DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to the amended limitations of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in pages 5-8 against the references individually RE the limitations of “wherein the set of predetermined speed intervals is determined as a function of the inspection unit used, wherein the set of predetermined speed intervals is redetermined for this inspection unit when the inspection unit is changed”. In response, the examiner contests that 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). Here Morris as modified by Clauss is relied upon to teach this aspect of the invention. Here Morris at least teaches the speed is determined as a function of the inspection unit used and adjusting the speed automatically or manually based on the detector characteristics (See Fig 9, [0033]-[0034] “ Motor controller 116 may operate the motors 102 according to input from the inclinometer and other input from an operator that determines a speed and direction of travel for the robot to both drive the robot and to make orientation corrections to the robot. It is appreciated that the orientation and level of the robot may be desired to be maintained in as much of a constant position as possible, such maintenance is better for uniform imaging and for the safety of the robot itself.… user interface 152 may have a control interface 156 for controlling movement of the robot. … The robot control software using feedback from the motor encoders or resolvers, axle encoders and inclinometer controls speed and position of the robot on the pipeline and precisely matches the speed of the robot with the acquisition speed of a linear detector. It may also precisely index distance if a field array is used. “, [0037] “The speed may be controlled automatically, or based on user interface inputs … For example, a user may determine how many milliseconds per line the detector captures, and then the software controls the speed of the robot accordingly.”) to achieve and/or maintain intended purpose and functionality ([0045] “to control speed of the robot, check status of the robot, configure manual inputs, and/or configure automated mode that allows the operator to control the robot from a mobile device. Display regions 1012 provide data to the operator, such as distance travelled, crawler angle, and axle steering angles. It is appreciated that any additional controls to implement the functionality described herein may also be provided… provide feedback signals to steer the robot automatically. Additionally, and alternatively, the feedback may be provided to a user interface in a manner that allows a user to monitor conditions and data from said sensors. It is further appreciated that each of these methods may be utilized individually or in combination to facilitate the functionality of the robot.”), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes varying speed regulations for different specific inspection devices for different environments. In addition Clauss Figs 4A-E, depict an exemplary user configuration display and exemplary speed limit alert displays each corresponding to a different category, which may be generated and displayed by the speed alert display module. Each of the exemplary speed limit alert displays may be visual alerts to the user of the speed of the vehicle compared to the posted speed limit and the speed limit threshold (See Clauss col 9 lines 27-35). Clauss further teaches setting different speed intervals “The user configuration display 400 may also include user controls 418 for selecting one or several speed limit thresholds. As shown in FIG. 4A, the user may select a speed limit threshold for several speed limit ranges. … posted speed limit is greater than 60 mph. .. the user may select a single speed limit threshold regardless of the posted speed limit, or may select any suitable number of speed limit thresholds… entering speed limit thresholds, may be drop-down menus for selecting speed limit thresholds (e.g., for selecting a speed limit threshold of 0 mph, 5 mph, 10 mph, 15 mph, or 20 mph above the posted speed limit), or may be any other suitable user controls for selecting speed limit thresholds.. (See Clauss col 10 lines 35-63). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the teaching of Clauss to configure the speed intervals for the robot is readily applicable and can be equally changed when using a different robotic device in the same manner, in order to ensure the operability and functionality of the different robot in the specific sewerage environment/pipe.
In response to applicant's argument in pages 6-8 that Clauss is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as set forth above, Clauss is cited to provide an interactive display to configure different speed intervals and activate visual alerts based on comparing the current speed to the defined intervals (Clauss Figs 4A-E, col 9 lines 27-35, col 10 lines 35-63). This is readily applicable in Morris as he clearly teaches a similar GUI for configure and providing visual feedback for controlling robot movement/functionality in Fig 9, [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0045] etc., clearly based on operational parameters, with further improvement suggestion for the maintain operability. One of ordinary skill in the art also recognizes the intervals can be equally changed when using a different robotic device in the same manner, in order to ensure the operability and functionality of the different robot in the specific sewerage environment/pipe, without changing the scope, intended purpose or functionality of Morris, with the additional advantages of setting the speed intervals of the specific robots.
Applicant also argues in page 8 that “a person having ordinary skill in the art in the field of sewer inspection would not look to Clauss, in the field of automotive traffic safety software to find a solution for monitoring the technical operating efficiency of an inspection robot. As noted above, in sewer maintenance, different units (e.g., small push-cameras vs. large motorized crawlers) have vastly different optimal speed ranges for sensor accuracy and mechanical safety. The requirement to automatically redetermine these intervals upon changing the hardware unit is a specialized technical feature only relevant in context... Morris does not contemplate this problem, and Clauss does not provides any motivation to link speed-indicator intervals to the specific hardware specifications of the moving unit or to automate a reconfiguration process upon a hardware change. Further, Clauss relates to external speed limits at speeds two orders of magnitude higher than those relevant to Morris or the claimed method.” In response, the examiner contests that, Clauss is not cited for controlling the robot/device speed or monitoring operating efficiency of the robot. In contrast Morris readily teaches controlling operation parameters of the device as set forth above in Fig 9, [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0045] etc. for maintain safety or hazardous environment using feedback from the motor encoders or resolvers, axle encoders and inclinometer controls speed and position of the robot on the pipeline and precisely matches the speed of the robot with the acquisition speed of a linear detector [0034], that varies with the device. Also see Figs 3, 8, [0041]-[0043], wherein motors and detector can be configured and controlled independently using the GUI in Fig 9, [0045]-[0047], providing sufficient motivation to set/preset the different speed intervals utilizing specific teachings of Clauss Figs 4A-E, col 9 lines 27-35, col 10 lines 35-63. On the other hand, the GUI and teachings of Clauss can be equally applied in any system that requires setting different speed interval regardless of the industry used, also recognized by One of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, as clearly set forth above, the applied references not only satisfy the claimed requirement, also provides clear motivation from the references themselves without changing the scope or intended purpose of the invention. Hence rejection of the claim is maintained. Claims 4-5 stand rejected as depending on the rejected base claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the (S3) in “a fourth step (S3) in which the selected colored symbol is displayed on a display device” should be (S4). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et el (US 20200175667 A1), and further in view of Clauss et al (US 9539901 B1).
RE claim 1, Morris teaches Method for monitoring the speed of an inspection unit of a sewer inspection and/or maintenance system which is movable in a sewer (Abstract, [0032]), wherein the method comprises at least: a first step (S1) in which a driving speed of the inspection unit is detected ([0033]) and a second step (S2) in which the detected driving speed is displayed on a display device (Fig 9, [0045]).
Morris is silent RE:
The second step in which the detected driving speed is compared with at least one predetermined driving speed, wherein a speed indicator is generated based upon the result of the comparison, a third step (S3) in which, based upon the generated speed indicator, a colored symbol is selected from a set of colored symbols, and a fourth step (S3) in which the selected colored symbol is displayed on a display device, wherein the speed indicator indicates within which speed interval from a set of predetermined speed intervals the detected driving speed falls. However Clauss teaches in abstract, Figs 4-6 and col 19 lines 56-64, col 9 lines 3-12 in order to provide visual feedback of the driving speed for different speed levels.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Morris a system and method a second step (S2) in which the detected driving speed is compared with at least one predetermined driving speed, wherein a speed indicator is generated based upon the result of the comparison, a third step (S3) in which, based upon the generated speed indicator, a colored symbol is selected from a set of colored symbols, and a fourth step (S3) in which the selected colored symbol is displayed on a display device, wherein the speed indicator indicates within which speed interval from a set of predetermined speed intervals the detected driving speed falls, as suggested by Clauss, in order to provide visual feedback of the driver speed for different levels for further assist in controlling the speed and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Morris as modified by Clauss Further teaches, wherein the at least one predetermined driving speed is an interval from the set of predetermined speed intervals, wherein, in the second step, a comparison is made as to within which speed interval the detected driving speed falls (Clauss Figs 4-6 and col 19 lines 56-64, col 9 lines 3-12); and
wherein the set of predetermined speed intervals is determined as a function of the inspection unit used, wherein the set of predetermined speed intervals is redetermined for this inspection unit when the inspection unit is changed (Morris Fig 9, [0033]-[0034] “ Motor controller 116 may operate the motors 102 according to input from the inclinometer and other input from an operator that determines a speed and direction of travel for the robot to both drive the robot and to make orientation corrections to the robot. It is appreciated that the orientation and level of the robot may be desired to be maintained in as much of a constant position as possible, such maintenance is better for uniform imaging and for the safety of the robot itself.… user interface 152 may have a control interface 156 for controlling movement of the robot. … The robot control software using feedback from the motor encoders or resolvers, axle encoders and inclinometer controls speed and position of the robot on the pipeline and precisely matches the speed of the robot with the acquisition speed of a linear detector. It may also precisely index distance if a field array is used. “, [0037] “The speed may be controlled automatically, or based on user interface inputs … For example, a user may determine how many milliseconds per line the detector captures, and then the software controls the speed of the robot accordingly.”) to achieve and/or maintain intended purpose and functionality ([0045] “to control speed of the robot, check status of the robot, configure manual inputs, and/or configure automated mode that allows the operator to control the robot from a mobile device. Display regions 1012 provide data to the operator, such as distance travelled, crawler angle, and axle steering angles. It is appreciated that any additional controls to implement the functionality described herein may also be provided… provide feedback signals to steer the robot automatically. Additionally, and alternatively, the feedback may be provided to a user interface in a manner that allows a user to monitor conditions and data from said sensors. It is further appreciated that each of these methods may be utilized individually or in combination to facilitate the functionality of the robot.”), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes varying speed regulations for different specific inspection devices for different environments. In addition Clauss Figs 4A-E, depict an exemplary user configuration display and exemplary speed limit alert displays each corresponding to a different category, which may be generated and displayed by the speed alert display module. Each of the exemplary speed limit alert displays may be visual alerts to the user of the speed of the vehicle compared to the posted speed limit and the speed limit threshold (See Clauss col 9 lines 27-35). Clauss further teaches setting different speed intervals “The user configuration display 400 may also include user controls 418 for selecting one or several speed limit thresholds. As shown in FIG. 4A, the user may select a speed limit threshold for several speed limit ranges. … posted speed limit is greater than 60 mph. .. the user may select a single speed limit threshold regardless of the posted speed limit, or may select any suitable number of speed limit thresholds… entering speed limit thresholds, may be drop-down menus for selecting speed limit thresholds (e.g., for selecting a speed limit threshold of 0 mph, 5 mph, 10 mph, 15 mph, or 20 mph above the posted speed limit), or may be any other suitable user controls for selecting speed limit thresholds.. (See Clauss col 10 lines 35-63). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the teaching of Clauss to configure the speed intervals for the robot is readily applicable and can be equally changed when using a different robotic device in the same manner, in order to ensure the operability and functionality of the different robot in the specific sewerage environment/pipe.).
RE claim 4, Morris as modified by Clauss teaches, wherein the speed indicator can assume at least a first value and a second value, wherein the first value indicates that the detected driving speed does not exceed a predetermined maximum driving speed, and the second value indicates that the detected driving speed exceeds the predetermined maximum driving speed (Clauss Figs 4-6 and col 19 lines 56-64, col 9 lines 3-12).
RE claim 5, Morris as modified by Clauss teaches, wherein the driving speed of the inspection unit is continuously detected, and wherein the second step, the third step, and the fourth step are continuously carried out based upon the continuously detected driving speed in order to update the colored symbol displayed on the display device when the speed indicator changes (Morris [0033], [0045], Clauss Figs 4-6 and col 19 lines 56-64, col 9 lines 3-12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240001413 A1 PIPE PIGGING SYSTEM FOR CLEANING AND CONTROLLING SPEED OF PIG ([0025], [0090])
US 20220355348 A1 MOTOR CONTROL OF A DRAIN CLEANING MACHINE
US 20210222706 A1 COMPRESSOR AND METHOD OF OPERATING SAME
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights