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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant's specification paragraph [0052] recites "three pairs of 202, 240, 206 hinges". This should read --three pairs of 202, 204, 206 hinges-- to remedy a typographical error. Applicant's Fig. 6 shows 204 pointing to a hinge.
Applicant's specification paragraph [0053] recites "the active contact flange 3 may include two flange arms". This should read --the active contact flange 300 may include two flange arms-- to remedy a typographical error. Applicant's drawings do not appear to use reference character "3".
Applicant's specification paragraph [0053] recites "orbital kit 4". Applicant's drawings do not appear to use reference character "4".
Please revise the specification to ensure all reference characters are correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-35 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.
Claim 1 recites "the high-speed vehicle" in the last line. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The term “high-speed vehicle” in claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-speed vehicle” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification provides examples that can be used to determine some sort of scope with examples include "such as cars, vans, train cars, aircrafts, boats, wind turbine blades, etc.", the specification states “wind turbine blade, etc.” are included in the term “high-speed vehicle”, which does not make sense because a wind turbine blade is not a vehicle. It becomes unclear what would or would not be considered a “high-speed vehicle” because of this example, therefore the metes and bounds of the claims are indefinite.
Claim 2, 16, 30 recites “a first orbital kit” and “a second orbital kit”. It is unclear whether “a first orbital kit” and “the second orbital kit” are included within the previously recited “at least one orbital kit” of their respective base claims. If the first orbital kit and second orbital kit are included within the “at least one orbital it”, then they are also required to be controlled by at least one active contact flange in addition to the limitations recited in the dependent claims which requires a robot arm that controls the first orbital kit and the active contact flange controlling a second orbital kit. Since it is unclear whether the first and second orbital kits are the same as the previously established “at least one orbital kit”, it becomes ambiguous what is or is not required to read on these limitations and therefore the claims are indefinite.
Claim 2, 16, 30 recites “an active contact flange”. It is unclear whether this is the same or different as the previously established “at least one active contact flange” of its base claim. Note how claim 13 and 27 recite “an active contact flange of the at least one active contact flange”.
Regarding claim 5, 19, it is unclear what is meant with the limitation "wherein a reach height of the collaborative robot arm is higher than a maximum height in a fully-extended state" As best understood, this should read --wherein a reach height of the collaborative robot arm is higher than a maximum height of the high-vehicle in a fully-extended state--.
Claim 6, 7, 20, 21, recite “the active contact flange”. It is unclear which of the previously established “at least one active contact flange” this is referring to.
Claim 6, 9, 23 recites the limitation "the second orbital kit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the first groove” and “the second groove”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 should depend from claim 2 to remedy this issue.
Regarding claims 7 and 21, “two orbital kits”. It is unclear whether these refer to previously established orbital kits or are established two additional orbital kits. It is also unclear whether these two orbital kits are included within the “at least one orbital kit established in claim 1 and 15, respectively.
Claim 10, 24, 34 recite “a plurality of active contact flanges”. It is unclear whether these are the same or different than the “at least one active contact flange” established in claim 1.
Claim 11 ad 25 recites “one orbital kit”. It is unclear whether this is a new structure or is included within the previously established “at least one orbital kit” of claim 1. Claim 11, “one orbital kit” should read --one orbital kit of the at least one orbital kit-- to make clear that this orbital kit is one within the previously established structures.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear whether the recitation of "an active flange" is part of the previously recited "at least one active flange". This should read --wherein the at least one active contact flange includes a first active contact flange--
Claim 20 recites “the first groove” and “the second groove”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 should depend from claim 16 to remedy this issue.
Claim 28 recites "a second rotating arm via a first axis; and a second rotating arm". It is unclear whether these two recitations of "a second rotating arm" are the same or different rotating arms.
Claim 35 recites “an orbit kit”. It is unclear whether this is referring to the previously established “at least one orbital kit” of claim 29 or is establishing a new structure.
The dependent claims are indefinite at least because they depend from an indefinite base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10, 13-15, 18-19, 24, 27-29, 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 10384353), hereinafter ‘Martin’ in view of Chankaramangalam et al. (US 2021/0260720), hereinafter ‘Chankaramangalam’
Regarding claim 15, Martin discloses:
15. An automated system, comprising:
one or more sensors to scan object surfaces of a high-speed vehicle and obtain scanning data of the object surfaces (Col. 13 discloses using sensors to generate a 3D map of a space to program the device for automatic operations; Col. 16 discloses 3D imaging sensors, etc., Martin does not explicitly disclose a "high-speed vehicle", however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied the system of Martin to a high-speed vehicle as a matter of design choice because applying the device to a high-speed vehicle would not change any function or operation of the automated system disclosed by Martin);
a carrier to carry and lift (Col. 6 lines 63-67, Col. 7 lines 1-14 discloses a cart that carries and lifts the tool box 10 and discloses other mobility facilitating mechanisms to position the device 100) a cleaning apparatus (100) for sanding, polishing and waxing; and the cleaning apparatus,
further comprising:
a tool box (10), comprising
at least one processor configured to receive scanning data and generate working paths for the cleaning apparatus (Col. 13 discloses using sensors to generate a 3D map of a space to program the device for automatic operations; Col. 16 discloses 3D imaging sensors, etc.,), and
an energy source disposed inside the tool box to supply power to the cleaning apparatus (Col. 7 lines 23-32, Col. 10 lines 32-67 discloses being powered and therefore implicitly discloses an energy source disposed inside the tool box since the entire device is positioned with the tool box 10 as seen in Fig. 2A, and RMA is shown to be a standalone device that can be wirelessly controlled as seen in Fig. 16); and
at least one active contact flange (130, etc.), connecting to the tool box and configured to provide active contact (extension and retraction of 130 places the end effector 160 into contact with a structure to be acted on; Col. 16 lines 46-55, Col. 17 discloses contact sensors)
Martin does not disclose wherein the at least one active contact flange is configured to provide constant force in a working state, each of the at least one active contact flange configured to control at least one orbital kit to clean the high-speed vehicle (Martin does disclose using cleaning attachments in Col. 5 lines 37-53, Col. 10 lines 19-30).
However, Chankaramangalam discloses an system similar to Martin and the present application and therefore constitute analogous art. Chankaramangalam discloses having a force adjuster 40 which adjusts a contact force applied by the sanding head 38 against the surface S of the part P, and discloses "the amount of contact force applied by the sanding head 38 as the sanding head is moved across the part P to ensure a relatively constant pressure (e.g., contact force) is applied and also discloses moving the sanding effector 34 along a path that substantially corresponds to the shape of the surface S (paragraph [0024]), and discloses using scanners 16 to generate a 3D model to generate working paths for the device (paragraph [0030]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Martin teaches all elements except at least one active contact flange configured to provide active contact and constant force in a working state, each of the at least one active contact flange configured to control at least one orbital kit to clean the high-speed vehicle. Chankaramangalam teaches at least one active contact flange, configured to provide active contact and constant force in a working state, each of the at least one active contact flange configured to control at least one orbital kit to clean the high-speed vehicle, which has the function of ensure the amounting of sanding and resulting surface finish is even along the entire surface area of the part. When combined into Martin by using an orbital kit to clean the high-speed vehicle by sanding/polishing, it maintains its function of ensure the amounting of sanding and resulting surface finish is even along the entire surface area of the part. One of ordinary skill would expect predictable results because both references pertain to robotic systems that interacts with an external structure autonomously that function in the same manner in the environment of automated systems with programmable end effectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Martin in view of Chankaramangalam because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Martin and Chankaramangalam further renders obvious:
18. The automated system of claim 15, further comprising: a plurality of wheel assemblies attached to a bottom surface of the tool box to facilitate moving of the cleaning apparatus (Col. 6 lines 8-2 discloses wheels on the support frame 10).
19. The automated system of claim 15, wherein the robot arm further comprises a plurality of arm rods (120, 130), and a plurality of hinges (150, 140) to connect the plurality of arm rods to allow the robot arm to extend and retract, wherein a reach height of the collaborative robot arm is higher than a maximum height in a fully-extended state (this limitation appears to have typographical error, it is unclear what the maximum height is respective to; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Martin to have been sized appropriately for the intended use case and to have the arm reach heigh to be higher than the maximum height so that the system is able to engage all surfaces on the entity being cleaned; see MPEP 2144.04 (IV.)(A.), changes in size/proportional is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, since scaling up the device would not change any function of the disclosed device of Martin, the prior art renders obvious this claim).
24. The automated system of claim 15, wherein the cleaning apparatus comprises: a plurality of active contact flanges, distributed on a side wall of the tool box (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Martin in view of Chankaramangalam to have used a plurality of active contact flanges on a side wall of the tool box with duplication of parts rationale; see MPEP 2144.04 (VI.)(B.), since the use of more than one active flange in the same manner on the same side of the device would not have an patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, the use of a plurality of active contact flanges in the same manner as the active contact flange originally rendered obvious by the prior art does not produce any unexpected result, the use of a plurality of active contact flanges on a side wall of the tool box has no patentable significance).
27. The automated system of claim 15, an active contact flange of the at least one active contact flange comprises: an angle adjustment mechanism, connecting to the tool box and configured to adjust a tilting angle of a sander head of an orbit kit relative to a surface of the high-speed vehicle (150 or 140 is an angle adjustment mechanism that adjusts an angle of the end effector 160 that has be implemented as a sander head in light of the modification by Chankaramangalam).
28. The automated system of claim 27, the angle adjustment mechanism comprises: a connecting flange (140 or 150), configured to connect the sander head of the orbit kit; a first rotating arm (120), configured to rotate relative to a second rotating arm (130) via a first axis; and a second rotating arm (130), configured to rotate relative to the connecting flange via a second axis; wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the second axis (when angle adjustment mechanism 140 is positioned at a 90 degree angle such that arms 130 and 120 are perpendicular, both arms rotate relative to the connecting flange in the circumferential direction).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 10, 13-14, 29, 34-35, see claim rejections 18-19, and 27-28 for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion.
Claim(s) 3, 17, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Chankaramangalam as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Shaw et al. (US 5490646), hereinafter ‘Shaw’.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Martin and Chankaramangalam renders obvious the automated system of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose an alarm light disposed on a top surface of the tool box that indicates an operation state of the cleaning apparatus, wherein the operation state comprises the working state and an idle state of the cleaning apparatus (Martin Col. 15 lines 19-39 discloses an alarm light that indicates a status of the system, which renders obvious a working state and non-working state which is an idle state of the device).
However, Shaw discloses an automated system that includes an arm 38 that slides along a slot 50 of the housing 26 and discloses an indication light 56 that is positioned on the top of the housing. When the device is operated, the light flashes, while when the device is not operated or doing different functions, the light would change to indicate the different functions or operation (Col. 3 lines 61-67 and Col. 4 lines 1-2).
Since using an alarm light positioned on the top of a housing of a cleaning system to indicate different states such as a working state and idle state is known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the system of Martin in view of Chankaramangalam to have used an alarm light disposed on a top surface of the tool box that indicates an operation state of the cleaning apparatus, wherein the operation state comprises the working state and an idle state of the cleaning apparatus as taught by Shaw to facilitate alerting people within the vicinity of the system of a current operation.
Regarding claims 3 and 32, see claim 17 rejection for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion.
Claim(s) 8, 22, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Chankaramangalam as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Augenbraun et al. (US 10618174), hereinafter ‘Augenbraun’.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Martin and Chankaramangalam renders obvious the automated system of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the energy source comprises a plurality of lithium batteries.
However, Augenbraun discloses an automated cleaning system 100 similar to Martin and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Augenbraun discloses a system including a body 11 with an arm 200 with an end effector 220 configured to be engaged against a structure to clean the structure, and teaches using a power source 32 that may be a lithium ion battery (Augenbraun Col. 4 lines 59-65).
Since lithium ion batteries are known in the art to power automated cleaning systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a lithium ion battery to power the automated system as taught by Augenbraun.
Regarding claims 8 and 33, see claim 22 rejection for equivalent limitation mapping and discussion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 6-9, 11-12, 16, 20-21, 23, 25-26, 30-31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not appear to disclose nor render obvious the limitations of claims 2, 6-9, 11-12, 16, 20-21, 23, 25-26, 30-31 in combination with their base claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Larsson et al. (US 12076759) discloses: a cleaning apparatus, comprising:
a tool box (12), comprising at least one processor (56) an energy source (48, Col. 12 lines 3-20) disposed inside the tool box to supply power to the cleaning apparatus; and at least one active contact flange, connecting to the tool box and configured to provide active contact and constant force in a working state (Col. 8 line 20-67 discloses adjusting the force applied by the robot arm to adjust the brush engagement pressure, "the automatic orienting of the brush may be active, i.e. the controller may be configured to actively control also the orientation of the cleaning head, for example by actively controlling a brush swivel joint", "the brush engagement pressure may be controlled base on a feedback loop, wherein the motion of the robot arm is controlled based a detected brush engagement pressure", each of the at least one active contact flange configured to control at least one orbital kit (37) to clean the high-speed vehicle (aircraft, see abstract).
Cho et al. (US 2025/0282047) discloses a robot having a tool box 20, with wheels that moves on its own which implicitly discloses an energy source disposed inside the tool box to supply power to the robot; and at least one processor configured to receive scanning data and generate working paths for the cleaning apparatus
He et al. (US 2024/0278432), discloses automatic surface processing
Lin et al. (US 11364633) discloses a cleaning robot that is powered by a lithium ion battery, and has an arm that extends and retracts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 February 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights