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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/1/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “anchoring mechanism” of claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ming US 20210180351.
As of claim 1, Ming teaches “A robotic system for facade operation of a building facade with an irregular surface, different features, and extrusions (Abstract), the system comprising: a suspended end effector (Figure 1A, 101) cooperating with one or more cables for positioning the end effector along the building façade (Figure 1A, 122, 124, 126, 128); one or more carrier platforms (Figure 1A, 104), each carrier platform configured to drive one or more cables to deliver the end effector to one or more specified positions along the building façade (Figure 1A); and a controller (Figure 1A, 102) cooperating with the end effector and at least one carrier platform to drive at least two cables to deliver the end effector to one or more specified positions along the building façade (Figure 1A).”
As to claim 2, Ming teaches “wherein the at least two cables each span spans between the end effector and a carrier platform located on a building roof (Figure 1A; 122, 124, 126, 128).”
As to claim 10, Ming teaches “a cable actuating mechanism positioned on the carrier platform for actuating the at least two cables (Figure 1A; [0007]).”
As to claim 11, Ming teaches “a cable routing mechanism to route the at least two cables between the cable actuating mechanism and the end effector (Figure 1A shows one or more cables being routed to their respective locations).”
As to claim 14, Ming teaches “one or more positional sensors positioned on the carrier or the carrier platform to provide relative positional feedback for a coordinated motion (Figure 2, 109).”
As to claim 15, Ming teaches “a fall protection mechanism positioned on the carrier platform to configured to inhibit the end effector from falling ([0004]).”
As to claim 16, Ming teaches “an anchoring mechanism on the carrier platform configured to provide fixtures to the carrier platform ([0027] teaches how the system can be fixed at points along the building).”
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ming US 20210180351 in view of Othman US 11106208.
As to claim 3, Ming does not teach inspection sensors.
Othman teaches “one or more facade inspection sensors positioned on the end effector (Claim 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Othman with Ming. Using a cable system to inspect the exterior of a building is known and utilizing various types of sensors to perform the testing would be obvious. This allows for efficiency.
As to claim 4, the prior arts do not teach “wherein one or more signal generators selected from the group containing an impact generator, an ultrasonic emitter, and electromagnetic wave emitter, are positioned on the carrier and configured to generate signals to facilitate inspection of the facade.”
Othman teaches “wherein one or more signal generators selected from the group containing an impact generator, an ultrasonic emitter, and electromagnetic wave emitter, are positioned on the carrier and configured to generate signals to facilitate inspection of the façade (Claim 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Othman with Ming. Using a cable system to inspect the exterior of a building is known and utilizing various types of sensors to perform the testing would be obvious. This allows for efficiency.
As to claim 5, Othman teaches “a marking tool positioned on the end effector to mark on the façade (Column 10, lines 15-41 teaches the marking of the building façade).”
As to claim 6, Ming teaches “a stabilizing mechanism on the end effector, the stabilizing mechanism configured to stabilize the carrier with respect to the façade ([0007]).”
As to claim 7, Ming teaches “a stabilizing mechanism on the end effector, the stabilizing mechanism configured provide a force sufficient to activate a contact mechanism on the inspection sensor ([0007]).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 8 teaches “a reconfigurable mechanism” which is not present in any of the prior arts. This allows for the stabilization to be adjusted as needed. Claims 9, 17, 18, 19 and 20 depend from claim 8. Claim 12 specifies that the marking tool is a material applicator. This is not specified by the prior arts and it would not be obvious to modify a once modified structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/TARUN SINHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights