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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 (listed on the first page of the amendments to the claims filed 26 June 2024) is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 5: The claim is listed directly subsequent to claim 2 but is indicated as claim 5 when page 2 of the claim amendments filed 26 June 2024 also lists claim 5 as being located between claims 4 and 6. Accordingly, it appears from context that the first instance of claim 5 was intended to be claim 5 at least by virtue of being listed after claim 2 and is interpreted as such for the purpose of expedient examination. The examiner recommends amending the claim listed on the first page of the claims filed 26 June 2024 as claim 5 to such that it is indicated as claim 3 instead so as to obviate any confusion between the claim listed on the second page of the claims filed 26 June 2024 between claims 4 and 6 (which appears to be the correct instance of claim 5).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coombs et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0031492 A1 (hereafter Coombs), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 15 November 2024.
As to claim 1: Coombs discloses a sewer inspection and/or maintenance system (see fig. 1 and ¶ 24 and 25), comprising:
an image recording device (14 and/or 20; see fig. 1 and ¶ 25), which is arranged via a joint system (see fig. 4 and ¶ 41) on a crawler (see ¶ 32) or on a pushing device of the sewer inspection and/or maintenance system, wherein the joint system is adapted to carry out pivot movements in at least two directions in order to pivot the image recording device arranged thereon in a predetermined direction (see fig. 4 and ¶ 41),
an input device (30; see fig. 1 and ¶ 25), which is adapted to receive a target point for a pivot movement of the joint system to be carried out (see ¶ 28), and
a control device (32), which is coupled to the input device (30) (see ¶ 25), and which is adapted,
to receive the target point (166; see figs. 5A and 5B as well as details in ¶ 47) received from the input device (30),
to calculate joint angles of the joint system that correspond to the target point (166) of the pivot movement to be carried out (see figs. 6A and 6B as well as details in ¶ 49 and 50), and
to determine controls signals based on the current joint angles and on the calculated joint angles and to transmit these to the joint system, wherein the control signals cause the joint system to perform the pivot movement to be carried out up to the target point (see ¶ 54).
As to claim 2: Coombs discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the joint system (see fig. 4 and ¶ 41) comprises at least two servomotors (not labeled but see ¶ 39 regarding the disclosed “mechanical motors”), wherein a pivot movement in a first direction can be carried out with a first servomotor and a pivot movement in a second direction can be carried out with a second servomotor (see ¶ 39).
As to claim 3 (see the claim objection of the claim at the bottom of the first page of the claims filed 26 June 2024): Coombs discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein the control signals:
cause the first servomotor of the joint system to perform the pivot movement in the first direction (see ¶ 39), and
cause the second servomotor of the joint system to perform the pivot movement in the second direction (see ¶ 39),
wherein the pivot movements in the first direction and in the second direction correspond to the pivot movement to be carried out up to the target point (see ¶ 39 and ¶ 47).
As to claim 5: Coombs discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the input device (30) comprises a touch-sensitive display device (see ¶ 45), on which a two-dimensional frame is displayed (154; see figs. 6A and 6B), wherein the center of the frame corresponds to a neutral position of the joint system, wherein each point within the frame corresponds to a target point for a pivot movement to be carried out (see ¶ 47 and 48).
As to claim 6: Coombs discloses the system according to claim 5, wherein a pivot position of the joint system in a first direction can be defined by the distance of the target point to the center of the frame (see ¶ 48) and a pivot position of the joint system in a second direction can be defined by the angle of rotation of the target point in relation to the center of the frame (see ¶ 49).
As to claim 7: Coombs discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the input device (30) is adapted to continuously receive target points and the control device (32) is adapted to calculate joint angles of the joint system from the continuously received target points and to determine control signals based on the current joint angles and on the calculated joint angles and to transmit these to the joint system (see ¶ 50 and 51).
As to claim 8: Coombs discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein the control device (32) is adapted to take into account the mechanical limits of the joint system and/or the servomotors when determining the control signals (see ¶ 49 and 50; because the control device 32 allows the joint system and/or servomotors to only operate in a manner that does not destroy or damage either of these components, the control device 32 is considered to take into account the mechanical limits of the joint system and/or the servomotors).
As to claim 9: Coombs discloses a method for aligning an image recording device (14 and/or 20; see fig. 1 and ¶ 25) of a sewer and/or maintenance system (see fig. 1 and ¶ 24 and 25), wherein the image recording device is arranged via a joint system (see fig. 4 and ¶ 41) on a crawler (see ¶ 32) or on a pushing device of the sewer inspection and/or maintenance system, wherein the joint system is adapted to carry out pivot movements in at least two directions in order to align the image recording device arranged thereon in a predetermined direction (see fig. 4 and ¶ 41), wherein:
a target point (see ¶ 28) for a pivot movement of the joint system to be carried out is received via an input device (30; see fig. 1 and ¶ 25),
a control device (32), which is coupled to the input device (30) and to the joint system (see fig. 1 and ¶ 25):
calculates joint angles of the joint system corresponding to the target point of the pivot movement to be carried out (see figs. 6A and 6B as well as details in ¶ 49 and 50), and
based on the current joint angles and the calculated joint angles, control signals for the joint system are determined, wherein the determined control signals are used to cause the joint system to perform the pivot movement to be carried out up to the target point (see ¶ 54).
As to claim 10: Coombs discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the joint system (see fig. 4 and ¶ 41) comprises at least two servomotors (not labeled but see ¶ 39 regarding the disclosed “mechanical motors”), wherein based on the determined control signals:
the first servomotor of the joint system carries out a pivot movement in a first direction (see ¶ 39), and
the second servomotor of the joint system carries out a pivot movement in a second direction (see ¶ 39),
wherein the pivot movements in the first direction and in the second direction correspond to the pivot movement to be carried out up to the target point (see ¶ 39 and ¶ 47).
As to claim 12: Coombs discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the input device (30) comprises a touch-sensitive display device (see ¶ 45), wherein a two-dimensional frame is displayed (154; see figs. 6A and 6B) on the display device, wherein the center of the frame corresponds to a neutral position of the joint system, wherein each point within the frame corresponds to a target point for a pivot movement to be carried out (see ¶ 47 and 48), wherein a pivot position of the joint system in the first direction is defined by a distance of the target point from the center of the frame (see ¶ 48) and a pivot position of the joint system in the second direction is defined by the angle of rotation of the target point in relation to the center of the frame (see ¶ 49).
As to claim 13: Coombs discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the control device (32) calculates joint angles of the joint system from continuously received target points and determines the control signals based on the current joint angles and on the calculated joint angles (see ¶ 50 and 51).
As to claim 14: Coombs discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the control device (32) takes into account the mechanical limits of the joint system and/or the servomotors when determining the control signals (see ¶ 49 and 50; because the control device 32 allows the joint system and/or servomotors to only operate in a manner that does not destroy or damage either of these components, the control device 32 is considered to take into account the mechanical limits of the joint system and/or the servomotors).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coombs et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0031492 A1 (hereafter Coombs), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 15 November 2024 in view of Matsumoto et al. US PG-PUB 2014/0257781 A1 (hereafter Matsumoto).
As to claim 4: Coombs teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including control signals that cause a first servomotor and second servomotor of a joint system to carry out pivot movements in a first direction and a second direction (see ¶ 39 and 47), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the control signals cause the first servomotor and the second servomotor of the joint system to carry out the pivot movements in the first direction and in the second direction at least temporarily in parallel.
However, Matsumoto teaches that controls of a first servomotor and a second servomotor can be utilized to carry out movements in a first direction and a second direction at least temporarily in parallel (see ¶ 47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coombs such that the control signals cause the first servomotor and the second servomotor of the joint system to carry out the pivot movements in the first direction and in the second direction at least temporarily in parallel because such a construction allows for complex controls of multiple servomotors with the use of multiple waveforms for each servomotor so that motion along different axes can be independently and precisely controlled or controlled in a synchronous manner if so desired, such as suggested in ¶ 47 of Matsumoto. Accordingly, such a design would be advantageous to Coombs’s device because the servomotors therein may be controlled synchronously when so desired or each controlled independently if so desired, such that more precise control may be achieved by allowing for either method of control to exist at the same time depending upon the application in which Coombs’s device is being used at the time.
As to claim 11: Coombs teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 10, including a first servomotor and second servomotor (not labeled but see ¶ 39 regarding the disclosed “mechanical motors”), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first servomotor and the second servomotor carry out their respective pivot movements in parallel.
However, Matsumoto teaches that a first servomotor and a second servomotor may carry out their respective pivot movements in parallel (see ¶ 47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coombs such that the first servomotor and the second servomotor carry out their respective pivot movements in parallel because such a construction allows for complex controls of multiple servomotors with the use of multiple waveforms for each servomotor so that motion along different axes can be independently and precisely controlled or controlled in a synchronous manner if so desired, such as suggested in ¶ 47 of Matsumoto. Accordingly, such a design would be advantageous to Coombs’s device because the servomotors therein may be controlled synchronously when so desired or each controlled independently if so desired, such that more precise control may be achieved by allowing for either method of control to exist at the same time depending upon the application in which Coombs’s device is being used at the time.
References Cited but not Relied Upon
As to references cited but not relied upon:
Henn US PG-PUB 2016/0080701 A1 discloses an inspection system comprising a rotation module and appears pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights