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:
Page 13 states figure 4c, however there is no figure 4c.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “a UAV and Mopping Interface Mechanism mounted on a base frame connecting to a UAV as a slung load”. It is unclear what elements are connected to the UAV and it is unclear if the UAV and base frame are part of the UPAMCS.
Claim 2 and 3 include the limitation of an “electrical nozzle actuation system” and “cylindrical surface cleaning rollers” however it is unclear if these elements are part of the UPAMCS or if they are separate outside elements from the UPAMCS.
Claim 5 states a “first mode with a single mopping system and a second mode with a dual mopping system”. The single mopping system and the dual mopping system are separate devices and therefore it is unclear how the UPAMCS can have a first AND second mode. It appears that this should be a first OR second mode.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the driven wheels" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant needs to amend the claim to state “driven wheels”.
Claims 6 and 8 include the limitations of “drive configuration”, “lifting configuration”, “normal operating configuration” and “steering configuration”. These limitations relate more to a method of using the UPAMCS rather than including any structural elements regarding the configurations. If the mopping system is not in those configurations, then the limitations following the configurations hold no patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 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:
Claim 1 includes the limitation of a UPAMCS having a pair of driving wheels, a worm and a worm wheel that is attached to a driver wheel axle of the pair of driving wheels. There is a driver pulley attached to the top of the worm and pulley belts transmit drive from the driver pulley to one or more driven pulleys. There is a mopping system comprising a set of drive arms driven by the driven pulley, an annular gear wheel, a set of planet gear wheels, a sun gear wheel wherein each of the drive arm rotates the planet gears wheels which in turn rotates the sun gear wheel and a mopping material is fixed to the bottom side of the sun and planet gear wheels. There is further a cleaning fluid distribution network comprising an inclined surface cleaning mechanism and a flat surface cleaning mechanism.
The closest prior art of Lee (KR 20230000518) and Wang (CN 115213146) teach an unmanned aerial vehicle for cleaning a surface, however fails to teach the limitations as stated above. It would not have been obvious to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention since there is no motivation or teaching to do so. For these reasons, the application is free from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights