DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notes on Filing Dates
As noted in the Non-Final Rejection dated 1/14/2026, the examiner cites U.S. 2021/0394218 by Gagne. This Gagne reference has a filing date of 6/17/2021, and this Gagne reference claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/040121, which was filed 6/17/2020. The filing date of the Gagne refence occurred after the filing date of applicant’s own provisional application (U.S. 63/201752, filed 5/11/2021), but the filing date of the U.S. Provisional Application 63/040121 does predate the filing date of applicant’s provisional application. A copy of Gagne’s U.S. Provisional Application 63/040121 was enclosed with Non-Final Rejection dated 1/14/2026.
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.
Claim 43 is 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.
The term “near steady state” in claim 43 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near steady state” 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. In other words, someone reading claim 43 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if water uptakes qualifies as a near steady state or not?”
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.
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.
Claims 19 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0394218 by Gagne in view of U.S. 2016/0214144 by Swanberg.
With regard to claim 19, Gagne teaches a robotic paint repair system for repairing a target surface that has a paint defect, wherein the system comprises a polishing system (corresponds to applicant’s first tool system) comprising a first end effector coupled to a first tool configured to contact the target surface, and wherein the paint repair system comprises a sanding system (corresponds to applicant’s second tool system) comprising a second end effector coupled to a second tool configured to contact the target surface (Par. 0033-0041 and 0048-0052). The polishing performed by the polishing system corresponds to applicant’s first abrasive operation. The sanding performed by the sanding system corresponds to applicant’s second abrasive operation. Gagne also teaches that the robotic paint repair system comprises a waste removal tool for removing waste, wherein a waste removal step is performed to remove excess waste from the polishing process (Par. 0058). In the apparatus of Gagne, a first state is a state in which the first tool contacts and polishes the target surface, and a second state is a state in which the second tool contacts and sands the target surface (Par. 0033-0041 and 0048-0052).
Gagne teaches that waste removal may involve wiping (Par. 0058), but Gagne does not teach that the waste removal uses a fluid removal tool coupled to a motive robot arm.
Swanberg teaches a robotic arm system for wipe-cleaning a surface, wherein the robotic arm system comprises a robotic arm (item 12 in Figure 1), a roll-to-roll (see spools 44 and 46 in Figure 1 and cleaning fabric 22 in Figure 1) wiping head, and a controller (item 58 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the robotic arm and wiping head in an automated manner (Abstract; Par. 0009-0028 and 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gagne such that a robotic arm wiping system of the type taught by Swanberg is used to perform the waste removal of Gagne, wherein the robotic arm of Swanberg corresponds to applicant’s motive robot arm, wherein the cleaning fabric of the roll-to-roll wiping head corresponds to applicant’s wiping medium, wherein the roll-to-roll wiping head corresponds to applicant’s fluid removal tool, and wherein the controller of the robotic arm wiping system corresponds to applicant’s force control system because controlling the motion of the robot arm (of the robotic arm wiping system) controls the force with which the robot arm may contact something. Gagne teaches that waste removal may involve wiping, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Swanberg, who teaches a robotic arm system for successfully wipe-cleaning a surface, wherein the robotic arm system comprises a robotic arm (item 12 in Figure 1), a roll-to-roll (see spools 44 and 46 in Figure 1 and cleaning fabric 22 in Figure 1) wiping head, and a controller (item 58 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the robotic arm and wiping head in an automated manner. In the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg, the cleaning fabric of the roll-to-roll wiping head is considered to be structurally capable of removing fluid from the target surface, and in the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg, a third state is when the roll-to-roll wiping head is positioned in contact with the target surface in order to clean the target surface. In the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg, the controllable robotic arm of the robotic arm wiping system is configured to move and press the cleaning fabric (of the roll-to-roll wiping head) toward the target surface to remove waste therefrom, and during a wiping operation, the robotic arm of the robotic arm wiping system is driven to execute a wiping motion (Par. 0022 and 0024 of Swanberg).
The combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg does not explicitly recite that the robotic arm of the robotic arm wiping system uses a motor to execute the wiping motion. However, in the art of using a robotic arm in a cleaning apparatus, it is well known that robotic arm motions can be successfully executed by a motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gagne in view of Swanberg such that the robotic arm of the robotic arm wiping system uses a motor (reads on wiping motor) in performing the wiping motion. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of using a robotic arm in a cleaning apparatus, it is well known that robotic arm motions can be successfully executed by a motor.
With regard to claim 39, in the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg, the roll-to-roll wiping head corresponds to applicant’s roll-to-roll system, and in the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg, the cleaning fabric is unrolled from a first spool of the roll-to-roll wiping head and rolled onto a second spool of the roll-to-roll wiping head.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0394218 by Gagne in view of U.S. 2016/0214144 by Swanberg as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of DE102017213143 by Schulz.
With regard to claim 21, the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg teaches that the roll-to-roll wiping head is mounted on a robotic arm. However, the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg does not teach that Gagne’s first tool (which is the tool used for polishing) is also mounted to same robotic arm that the roll-to-roll wiping head is mounted on. Gagne does teach that their first tool (which is the tool used for polishing) can be mounted on a robotic arm in order to successfully perform the polishing (Par. 0038-0040 of Gagne).
Schulz teaches that when having a polishing tool mounted on a robotic arm, another tool (see Figure 4 of Schulz) can also be mounted to the end of the robotic arm such that the arm can successfully orient that other tool for use when needed (Abstract; page 5 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gagne in view of Swanberg by having the Gagne’s first tool (which is the tool used for polishing) mounted to the same robotic arm that the roll-to-roll wiping head is mounted on. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Schulz, who teaches that when having a polishing tool mounted on a robotic arm, another tool can also be mounted to the end of the robotic arm such that the arm can successfully orient that other tool for use when needed. In this combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg in view of Schulz, the robotic arm to which the roll-to-roll wiping head and first tool are mounted corresponds to applicant’s robotic repair unit.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0394218 by Gagne in view of U.S. 2016/0214144 by Swanberg as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of U.S. 2016/0158942 by Augenbraun.
With regard to claim 34, the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg teaches that the roll-to-roll wiping head is moved about by a robotic arm, but the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg does not explicitly teach that the wiping head is fastened with a compliant fastener.
Augenbraun teaches that when using a robotic arm to move a wiping head about, the wiping head can be fastened to the base of the arm using a hydraulic cylinder that obeys commands from a controller (Par. 0032, 0037, 0038, and 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gagne in view of Swanberg such that the robotic arm comprises a hydraulic cylinder (reads on compliant fastener) that obeys commands from the controller and that contributes to fastening the roll-to-roll wiping head to a base of the robotic arm. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Augenbraun, who teaches that when using a robotic arm to move a wiping head about, the wiping head can be fastened to the base of the arm using a hydraulic cylinder that obeys commands from a controller.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0394218 by Gagne in view of U.S. 2016/0214144 by Swanberg as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0086348 by Mozhar.
With regard to claim 43, in the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg, the robotic arm to which the roll-to-roll wiping head is attached is wiped laterally across the target surface to remove waste therefrom. In the combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg, the treated surface is a painted surface of a vehicle component (Par. 0033 of Gagne).
The combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg does not teach that the cleaning fabric is configured to be pressed against a too-be-cleaned surface with sufficient force such that water is driven out of the fabric such that the fabric operates at near steady state operation of water uptake during a wiping cycle.
Mozhar teaches that when pressing a “treatment element” (Par. 0012) such as a cloth or brush against a painted vehicle surface, the force with which the treatment element is pressed against the painted surface is a result-effective variable because the force must be sufficient to perform cleaning while not also not damaging the paint by being “too aggressive” (Par. 0018).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gagne in view of Swanberg such that the force with which the robotic arm of Swanberg presses the cleaning fabric against the painted vehicle component is optimized. Motivation for such optimization was provided by Mozhar, who teaches that the force with which a treatment element (such as a cloth or brush) is pressed against the painted vehicle surface is a result-effective variable because the force must be sufficient to perform cleaning while not also not damaging the paint by being “too aggressive”. In this combination of Gagne in view of Swanberg in view of Mozhar, the optimized force affects whether liquid gets driven out of the fabric and thus affects whether the fabric can be considered as operating in a near steady state operation or not with regard to liquid uptake. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the liquid in question is water recites intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The fabric used in the apparatus of Gagne in view of Swanberg in view of Mozhar is structurally capable of wiping water.
Claims 19 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0394218 by Gagne in view of U.S. 2016/0158942 by Augenbraun.
With regard to claim 19, Gagne teaches a robotic paint repair system for repairing a target surface that has a paint defect, wherein the system comprises a polishing system (corresponds to applicant’s first tool system) comprising a first end effector coupled to a first tool configured to contact the target surface, and wherein the paint repair system comprises a sanding system (corresponds to applicant’s second tool system) comprising a second end effector coupled to a second tool configured to contact the target surface (Par. 0033-0041 an d 0048-0052). The polishing performed by the polishing system corresponds to applicant’s first abrasive operation. The sanding performed by the sanding system corresponds to applicant’s second abrasive operation. Gagne also teaches that the robotic paint repair system comprises a waste removal tool for removing waste, wherein a waste removal step is performed to remove excess waste from the polishing process (Par. 0058). In the apparatus of Gagne, a first state is a state in which the first tool contacts and polishes the target surface, and a second state is a state in which the second tool contacts and sands the target surface (Par. 0033-0041 and 0048-0052).
Gagne teaches that waste removal may involve wiping (Par. 0058), but Gagne does not teach that the waste removal uses a fluid removal tool coupled to a motive robot arm.
Augenbraun teaches that a robotic arm system for wipe-cleaning a surface, wherein the robotic arm system comprises a computer-controlled robotic arm (comprising sections 206, joints 201, and hydraulic cylinder 34 in Figure 1) that supports and presses a rotating brush against a to-be-wiped surface (Abstract; Par. 0027-0032, 0037, 0038, 0069, 0070, 0078, and 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gagne such that a computer-controlled robotic wiping arm (comprising section, joints, and a hydraulic cylinder) supports and presses a rotating brush against the target surface in order to perform the waste removal of Swanberg, wherein the robotic wiping arm corresponds to applicant’s motive robot arm, wherein the rotating brush corresponds to applicant’s fluid removal tool comprising a wiping medium, and wherein the computer controller of the robotic wiping arm corresponds to applicant’s force control system because controlling the motion of the robot arm (of the robotic wiping arm) controls the force with which the robot arm may contact something. Gagne teaches that waste removal may involve wiping, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Augenbraun, who teaches a robotic arm system for successfully wipe-cleaning a surface, wherein the robotic arm system comprises a computer-controlled robotic arm (comprising sections 206, joints 201, and hydraulic cylinder 34 in Figure 1) that supports and presses a rotating brush against a to-be-wiped surface. In this combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun, the rotating brush is considered to be structurally capable of removing fluid from the target surface, and in the combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun, a third state is when the rotating brush is positioned in contact with the target surface in order to clean the target surface.
The combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun does not explicitly recite that the robotic arm that holds the rotating brush uses a motor to execute the rotation of the brush (and thus the wiping done by the brush). However, in the art of rotating a cleaning brush, it is well known that rotation of a brush can be successfully executed by a motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gagne in view of Augenbraun such that the robotic arm that holding the rotating brush uses a motor (reads on wiping motor) to rotate the brush. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of rotating a cleaning brush, it is well known that rotation of a brush can be successfully executed by a motor.
With regard to claim 34, in the developed combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun, the robotic arm comprises a hydraulic cylinder (reads on compliant fastener) that obeys commands from the computer controller, and the hydraulic cylinder is a component that contributes to fastening the rotating brush to the base of the robotic arm.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0394218 by Gagne in view of U.S. 2016/0158942 by Augenbraun as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of DE102017213143 by Schulz.
With regard to claim 21, the combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun teaches that the rotating brush is mounted on a robotic arm. However, the combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun does not teach that Gagne’s first tool (which is the tool used for polishing) is also mounted to same robotic arm that the rotating brush is mounted on. Gagne does teach that their first tool (which is the tool used for polishing) can be mounted on a robotic arm in order to successfully perform the polishing (Par. 0038-0040 of Gagne).
Schulz teaches that when having a polishing tool mounted on a robotic arm, another tool (see Figure 4 of Schulz) can also be mounted to the end of the robotic arm such that the arm can successfully orient that other tool for use when needed (Abstract; page 5 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gagne in view of Augenbraun by having the Gagne’s first tool (which is the tool used for polishing) mounted to the same robotic arm that the rotating brush is mounted on. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Schulz, who teaches that when having a polishing tool mounted on a robotic arm, another tool can also be mounted to the end of the robotic arm such that the arm can successfully orient that other tool for use when needed. In this combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun in view of Schulz, the robotic arm to which the rotating brush and first tool are mounted corresponds to applicant’s robotic repair unit.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0394218 by Gagne in view of U.S. 2016/0158942 by Augenbraun as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of JP3155119 by Saito.
With regard to claim 29, the combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun teaches rotating the rotating brush against the target surface in order to wipe the target surface. The combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun does not teach rotating the brush as the brush is moving away from, or toward, the target surface.
Saito teaches that a wiping tool contaminated with liquid can be successfully dried by rotating the wiping tool such that centrifugal force flings the liquid off the wiping tool (Abstract; page 6 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gagne in view of Augenbraun such that, after wiping of the target surface is complete and the brush is moving away from the target surface, the brush is further rotated in order to the fling the waste material off the brush tool. Motivation for cleaning the brush by rotation was provided by Saito, who teaches that a wiping tool contaminated with liquid can be successfully dried by rotating the wiping tool such that centrifugal force flings the liquid off the wiping tool. Motivation for performing the brush cleaning as the brush moves away from the target surface is that quickly flinging liquid and any entrained solids from the brush would advantageously prevent the undesired material from having time to harden onto the brush due to evaporation, as evaporation is well known to proceed over time. The combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun in view of Saito does not specify that the brush is rotated at a faster speed (than during the brushing of the target surface) as the waste is being flung from the brush. However, since centrifugal force is what flings the waste from the brush, and since it is known that rotation speed would affect the centrifugal force experienced by said waste, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention – in accordance with MPEP 2144.05 – to modify the apparatus of Gagne in view of Augenbraun in view of Saito by optimizing the speed at which the brush is rotated when attempting to fling the waste from the brush, as that speed is a result-effective variable that affects how much centrifugal force is experienced by the waste.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0394218 by Gagne in view of U.S. 2016/0158942 by Augenbraun as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0086348 by Mozhar.
With regard to claim 43, in the combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun, the rotating brush applies a force against the wiping medium when the rotating brush is driven against the target surface. The combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun, as developed thus far, does not explicitly teach that the rotating brush is moved laterally across the target surface. However, Augenbraun teaches that cleaning of a surface can be successfully achieved by moving a cleaning medium laterally across the surface while in contact with said surface (Par. 0068). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gagne in view of Augenbraun such that the rotating brush is moved laterally across the target surface when performing cleaning thereof. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Augenbraun, who teaches that cleaning of a surface can be successfully achieved by moving a cleaning medium laterally across the surface while in contact with said surface.
The combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun does teach that the brush is configured to be pressed against at a too-be-cleaned surface with sufficient force such that water is driven out of the brush such that the brush operates at near steady state operation of water uptake during a wiping cycle.
Mozhar teaches that when pressing a “treatment element” (Par. 0012) such as a cloth or brush against a painted vehicle surface, the force with which the treatment element is pressed against the painted surface is a result-effective variable because the force must be sufficient to perform cleaning while not also not damaging the paint by being “too aggressive” (Par. 0018).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Gagne in view of Augenbraun such that the force with which the robotic arm presses the cleaning brush against the painted vehicle component is optimized. Motivation for such optimization was provided by Mozhar, who teaches that the force with which a treatment element (such as a cloth or brush) is pressed against the painted vehicle surface is a result-effective variable because the force must be sufficient to perform cleaning while not also not damaging the paint by being “too aggressive”. In this combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun in view of Mozhar, the optimized force affects whether liquid gets driven out of the brush and thus affects whether the brush can be considered as operating in a near steady state operation or not with regard to liquid uptake. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the liquid in question is water recites intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The brush used in the apparatus of Gagne in view of Swanberg in view of Mozhar is structurally capable of wiping water.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 43 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for applicant’s use of the term “near steady state”, which the examiner considers to be relative terminology that renders the scope of claim 43 indefinite. In applicant’s arguments, applicant points to various portions of the specification, such as the specification saying that “steady state, or close to steady state” refers to a condition “where a similar amount of water is driven out of the pad as taken up in wiping slurry”. Applicant’s specification recites that “it may even be possible to near stead state…by causing nearly…as much entrained liquid to evaporate as is absorbed during an operation”. The examiner thinks that applicant’s specification provides a clear understanding of the phrase “steady state” – namely, that as much liquid is exited from the pad (“pad” here being an example of a wiping medium) as is taken up by said pad. However, applicant’s claim 43 recites “near steady state”, and it is simply not clear how one would know if their pad (again using “pad” as a wiping medium example) is operating at a “near steady state”. Suppose that, during a wiping operation, a pad absorbs 100 mL of liquid and 80 mL of liquid is pushed out of the pad; is such a pad operating in a “near steady state”? Or would 90 mL of liquid need to be pushed out of that pad in order to describe the pad as operating at a “near steady state”. Applicant’s specification provides a clear understanding of what is meant by “steady state”, but a practitioner would be lost trying to understand if their particular pad operates at “near steady state” or not.
Applicant argues that “Swanberg is directed to a different problem and a different process context”. Applicant argues that Swanberg does not teach “robotic paint-defect repair”, and applicant argues that Swanberg is non-analogous art. This argument is not persuasive. Swanberg is concerned with using a robotic arm to control wipe-cleaning of a surface; Swanberg is thus analogous art to applicant’s invention. Swanberg doesn’t teach paint-repair, true, but since applicant’s invention concerns performing abrasive action on a surface and wipe-cleaning a surface, Swanberg is analogous art because Swanberg teaches a technique for wipe-cleaning a surface. Swanberg doesn’t need to teach every aspect of applicant’s invention in order to qualify as analogous art. Applicant’s claim 39 specifically recites a “roll-to-roll system” wherein the wiping medium is unrolled from a first roller and rolled onto a second roller; Swanberg teaches a roll-to-roll wiping system.
Applicant argues the following:
Here, the rejection supplies only a generic “wiping” rationale. That is not enough. The fact that Swanberg wipes a surface does not establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art of robotic paint-defect repair would have looked to Swanberg’s pre-cleaning wet/dry fabric-cleaning process to solve Applicant’s much narrower slurry-removal problem within a paint-defect repair cycle.
This line of argument is not persuasive. As discussed in an above rejection of claim 19, Gagne teaches that waste removal may involve wiping, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Swanberg, who teaches a robotic arm system for successfully wipe-cleaning a surface, wherein the robotic arm system comprises a robotic arm (item 12 in Figure 1), a roll-to-roll (see spools 44 and 46 in Figure 1 and cleaning fabric 22 in Figure 1) wiping head, and a controller (item 58 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the robotic arm and wiping head in an automated manner.
Applicant argues that such a wiping rationale is “not enough”. The examiner disagrees. Gagne teaches a need for wipe-cleaning, and Swanberg teaches an apparatus that can be successfully used to perform wipe-cleaning.
Applicant implies that since Swanberg teaches that their apparatus can be used to perform wet cleaning (where their apparatus supplies the cleaning liquid to a to-be-cleaned surface), Swanberg’s apparatus should be considered non-analogous art. However, Swanberg also teaches that their apparatus can be successfully used to perform dry wipe-cleaning (Par. 0026 of Swanberg).
Applicant argues that applicant’s specification “define a particular problem solved by Applicant: controlled, repeatable slurry removal within an automated repair sequence to improve repair quality. Swanberg does not address that problem.” This line of argument is not persuasive. Swanberg alone clearly does not teach all of applicant’s claimed invention. However, the examiner’s combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun does not applicant’s claimed invention of claim 19, for example. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant asserts that the examiner is improperly using hindsight reasoning to form the obviousness rejections. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With regard to claim 29, applicant argues the following:
The Office Action’s rationale simply abstracts that teaching to “flinging liquid off” an applies it to Applicant’s repair tool without any evidence-based explanation why a skilled artisan in robotic paint-defect repair would have adopted a mop-dehydration concept for an intermediate slurry-removal step in a localized defect-repair cycle. This is again hindsight.
This line of argument is not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection of claim 29, the combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun teaches rotating the rotating brush against the target surface in order to wipe the target surface. Saito teaches that a wiping tool contaminated with liquid can be successfully dried by rotating the wiping tool such that centrifugal force flings the liquid off the wiping tool (Abstract; page 6 of translation). Saito is considered to be analogous art because it is concerned with wipe-cleaning surfaces. The examiner’s rejection of claim 29 carefully articulates how the teachings of Gagne in view of Augenbraun are modified with the teachings of Saito and the motivation for such modification. As discussed in the rejection of claim 29, motivation for cleaning the brush by rotation was provided by Saito, who teaches that a wiping tool contaminated with liquid can be successfully dried by rotating the wiping tool such that centrifugal force flings the liquid off the wiping tool. Motivation for performing the brush cleaning as the brush moves away from the target surface is that quickly flinging liquid and any entrained solids from the brush would advantageously prevent the undesired material from having time to harden onto the brush due to evaporation, as evaporation is well known to proceed over time. The combination of Gagne in view of Augenbraun in view of Saito does not specify that the brush is rotated at a faster speed (than during the brushing of the target surface) as the waste is being flung from the brush. However, since centrifugal force is what flings the waste from the brush, and since it is known that rotation speed would affect the centrifugal force experienced by said waste, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention – in accordance with MPEP 2144.05 – to modify the apparatus of Gagne in view of Augenbraun in view of Saito by optimizing the speed at which the brush is rotated when attempting to fling the waste from the brush, as that speed is a result-effective variable that affects how much centrifugal force is experienced by the waste.
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 RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights