the Applicant submits that the teachings of Kreiselmaier do not disclose imparting forces to cause impulsive movements of the push-cable, and instead, merely describe smooth continuous feed/retraction. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in paragraph 33 of Kreiselmaier, control signals can be sent to control feed length, feed speed, retraction amount, retraction speed, etc. As discussed above regarding claim 1, these control signals are inherently related to the motor imparting forces on the hose to achieve the control signals given, and sending a control signal to move the hose a certain distance can be described as a force that causes an impulsive movement. The claim limitations require that the drive element imparts forces to cause impulsive movements, and it can be seen that the drive element disclosed by Kreiselmaier is capable of imparting forces to cause impulsive movements, as a drive motor causing a hose to move any amount from a stopped position would be imparting an impulsive force. As such, the teachings of Kreiselmaier include all of the limitations presented in claim 17.
In regard to claim 19, this claim has been newly added, and as such, its rejection can be found in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreiselmaier (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0287943), hereinafter referred to as Kreis.
In regard to claim 1, Kreis teaches a motorized cable-handling device (Kreis paragraph 51 noting the guiding hose 21 is subdivided, with the drive unit 26 for application hose 18 being arranged within the gap, said drive unit comprising a total of 6 guide and drive rollers 27. Drive unit 26 is movably arranged on traversing carriage 55 and follows the windings of the application hose 18), comprising;
a coupling element (Kreis paragraph 51 noting elements 27, said drive unit comprising a total of 6 guide and drive rollers 27) for coupling the cable-handling device about a push-cable (Kreis paragraph 51 noting drive unit 26 is movably arranged on traversing carriage 55 and follows the windings of the application hose 18);
a drive element for imparting force (Kreis paragraph 51 noting rollers 27 of the application hose drive are rotated by servomotor 29 coupled with the reel motor 19 so that in this case as well the feed movement of the application hose is synchronous with the hose unwinding from reel 17) in generating dispensing and retracting movements of the push-cable (Kreis paragraph 51 noting drive unit 26 is movably arranged on traversing carriage 55 and follows the windings of the application hose 18; and Paragraph 20 of Kreiselmaier discloses that the hose is moved forward and back via a driving means with a motor such as a servomotor, that enables the hose to be advanced and retracted, and the motor exerts sufficient pressure to move the hose into a pipe to lengths of 20 meters or more. As such, it can be seen that the driving element is producing forces that generate cable movements for dispensing and retracting movements);
a measurement element for generating measurement data relating to a measure of the amount of push-cable dispensed (Kreis paragraph 22 noting a metering roll is arranged on the traversing carriage serving to monitor the movement and, as the case may be, the speed of the application hose);
an input element for receiving input relating to the dispensing and retracting movements of the push-cable (Kreis paragraph 22 noting a metering roll is arranged on the traversing carriage serving to monitor the movement and, as the case may be, the speed of the application hose);
a control element having one or more processors for generating control commands relating to the dispensing and retracting forces imparted by the drive element in generating push-cable movements that correspond with the dispensing/retracting movements imparted by a cable-storage drum device and one or more non-transitory memories for storing instructions and data relating to push-cable movements (Kreis paragraphs 15, 20, 32-34, and 50-51; Kreis paragraph 33 noting a control unit that in particular monitors, controls and indicates the intake and discharge volumes and the pressure. The control unit ensures the proper functioning as well as trouble-free operation of the apparatus. It can also be programmed with respect to feed length, feed speed, and retraction speed of the application hose; Paragraph 20 of Kreiselmaier discloses that the hose is moved forward and back via a driving means with a motor such as a servomotor, that enables the hose to be advanced and retracted, and the motor exerts sufficient pressure to move the hose into a pipe to lengths of 20 meters or more. As such, it can be seen that the driving element is producing forces that generate cable movements for dispensing and retracting movements. Additionally, paragraph 33 notes that a control system can control feed lengths, feed speed, retraction amount, retraction speed. These are control signals that are related to the action of dispensing or retracting the hose, and as such, are related to the dispensing and retracting forces that the drive element would be imparting. For example, setting control signals to feed the hose a certain length or at a certain speed would be related to the drive element imparting forces to achieve dispensing the hose to such a length as requested);
a communication element for communicating control commands relating to the dispensing/retracting movement control with a cable-storage drum device (implicit in the disclosure of Kreis as the drives are synchronized; Kreis paragraph 51 noting drive 24 of the traversing carriage 55 is brought about via a toothed belt 28 which is driven by reel motor 19 and in this manner ensures the traversing carriage moves synchronously via a spindle with trapezoidal thread. Rollers 27 of the application hose drive are rotated by servomotor 29 coupled with the reel motor 19 so that in this case as well the feed movement of the application hose is synchronous with the hose unwinding from reel 17; and Kreis paragraph 33 noting a control unit that in particular monitors, controls and indicates the intake and discharge volumes and the pressure. The control unit ensures the proper functioning as well as trouble-free operation of the apparatus. It can also be programmed with respect to feed length, feed speed, and retraction speed of the application hose); and
a power element for supplying of electrical power to powered elements of the cable-handling device (Kreis paragraph 49 noting power supply appliance 53).
In regard to claim 2, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Kreis teaches configured for use in a pipe inspection system (Kreis abstract noting the invention relates to a device for the internal treatment of pipes).
In regard to claim 4, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Kreis teaches wherein the drive element includes one or more electric motors for moving a push-cable (Kreis paragraph 51 noting the drive unit 26 for application hose 18 being arranged within the gap, said drive unit comprising a total of 6 guide and drive rollers 27. Drive unit 26 is movably arranged on traversing carriage 55 and follows the windings of the application hose 18 on reel 17, Drive 24 of the traversing carriage 55 is brought about via a toothed belt 28 which is driven by reel motor 19 and in this manner ensures the traversing carriage moves synchronously via a spindle with trapezoidal thread. Rollers 27 of the application hose drive are rotated by servomotor 29 coupled with the reel motor 19 so that in this case as well the feed movement of the application hose is synchronous with the hose unwinding from reel 17).
In regard to claim 6, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Kreis teaches wherein the power element includes one or more batteries (Kreis paragraph 15 noting an embodiment of a cable handling device with an automatic motorized wheel feeder powered by an external battery).
In regard to claim 7, Kreis teaches wherein the control element is governed by measurement data of the amount of push-cable dispensed produced by a cable-storage drum device to ensure synchronous movement of the push-cable from the cable-handling device and the cable-storage drum device (Kreis paragraph 33 noting a control unit that in particular monitors, controls and indicates the intake and discharge volumes and the pressure. The control unit ensures the proper functioning as well as trouble-free operation of the apparatus. It can also be programmed with respect to feed length, feed speed, and retraction speed of the application hose).
In regard to claim 8, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Kreis teaches wherein the control element is governed by the measurement data produced by the measurement element of the cable-handling device (Kreis paragraph 22 noting a metering roll is arranged on the traversing carriage serving to monitor the movement and, as the case may be, the speed of the application hose) that is further shared with a cable-storage-drum device to ensure synchronous movement of the push- cable from the cable-handling device and the cable-storage drum device (implicit in the disclosure of Kreis as the drives are synchronized; Kreis paragraph 51 noting drive 24 of the traversing carriage 55 is brought about via a toothed belt 28 which is driven by reel motor 19 and in this manner ensures the traversing carriage moves synchronously via a spindle with trapezoidal thread. Rollers 27 of the application hose drive are rotated by servomotor 29 coupled with the reel motor 19 so that in this case as well the feed movement of the application hose is synchronous with the hose unwinding from reel 17).
In regard to claim 17, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Kreis teaches wherein the drive element imparts forces to cause impulsive movements of the push-cable (Kreis paragraph 48 noting Reel 17 accommodates the application hose 18 capable of being unwound and retracted by means of motor 19; and Kreis paragraph 51 noting Rollers 27 of the application hose drive are rotated by servomotor 29 coupled with the reel motor 19 so that in this case as well the feed movement of the application hose is synchronous with the hose unwinding from reel 17. Maximum feed/retraction speed rates of up to 4.5 m/sec are achieved. Kreis claim 9 noting the application hose (18) can be controllably extended and retracted over the entire length of the pipe to be treated; and claim 14 noting the control unit is programmable with respect to feed length, feed speed, and/or retraction speed of the application hose. As discussed in paragraph 33 of Kreiselmaier, control signals can be sent to control feed length, feed speed, retraction amount, retraction speed, etc. As discussed above regarding claim 1, these control signals are inherently related to the motor imparting forces on the hose to achieve the control signals given, and sending a control signal to move the hose a certain distance can be described as a force that causes an impulsive movement. The claim limitations require that the drive element imparts forces to cause impulsive movements, and it can be seen that the drive element disclosed by Kreiselmaier is capable of imparting forces to cause impulsive movements, as a drive motor causing a hose to move any amount from a stopped position would be imparting an impulsive force).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiselmaier (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0287943), hereinafter referred to as Kreis.
In regard to claim 3, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Kreis does not expressly disclose configured for use in a utility locating system.
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, that the system of Kreis could be configured for use in a utility locating system as no additional technical features are involved, and it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). As such, incorporating that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, the teachings of Kreis include all of the limitations presented in claim 3.
In regard to claim 5, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Kreis teaches that the control unit can be operated remotely (Kreis paragraph 34). However, Kreis does not expressly disclose wherein the communication element includes Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other wireless communication apparatus.
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that wireless communication protocols such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or others could be used to communicate remotely, as these methods of remote communication of apparatuses with digital controllers are common knowledge to those having ordinary skill in the art. As such, incorporating that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, the teachings of Kreis include all of the limitations presented in claim 5.
Claims 9, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiselmaier (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0287943), hereinafter referred to as Kreis, in view of Warren et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0071803), hereinafter referred to as Warren.
In regard to claim 9, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Kreis does not expressly disclose further including a cleaning element to wipe or clean the push-cable during dispensing or retracting movements.
In the same field of endeavor, Warren teaches further including a cleaning element to wipe or clean the push-cable during dispensing or retracting movements (Warren paragraph 32 noting cleaning could be provided as well, by implementing a capture O-ring in the supplemental bore, to wipe the flex-shaft sheathing pulled back into the O-ring; and Warren paragraph 55 noting cleaning elements (e.g. sponges, cloth, etc.) 1030 to come in contact with one or more cables/hoses 110 which will be wiped off as they are drawn through the cleaning elements 1030).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kreis with the teachings of Warren, because both disclosures relate to pipeline inspection apparatuses that comprise a drum including a cable, reel, method of deploying or retracting the cable for the purposes of inspecting and cleaning pipes, and the use of motorized automatic feeders for the push-cable. The teachings of Warren would benefit the teachings of Kreis by providing specifics on the clutches and mechanical mechanisms used in the deployment of the cable. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Warren, the teachings of Kreis include all of the limitations of claim 9.
In regard to claim 15, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Kreis does not expressly disclose wherein the drive element includes a clutch element to engage and disengage with the push-cable.
In the same field of endeavor, Warren teaches wherein the drive element includes a clutch element to engage and disengage with the push-cable (Warren paragraphs 45-46 noting the use of clutch mechanisms to control one or more cables and/or hoses).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kreis with the teachings of Warren for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 9.
In regard to claim 18, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Kreis does not expressly disclose including a flexure or compliant mechanism in moving a push-cable.
In the same field of endeavor, Warren teaches including a flexure or compliant mechanism in moving a push-cable (Warren paragraph 23 noting A flex-shaft provides a flexible shaft that allows rotational power to be supplied at one end and transmitted to a rotationally operated mechanism at the other end; and Warren paragraph 40 noting one or more of the cables and/or hoses 110 may be a flex-shaft).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kreis with the teachings of Warren for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 9.
In regard to claim 19, Kreis teaches a motorized cable-handling device (Kreis paragraph 51 noting the guiding hose 21 is subdivided, with the drive unit 26 for application hose 18 being arranged within the gap, said drive unit comprising a total of 6 guide and drive rollers 27. Drive unit 26 is movably arranged on traversing carriage 55 and follows the windings of the application hose 18), comprising;
a coupling element (Kreis paragraph 51 noting elements 27, said drive unit comprising a total of 6 guide and drive rollers 27) for coupling the cable-handling device about a push-cable (Kreis paragraph 51 noting drive unit 26 is movably arranged on traversing carriage 55 and follows the windings of the application hose 18);
a drive element for imparting force (Kreis paragraph 51 noting rollers 27 of the application hose drive are rotated by servomotor 29 coupled with the reel motor 19 so that in this case as well the feed movement of the application hose is synchronous with the hose unwinding from reel 17) in generating dispensing and retracting movements of the push-cable (Kreis paragraph 51 noting drive unit 26 is movably arranged on traversing carriage 55 and follows the windings of the application hose 18; and Paragraph 20 of Kreiselmaier discloses that the hose is moved forward and back via a driving means with a motor such as a servomotor, that enables the hose to be advanced and retracted, and the motor exerts sufficient pressure to move the hose into a pipe to lengths of 20 meters or more. As such, it can be seen that the driving element is producing forces that generate cable movements for dispensing and retracting movements);
a measurement element for generating measurement data relating to a measure of the amount of push-cable dispensed (Kreis paragraph 22 noting a metering roll is arranged on the traversing carriage serving to monitor the movement and, as the case may be, the speed of the application hose);
an input element for receiving input relating to the dispensing and retracting movements of the push-cable (Kreis paragraph 22 noting a metering roll is arranged on the traversing carriage serving to monitor the movement and, as the case may be, the speed of the application hose);
a control element having one or more processors for generating control commands relating to the dispensing and retracting forces imparted by the drive element in generating push-cable movements that correspond with the dispensing/retracting movements imparted by a cable-storage drum device and one or more non-transitory memories for storing instructions and data relating to push-cable movements (Kreis paragraphs 15, 20, 32-34, and 50-51; Kreis paragraph 33 noting a control unit that in particular monitors, controls and indicates the intake and discharge volumes and the pressure. The control unit ensures the proper functioning as well as trouble-free operation of the apparatus. It can also be programmed with respect to feed length, feed speed, and retraction speed of the application hose; Paragraph 20 of Kreiselmaier discloses that the hose is moved forward and back via a driving means with a motor such as a servomotor, that enables the hose to be advanced and retracted, and the motor exerts sufficient pressure to move the hose into a pipe to lengths of 20 meters or more. As such, it can be seen that the driving element is producing forces that generate cable movements for dispensing and retracting movements. Additionally, paragraph 33 notes that a control system can control feed lengths, feed speed, retraction amount, retraction speed. These are control signals that are related to the action of dispensing or retracting the hose, and as such, are related to the dispensing and retracting forces that the drive element would be imparting. For example, setting control signals to feed the hose a certain length or at a certain speed would be related to the drive element imparting forces to achieve dispensing the hose to such a length as requested), wherein the dispensing and retracting forces are impulsive (Kreis claim 9 noting the application hose (18) can be controllably extended and retracted over the entire length of the pipe to be treated; and claim 14 noting the control unit is programmable with respect to feed length, feed speed, and/or retraction speed of the application hose. These control signals are inherently related to the motor imparting forces on the hose to achieve the control signals given, and sending a control signal to move the hose a certain distance can be described as a force that causes an impulsive movement. The claim limitations require that the drive element imparts forces to cause impulsive movements, and it can be seen that the drive element disclosed by Kreiselmaier is capable of imparting forces to cause impulsive movements, as a drive motor causing a hose to move any amount from a stopped position would be imparting an impulsive force),
a communication element for communicating control commands relating to the dispensing/retracting movement control with a cable-storage drum device (implicit in the disclosure of Kreis as the drives are synchronized; Kreis paragraph 51 noting drive 24 of the traversing carriage 55 is brought about via a toothed belt 28 which is driven by reel motor 19 and in this manner ensures the traversing carriage moves synchronously via a spindle with trapezoidal thread. Rollers 27 of the application hose drive are rotated by servomotor 29 coupled with the reel motor 19 so that in this case as well the feed movement of the application hose is synchronous with the hose unwinding from reel 17; and Kreis paragraph 33 noting a control unit that in particular monitors, controls and indicates the intake and discharge volumes and the pressure. The control unit ensures the proper functioning as well as trouble-free operation of the apparatus. It can also be programmed with respect to feed length, feed speed, and retraction speed of the application hose); and
a power element for supplying of electrical power to powered elements of the cable-handling device (Kreis paragraph 49 noting power supply appliance 53).
However, Kreis does not expressly disclose and cause periodic push-cable movements with pauses. It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art, that the teachings of Kreis include that control signals can be programmed as desired to impart movements on the push-cable via the drive motor, and that it would be a mere matter of design choice to program the signals to make multiple movements, which could be described as periodic movements with pauses. Additionally, a programmed signal to feed the push-cable, followed by a pause in movement to perform any other tasks, and then a programmed signal to retract the push-cable could be described as two periodic movements with a pause in between. As such, it would be a mere matter of design choice to use the programmable control signals to send multiple movement signals instead of one if that’s the desired operation of the push-cable. Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Warren discloses wherein the drive element includes a clutch element to engage and disengage with the push-cable (Warren paragraphs 45-46 noting the use of clutch mechanisms to control one or more cables and/or hoses) and remote control of the clamp (Warren paragraphs 36-37). Thus, it can be seen that an apparatus that allows for remote control of push-cable movements, especially with the inclusion of a remote-controlled clutch mechanism would be capable of causing periodic movements of the push cable.
Thus, modified to incorporate that which would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as well as the teachings of Warren, the teachings of Kreis include all of the limitations presented in claim 19. It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kreis with the teachings of Warren for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 9.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiselmaier (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0287943), hereinafter referred to as Kreis, in view of Turner et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,110,495), hereinafter referred to as Turner.
In regard to claim 10, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Kreis does not expressly disclose wherein the control element is fully or in part in one or more other wirelessly connected smartphones, tablets, laptops, or other computers or devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Turner teaches wherein the control element is fully or in part in one or more other wirelessly connected smartphones, tablets, laptops, or other computers or devices (Turner column 9, lines 1-5 noting user interface 270 may be on a user mobile device, such as through an application on a phone. This may allow a user to control the operation of the pipeline inspection device 10 through the application on the phone).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kreis with the teachings of Turner, because both disclosures relate to pipeline inspection apparatuses that comprise a drum including a cable, and a controller for operating the apparatus in a pipeline inspection system. The teachings of Turner would benefit the teachings of Kreis, because the controller and user interface can be a separate device that can control the operation of the pipeline inspection system remotely from a unit such as a smartphone or other mobile device. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Turner, the teachings of Kreis include all of the limitations presented in claim 10.
In regard to claim 11, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Kreis does not expressly disclose wherein the input element is fully or in part in one or more other wirelessly connected smartphones, tablets, laptops, or other computers or devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Turner teaches wherein the input element is fully or in part in one or more other wirelessly connected smartphones, tablets, laptops, or other computers or devices (Turner column 9, lines 1-5 noting user interface 270 may be on a user mobile device, such as through an application on a phone. This may allow a user to control the operation of the pipeline inspection device 10 through the application on the phone).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kreis with the teachings of Turner for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 10.
In regard to claim 12, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Kreis does not expressly disclose wherein the input element is fully or in part located in one or more other wirelessly connected smartphones, tablets, laptops, or other computers or devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Turner teaches wherein the input element is fully or in part located in one or more other wirelessly connected smartphones, tablets, laptops, or other computers or devices (Turner column 9, lines 1-5 noting user interface 270 may be on a user mobile device, such as through an application on a phone. This may allow a user to control the operation of the pipeline inspection device 10 through the application on the phone).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kreis with the teachings of Turner for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 10.
In regard to claim 13, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Kreis does not expressly disclose wherein the input element includes a trigger, buttons, or mechanism by which a user can input commands.
In the same field of endeavor, Turner teaches wherein the input element includes a trigger, buttons, or mechanism by which a user can input commands (Turner Fig. 21 showing a controller including buttons).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kreis with the teachings of Turner for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 10.
In regard to claim 14, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Kreis does not expressly disclose wherein the input element includes mechanisms for voice command.
In the same field of endeavor, Turner teaches wherein the input element includes mechanisms for voice command (Turner column 9, lines 34-44 noting the user interface can comprise a microphone for voice input).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kreis with the teachings of Turner for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 10.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiselmaier (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0287943), hereinafter referred to as Kreis, in view of Mavros et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0291238), hereinafter referred to as Mavros.
In regard to claim 16, Kreis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Kreis does not expressly disclose wherein the drive element is provided by a power drill removably coupled to the cable-handling device.
In the same field of endeavor, Mavros teaches wherein the drive element is provided by a power drill removably coupled to the cable-handling device (Mavros paragraph 40 noting drain cleaning machine of the present subject matter further includes a rotary power transmission assembly to which a rotary power source such as a powered hand drill can be operatively engaged. An illustrative transmission assembly is capable of effectively transmitting rotational motion from the powered hand drill (“power drill”) or alternative power source directly to an input for the transmission assembly which could be a flexible shaft or other input component for the transmission assembly).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kreis with the teachings of Mavros, because both disclosures relate to the field of drain cleaning devices meant for cleaning pipes, and use push-cable systems that are deployed with a powered motor. The teachings of Mavros would benefit the teachings of Kreis by providing alternate methods of powering the motors, and note that multiple types of rotary power sources can be used, including a hand drill. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Mavros, the teachings of Kreis include all of the limitations presented in claim 16.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TYLER B EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2738. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
/TYLER B. EDWARDS/
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481