DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 15, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on May 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant submits that there is no undue burden on the Examiner to search claims encompassed by Group II and/or Group III in this application.
This is not found persuasive because the determination of serious burden is left to the examiner. In this case, as explained in the restriction/election requirement mailed on March 31, 2026, each group has distinct invention. Search and consideration of multiple inventions increases the time needed to provide a determination of patentability by increasing the review of prior art of each invention..
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is supposed to provide a reader the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains, regardless to the readers' her degree of familiarity with patent documents. Repeating claim 1 and use of can be, requires the reader to understand how claims are to be presented and does not provide a reader what is new or beneficial. It is suggested to amend the abstract to provide any reader an understanding of what is new or beneficial and what the application is directed towards.. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 4, line 1, the use of the term "parameters" is deemed vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what would constitute a structure for the recitation of "parameters of the system are based on an application of the system".
With regards to claim 5, the claim connects the term of “parameters” with a broad recitation of structure(s) or use of the nozzle or the liquid that used by the system. These items do not resolve the lack of clarity for the term of the parameters as used, and do add clear structure limitations to the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the endoscope head". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Padgett (US 4,252,763).
In regards to claim 1, Padgett teaches a lining material distributor (10) for applying a wet cement motor comprising:
a distributor head (34, rotatable nozzle) comprising a plurality of slots (50, output ports) which dispense the wet cement motor onto a wall/surface of a pipe (16) (fig. 1-3; col. 4, lines 45-60, col. 5, lines 10-45);
a housing comprising an electric motor (24) with an outer stator casing (26) and an armature (30, rotor) which hollow (solid straight pipe) to allow flow of wet cement motor through the outer stator casing to the distributor head, and the armature connects to the distributor head (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 45-65).
In regards to claim 2, Padgett teaches the plurality of slots (50, output ports) evenly applies/spread (predetermined thickness) the wet cement motor onto the wall/surface of a pipe (fig. 1-3; col. 5, lines 10-40).
In regards to claim 3, Padgett teaches electric motor (24) is a hollow shaft motor with the outer stator casing (26) and the armature (30, rotor) which attached to the distributor head (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 45-65).
In regards to claims 4-5, Padgett teaches the rotation rate of the distributor head together with vanes (48) (parameter of nozzle design) provides a uniform spray of wet cement motor directed at the wall/surface (col. 5, lines 10-30).
In regards to claim 6, Padgett teaches the plurality of slots provides at least one radial output port or at least one output port aligned with or parallel to the armature (fig. 1-3).
In regards to claims 7-8, Padgett teaches bearings (32) are used to connect the distributor head and the electric motor along with an ring like seal (fig. 1) and a plug (52) seals the feed conduit (34) (fig. 1-3; col. 4, lines 45-60, col. 5, lines 25-45).
In regards to claim 9, Padgett teaches a coating material reservoir (156) is connected to the armature and a coating material pump (154, injection mechanism) pumps the wet cement motor through the armature to the distributor head (fig. 8; col. 7, lines 5-30).
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padgett as applied to claims 1-9 above, and further in view of Al-Mansour (US 2022/0357284).
In regards to claims 10-11, Padgett as discussed, but does not explicitly teach a mobile robot fixed to the housing enclosure, the mobile robot configured to position and move the rotatable nozzle within an interior of a pipe and an endoscope camera fixed to the housing enclosure; an endoscope head guided motion controller configured to monitor images from the endoscope camera; a rotational nozzle controller configured to adjust parameters for the rotational nozzle based on the monitored images; and an endoscope probe configured to connect the endoscope camera with the endoscope head guided motion controller.
However, Al-Mansour teaches a robotic (crawler) device 200 moves a coating apparatus (300) through a pipeline (10) (fig. 1; para. 24, 31).
Al-Mansour teaches an imaging device (205, endoscope camera) is connected to the coating apparatus (fig. 2-3; para. 32, 38-39, 43), a processor (210) and a main controller (130) provide inspection of the coated surface (fig. 3-4; para. 39, 47-52), and
the processor and main controller provide the function of positioning the spray nozzle (309) so that the coating is applied at the desired area and with the desired amount (fig. 1-4; para. 35, 43, 45, 47, 49-54).
Al-Mansour teaches the camera comprises a known configuration (fig. 3-4; para. 54), where a known configuration is a probe which connects the camera to the processor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the robotic device, the camera connected to the processor and the main controller and the of Al-Mansour onto the lining material distributor of Padgett because Al-Mansour teaches it will provide improved coating of the inside of a pipe (para. 15).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padgett as applied to claims 1-9 above, and further in view of Sugimoto (US 4,733,630).
In regards to claim 12, Padgett teaches a drag trowel (12) is used to smooth the applied coating (fig. 1; col. 7, lines 60-67).
Padgett does not explicitly teach a sponge head configured to clean or polish surfaces.
However, Sugimoto teaches a spreading element (3, sponge head) formed as nonwoven fabric of elastic (col. 2, lines 65-67, col. 3, lines 15-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the nonwoven spreading element of Sugimoto onto the drag trowel of Padgett because Sugimoto teaches it will maintain spreading and not damage the surface (col. 3, lines 25-30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights