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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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, “a flexible robotic arm,…..a pair of drive wheels coupled to a drive motor, and a t least one of the linkages being connected to a spring,…the rotational motor,” recited in claim 1; and “an electric motor,” recited in claim 6; and “an encoder, a light gate, a mounting bracket” recited in claims 7, 9, 11, 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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim 5 is objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7m 9, 11 are indefinite and vague. Which element constitutes “a drive portion, a rotational portion, a pair of drive wheels, a drive motor, a mounting frame, a spring, a motor, an electric motor, an encoder, a light gate, a mounting bracket?” In so any drive portion, any rotational portion, any drive wheels, any drive motor, any frame, and any spring, and any motor, any sensor, any light meets the limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the feed portion" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morris, U.S. Patent No. 10670538 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Morris ‘538 discloses a feed mechanism 162 for inserting and/or retracting a flexible robotic arm (see figure 1, 136) form an area, the feed mechanism comprising: a housing 190, a passageway (i.e., an aperture) that extends about a central longitudinal axis 184 through the length of the housing, a drive portion (i.e., using 176, 193) and a rotational portion (i.e., using 194, 196), the drive portion not being fixedly connecting within the housing and having at least a pair of drive wheel (176, 176, see figure 3, located opposite sides of housing, claim 13) coupled to a drive motor 178, the drive wheels (176, 176) are connect to a mounting frame (i.e., no reference number, a frame covering the drive wheels, see figure 3) with the mounting frame being connected to pivotable linkages as springs (182, 182, which are connected to the drive wheels, claim 14), such that the expansion or contraction of the spring allows the drive wheels to move relative to the longitudinal axis, and the rotation portion (194, 196) coupled to a motor 198, the rotational motor having a gear system (i.e., 194, 196, 198 are a gear system) that connect the drive portion and causes a rotation of the drive portion about the central longitudinal axis within the housing; and an encoder (i.e., a sensor 148) and a light 146 which can determine the positional movement of the flexible robotic arm (see figure 1, claims 7, 9); and a mount (i.e., using 200 which inherently mounts to any secured device/frame, claims 10-11); and a feed pipe (i.e., using 136, claims 12 and 15) which is a borescopes, see figures 1-7.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris, U.S. Patent No. 10670538 B2, in view of Kell et al., US 2022/0371179 A1.
Regarding claims 3 and 5-6, as stated above, Morris ‘538 does not explicitly show a plurality of roller bearings from the rotation portions with particular gears.
Kell ‘179 discloses the concept of a drive shaft 70, a worm wheel 78, a plurality of roller bearings 81, worm gears 76, and roller bearings 74, see figures 6-7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the rotation portions of Morris ‘538 to include a plurality of roller bearings and particular gears as suggested by Kell ‘179, in order to rotate the rotation portions smoother. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris, U.S. Patent No. 10670538 B2, in view of Ramezani, U.S. Patent No. 11643273 B1.
As stated above, Morris ‘538 shows the drive wheels but doesn’t explicitly explain if the gear system can be coated by any rubber.
Ramezani ‘273 recognizes the concept of coating the drive mechanism with rubber, see the specification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the drive wheels of Morris ‘538 to include coated rubber as suggested by Ramezani ‘273, in order to provide more flexibility during movement of the gears. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, and 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims 2 and 4 are patentable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not show or render obvious the combination set forth in claims 2 and 4, including every structural element recited in the dependent claims.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SK
8/7/26
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights