DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claim 15 has been amended
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recite(s) “steer the mobile carrier” “based on the received distance signal”, this could be a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitation of “based on” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “controller” receives a signal, however, nothing in the claim precludes a user from making the steering decision based on the received signal. Therefore “based on” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making decisions and/or judgments about steering based on the collected data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the steering decision is made the “mobile carrier” is steered generally as a constant distance based on the mental step(s), which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. “Steer” is equivalent to merely applying the “judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites an aircraft cleaning robot including a mobile carrier including wheels, a robot arm and a controller, which are well understood, routine and conventional in aircraft cleaning art. Claim 6 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recite(s) “set a driving limitation of the mobile carrier” “based on the position signal”, this could be a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitation of “based on” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “controller” receives a signal, however, nothing in the claim precludes a user from making the driving limitations decision based on the received signal. Therefore “based on” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making decisions and/or judgments about driving limitations based on the collected data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the steering decision is made the “mobile carrier” is steered generally as a constant distance based on the mental step(s), which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. “Steer” is equivalent to merely applying the “judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites an aircraft cleaning robot including a mobile carrier including wheels, a robot arm and a controller, which are well understood, routine and conventional in aircraft cleaning art. Claim 8 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recite(s) “generate a wheel steering control signal” “based on the received speed signal and the received steering signal, this could be a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitation of “based on” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “controller” receives a signal, however, nothing in the claim precludes a user from making the wheel steering control decision based on the received signal. Therefore “based on” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making decisions and/or judgments about driving limitations based on the collected data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the steering decision is made the “mobile carrier” is steered generally as a constant distance based on the mental step(s), which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. “Steer” is equivalent to merely applying the “judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites an aircraft cleaning robot including a mobile carrier including wheels, a robot arm and a controller, which are well understood, routine and conventional in aircraft cleaning art. Claim 11 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recite(s) “determine a driving direction” and “determine which set of wheels, of said first and second sets of wheels, presently acts as the front set of wheels, and which set of wheels, of said first and second sets of wheels” “based on the driving direction”, these could be mental steps. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitations of “determine” and “based on” as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “controller” language, nothing in the claim precludes a user from performing the step in the mind. Therefore “based on” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making decisions and/or judgments about driving direction based on observations of the robots movement.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the steering decision is made the “mobile carrier” is steered generally as a constant distance based on the mental step(s), which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. “Steer” is equivalent to merely applying the “judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites an aircraft cleaning robot including a mobile carrier including wheels, a robot arm and a controller, which are well understood, routine and conventional in aircraft cleaning art. Claim 14 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recite(s) “steer the mobile carrier” “based on the received distance signal”, this could be a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitation of “based on” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “controller” receives a signal, however, nothing in the claim precludes a user from making the steering decision based on the received signal. Therefore “based on” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making decisions and/or judgments about steering based on the collected data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the steering decision is made the “mobile carrier” is steered generally as a constant distance based on the mental step(s), which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. “Steer” is equivalent to merely applying the “judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites an aircraft cleaning robot including a mobile carrier including wheels, a robot arm and a controller, which are well understood, routine and conventional in aircraft cleaning art. Claim 17 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recite(s) “set a driving limitation of the mobile carrier” “based on the position signal”, this could be a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitation of “based on” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “controller” receives a signal, however, nothing in the claim precludes a user from making the driving limitations decision based on the received signal. Therefore “based on” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making decisions and/or judgments about driving limitations based on the collected data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the steering decision is made the “mobile carrier” is steered generally as a constant distance based on the mental step(s), which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. “Steer” is equivalent to merely applying the “judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites an aircraft cleaning robot including a mobile carrier including wheels, a robot arm and a controller, which are well understood, routine and conventional in aircraft cleaning art. Claim 19 is therefore not patent eligible.
The remaining claims further modify the abstract ideas discussed above and/or recite well understood, routine and conventional features in aircraft cleaning art and therefore are not patent eligible for the same reasons above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marrero US 2002/0108635 (US’635).
Regarding claim 1, US’635 teaches an aircraft cleaning robot (apparatus 30 for performing cleaning of an aircraft, abstract, para. 39-40) comprising:
a mobile carrier comprising a first set of wheels and a second set of wheels (mobile base 40 having a plurality of wheel members 50 for allowing the mobile base 40 to travel along surfaces F, para. 39-48, see fig. 2 and 16),
wherein one of said first and second sets of wheels operates as a front set of wheels and the other of said first and second sets of wheels operates as a rear set of wheels (wheels 50 are arranged at four corners of the base 40, see fig. 2 and 16);
a robot arm comprising a proximal end attached to the mobile carrier and a distal end provided with a cleaning head (the boom member 60 preferably includes a first boom arm 61 which has a proximal end portion pivotally connected to the rotatable platform 43, the boom member 60 further preferably includes yet a fourth boom arm 67 having a proximal end portion rotatably mounted to a distal end portion of the third boom arm 65, para. 44-48, see fig. 2); and
a controller configured to control a position of the cleaning head relative to the mobile carrier by operating the robot arm (FIG. 2 illustrates an operator O remotely operating the apparatus 30 from a remote operator booth B, para. 42 see fig. 2, therefore remote operator booth B is a controller configured to send commands from the operator to apparatus 30 to perform cleaning),
and to drive the mobile carrier along an aircraft to be cleaned (mobile base 40 having a plurality of wheel members 50 for allowing the mobile base 40 to travel along surfaces F, a plurality of wheels 50' are connected to a lower portion of the base 38 and are also each connected to the drive 42' so that the plurality wheels 50' responsively move the base 38 in a plurality of different directions, e.g., radial directions and other directions as previously described, responsive to the drive 42', the present invention also provides methods of maintaining an aircraft A, including cleaning, the method can also advantageously include moving the base 40 in at least forward, lateral, diagonal, and rotational directions about the support surface F, supplying fluid to the maintenance tool 80, and suctioning fluid from the maintenance tool 80 para. 40-51, see fig. 11-12 and 16),
wherein each of the front set of wheels and the rear set of wheels are steerable, and the controller is configured to control a steering angle of each of the front and rear sets of wheels (each of the plurality of omni-directional wheels 50' is drivable or movable responsive to the drive 42' in a selected direction independent of each of the other plurality of wheels 50', para. 43 and 48, see fig. 16).
Regarding claims 2-4, US’635 teaches the cleaning robot of claim 1. US’635 further teaches wherein the controller is configured to steer the first set of wheels to a first steering angle, while simultaneously steering the second set of wheels to a second steering angle different from the first steering angle, with regard to claim 2 wherein the controller is configured to steer each of the front and rear sets of wheels in a same direction, with regard to claim 3 and wherein the controller is configured to steer each of the front and rear sets of wheels to substantially a same steering angle, thereby enabling crab steering of the mobile carrier, with regard to claim 4 (as discussed above, the control booth in configured to operate the apparatus 30 through operator instructions and the omni-directional wheels are configured to receive the instruction for driving responsive to the drive 42' in a selected direction independent of each of the other plurality of wheels. Therefore, the controller is configured to steer the wheels and based as recited in claims 2-4).
Regarding claim 15, US’635 teaches the cleaning robot of claim 1. US’635 further teaches wherein the robot arm has at least a first arm segment, which is connected to the mobile carrier via a first pivotal joint, and a second arm segment, which is connected to the first arm segment via a second pivotal joint (see fig. 2-4, showing pivotal joints positioning); and wherein the controller is configured to, when the robot arm is in the collapsed transport position (the mobile base and being movable between a retracted position and an extended position): receive an initiation signal from an operator indicating that the cleaning head is to be moved to a cleaning start position; and simultaneously operate each of a set of joints comprising the first and second pivotal joints to move the cleaning head along a predetermined path to the cleaning start position adjacent to a surface of the aircraft (the controller booth send signals remotely to the apparatus 30 to operate the boom arm and wheels, as discussed above, therefore the booth can send any combination of signals desired by the operator).
Regarding claim 16, US’635 teaches the cleaning robot of claim 15. US’635 further teaches wherein said set of joints for simultaneous control further comprise at least one of: an arm swivel joint between the first pivotal joint and the mobile carrier (rotatable platform 43, para. 43-44, see fig. 2-7); and a telescopic joint interconnecting two telescopic subsegments of one of said first arm segments (see fig. 2-5, boom 60 is telescopic)
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’635 as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of WO96/02365 (WO’365) (machine translation provided used for citation).
Regarding claims 5-7, US’635 teaches the cleaning robot of claims 1 and 4. US’635 further teaches the controller is configured to: drive the mobile carrier along the aircraft to be cleaned while cleaning the aircraft, with regard to claim 6 as discussed above and wherein the cleaning head and the mobile carrier are interconnected via a set of robot arm segments and a set of joints (see fig. 2-4), with regard to claim 7.
US’635 does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: detect a change in a horizontal distance between the mobile carrier and a surface to be cleaned; and based on said detected change, crab steer the mobile carrier to maintain a heading of the mobile carrier, with regard to claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a distance signal indicating a change of distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft; and based on the received distance signal, steer the mobile carrier to maintain a constant distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft, with regard to claim 6 and wherein the distance signal is based on a position of at least one joint of said set of joints, with regard to claim 7.
WO’365 teaches a surface treatment device, for an aircraft (1), including a vehicle (2) and a working head (25) mounted on said vehicle through a positioning mechanism (4-24), a computer, proprioceptive sensors for detecting the attitude of said positioning mechanism (abstract). The central unit 34 is connected to proprioceptive sensors C1-C2, ... Cn distributed in the positioning mechanism of the pickling head, which indicate to the central unit 34 the relative position of each part of this positioning mechanism with respect to another part, as soon as there is a possible movement between these two parts. The memory 35 contains all the geometric data relating to the vehicle 2, to the positioning mechanism and to the working head, so that the data coming from the proprioceptive sensors Cl-Cn allow the central unit to reconstruct the exact configuration of the device for treating the surface and presenting this configuration to the operator on the screen or screens of the interface 36. the central unit 34 is also connected to stop means 37, for example electromagnetic contactors or solenoid valves, which make it possible to stop one or more movements of the pickling device when the central unit detects that the movement in progress risks causing a collision between a part of the stripping device and the airplane According to a particularly advantageous embodiment, the central unit 34 is programmed to indicate to the operator via the interface 36, the various movements which it must cause the vehicle 2 or the positioning mechanism to place the device in a configuration determined in relation to the airplane 1, when the operator indicates to the central unit 34 which part of the surface of the airplane he wishes to strip. The indications of movement given to the operator are preferably sequential, so that the operator has only one instruction to follow at a time, the order of the movements can also be important in order to avoid collisions (page 4 and 6-7). Therefore, WO’365 teaches that operating a cleaning apparatus, such as the apparatus of US’635, can include receiving a distance signal indicating a change of distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft in order to avoid collisions and maintain contact with the surface to be cleaned. Since the booth of US’635 is configured to steer the apparatus 30 remotely and the wheels are omni-directional, as discussed above, the sensor information as taught by WO’365 could be used by the operator of US’635 to send instructions to steer the mobile carrier to maintain a constant distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft and crab steer the mobile carrier to maintain a heading of the mobile carrier.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’635 to include wherein the controller is configured to: detect a change in a horizontal distance between the mobile carrier and a surface to be cleaned; and based on said detected change, crab steer the mobile carrier to maintain a heading of the mobile carrier, with regard to claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a distance signal indicating a change of distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft; and based on the received distance signal, steer the mobile carrier to maintain a constant distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft, with regard to claim 6 and wherein the distance signal is based on a position of at least one joint of said set of joints, with regard to claim 7 because WO’365 teaches it can avoid collisions and maintain contact with the surface to be cleaned and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Claim(s) 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’635 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jimenez Huertas et al. US 2012/0152281 (US’281).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, US’635 teaches the cleaning robot of claim 1. US’635 further teaches wherein the mobile carrier is self-propelled and the robot arm is movable between a collapsed transport position and an extended working position, and the controller is configured to receive a wheel steering input signal from a user interface (apparatus 30 is remotely operated by an operator from a control booth, abstract, para. 42 see fig. 2), with regard to claims 8 and 11.
US’635 does not teach wherein the controller is configured to receive a position signal indicating whether the robot arm is in the transport position or the working position and, based on the position signal, set a driving limitation of the mobile carrier, with regard to claim 8 and the controller is configured to: receive a speed signal indicating a speed of the mobile carrier; and generate, based on the received speed signal and the received steering signal, a wheel steering control signal to steer at least one of said first and second sets of wheels, with regard to claim 11.
US’281 teaches a vehicle and method for cleaning parabolic trough solar collectors (2) by means of a motorized vehicle (abstract). The drawback to be resolved consists of improving the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of collector surface, avoiding the structural obstacles that prevent complete cleaning of certain areas with more difficult access. The vehicle includes a control system for maintaining the relative work position between the collectors and the vehicle and prevent the vehicle from colliding with the collectors while operating the vehicle as a working speed. While the vehicle is operating at least one of the cleaning brushes of at least one of the cleaning arms is movable in relation to the corresponding pivot head by means of a shaft connected to said cleaning brush and actuated by means of a retraction actuator. Said refraction actuator can receive a signal from the proximity sensors when said proximity sensors detect the presence of an obstacle susceptible of interfering with any of the cleaning brushes. (para. 6-8, 26-38, 51-58 and 67). Therefore, US’281 teaches providing sensors to a cleaning apparatus, such as the cleaning apparatus of US’635, can be used to signal obstacles during cleaning and moving the vehicle to prevent collision with structural obstacles and improve the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of the surface to be cleaned. Wherein, moving the vehicle to avoid obstacles and setting a working speed reads on a “driving limitations”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’635 to include wherein the controller is configured to receive a position signal indicating whether the robot arm is in the transport position or the working position and, based on the position signal, set a driving limitation of the mobile carrier, with regard to claim 8 and the controller is configured to: receive a speed signal indicating a speed of the mobile carrier; and generate, based on the received speed signal and the received steering signal, a wheel steering control signal to steer at least one of said first and second sets of wheels, with regard to claim 11 because US’281 teaches it can be used to signal obstacles during cleaning and moving the vehicle to prevent collision with structural obstacles improving the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of the surface to be cleaned and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12-13, the modified apparatus of US’635 teaches the cleaning robot of claims 8 and 11. The modified apparatus of US’635 further includes moving the vehicle to avoid obstacles reads on a driving limitations as well as setting a working speed, as discussed above, which reads on setting a driving limitation comprises setting a transport position limit speed, when in transport position, with regard to claim 9 and setting a driving limitation comprises setting a maximum steering angle of at least one of said first and second sets of wheels, with regard to claim 10. The examiner notes that the transport position limit speed is higher than a working position limit speed, when in working position, with regard to claim 9, said maximum steering angle is larger in the transport position than in the working position, with regard to claim 10, at a lower speed, associating the wheel steering input signal with a relatively larger steering angle, and, at a higher speed, associating the steering input signal with a relatively smaller steering angle, with regard to claim 11 and wherein a conversion ratio from the wheel steering input signal to a rear wheel steering angle of the rear set of wheels is reduced, with increasing speed, more than a conversion ratio from the wheel steering input signal to a front wheel steering angle of the front set of wheels is reduced with a same increasing speed, with regard to claim 13 recites the intended use of the apparatus. And a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The controller of the modified apparatus of US’635 is capable of limiting movement of the vehicle to avoid obstacles as well as setting a working speed and therefore would be capable of operating at the recited values after setting a transport limit speed a wheel steering control signal and a maximum steering angle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have known that the structural limitations of the controller taught by the prior art and the controller claimed would have been the same and since the claim is directed towards an apparatus, the apparatus is independent of the intended use.
Regarding claim 14, US’635 teaches the cleaning robot of claim 1. US’635 further teaches wherein the mobile carrier is self-propelled and the controller is configured to: generate a wheel steering signal for each wheel (as discussed above, apparatus 30 is remotely operated by an operator from a control booth and includes omni-directional wheels, abstract, para. 42-43 see fig. 2 and 16).
US’635 does not teach the controller is configured to: determine a driving direction, and based on the driving direction, determine which set of wheels, of said first and second sets of wheels, presently acts as the front set of wheels, and which set of wheels, of said first and second sets of wheels, presently acts as the rear set of wheels, respectively; generate a front wheel steering signal for the front set of wheels; and generate a rear wheel steering signal for the rear set of wheels; wherein the rear wheel steering signal is different from the front wheel steering signal.
US’281 teaches a vehicle and method for cleaning parabolic trough solar collectors (2) by means of a motorized vehicle (abstract). The drawback to be resolved consists of improving the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of collector surface, avoiding the structural obstacles that prevent complete cleaning of certain areas with more difficult access. The vehicle includes a control system for maintaining the relative work position between the collectors and the vehicle and prevent the vehicle from colliding with the collectors while operating the vehicle as a working speed. While the vehicle is operating at least one of the cleaning brushes of at least one of the cleaning arms is movable in relation to the corresponding pivot head by means of a shaft connected to said cleaning brush and actuated by means of a retraction actuator. Said refraction actuator can receive a signal from the proximity sensors when said proximity sensors detect the presence of an obstacle susceptible of interfering with any of the cleaning brushes. (para. 6-8, 26-38, 51-58 and 67). Therefore, US’281 teaches providing sensors to a cleaning apparatus, such as the cleaning apparatus of US’635, can be used to signal obstacles during cleaning and moving the vehicle to prevent collision with structural obstacles and improve the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of the surface to be cleaned. Wherein, moving the vehicle to avoid obstacles and setting a working speed would require defined directionality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’635 to include the controller is configured to: determine a driving direction, and based on the driving direction, determine which set of wheels, of said first and second sets of wheels, presently acts as the front set of wheels, and which set of wheels, of said first and second sets of wheels, presently acts as the rear set of wheels, respectively; generate a front wheel steering signal for the front set of wheels; and generate a rear wheel steering signal for the rear set of wheels; wherein the rear wheel steering signal is different from the front wheel steering signal because US’281 teaches it can be used to signal obstacles during cleaning and moving the vehicle to prevent collision with structural obstacles improving the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of the surface to be cleaned and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marrero US 2002/0108635 (US’635) in view of WO96/02365 (WO’365) (machine translation provided used for citation).
Regarding claim 17, US’635 teaches an aircraft cleaning robot comprising a mobile carrier (apparatus 30 for performing cleaning of an aircraft including mobile base 40 having a plurality of wheel members 50 for allowing the mobile base 40 to travel along surfaces F, abstract, para. 39-48, see fig. 2 and 16);
a robot arm having a proximal end attached to the mobile carrier, and a distal end provided with a cleaning head (the boom member 60 preferably includes a first boom arm 61 which has a proximal end portion pivotally connected to the rotatable platform 43, the boom member 60 further preferably includes yet a fourth boom arm 67 having a proximal end portion rotatably mounted to a distal end portion of the third boom arm 65, para. 44-48, see fig. 2); and
a controller configured to control a position of the cleaning head relative to the mobile carrier by operating the robot arm (FIG. 2 illustrates an operator O remotely operating the apparatus 30 from a remote operator booth B, para. 42 see fig. 2, therefore remote operator booth B is a controller configured to send commands from the operator to apparatus 30 to perform cleaning), and
to drive the mobile carrier along an aircraft to be cleaned, while cleaning the aircraft (mobile base 40 having a plurality of wheel members 50 for allowing the mobile base 40 to travel along surfaces F, a plurality of wheels 50' are connected to a lower portion of the base 38 and are also each connected to the drive 42' so that the plurality wheels 50' responsively move the base 38 in a plurality of different directions, e.g., radial directions and other directions as previously described, responsive to the drive 42', the present invention also provides methods of maintaining an aircraft A, including cleaning, the method can also advantageously include moving the base 40 in at least forward, lateral, diagonal, and rotational directions about the support surface F, supplying fluid to the maintenance tool 80, and suctioning fluid from the maintenance tool 80 para. 40-51, see fig. 11-12 and 16),
US’635 does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: receive a distance signal indicating a change of distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft; and based on the received distance signal, steer the mobile carrier to maintain a constant distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft.
WO’365 teaches a surface treatment device, for an aircraft (1), including a vehicle (2) and a working head (25) mounted on said vehicle through a positioning mechanism (4-24), a computer, proprioceptive sensors for detecting the attitude of said positioning mechanism (abstract). The central unit 34 is connected to proprioceptive sensors C1-C2, ... Cn distributed in the positioning mechanism of the pickling head, which indicate to the central unit 34 the relative position of each part of this positioning mechanism with respect to another part, as soon as there is a possible movement between these two parts. The memory 35 contains all the geometric data relating to the vehicle 2, to the positioning mechanism and to the working head, so that the data coming from the proprioceptive sensors Cl-Cn allow the central unit to reconstruct the exact configuration of the device for treating the surface and presenting this configuration to the operator on the screen or screens of the interface 36. the central unit 34 is also connected to stop means 37, for example electromagnetic contactors or solenoid valves, which make it possible to stop one or more movements of the pickling device when the central unit detects that the movement in progress risks causing a collision between a part of the stripping device and the airplane According to a particularly advantageous embodiment, the central unit 34 is programmed to indicate to the operator via the interface 36, the various movements which it must cause the vehicle 2 or the positioning mechanism to place the device in a configuration determined in relation to the airplane 1, when the operator indicates to the central unit 34 which part of the surface of the airplane he wishes to strip. The indications of movement given to the operator are preferably sequential, so that the operator has only one instruction to follow at a time, the order of the movements can also be important in order to avoid collisions (page 4 and 6-7). Therefore, WO’365 teaches that operating a cleaning apparatus, such as the apparatus of US’635, can include receiving a distance signal indicating a change of distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft in order to avoid collisions and maintain contact with the surface to be cleaned. Since the booth of US’635 is configured to steer the apparatus 30 remotely a, as discussed above, the sensor information as taught by WO’365 could be used by the operator of US’635 to send instructions to steer the mobile carrier to maintain a constant distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’635 to include wherein the controller is configured to: receive a distance signal indicating a change of distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft; and based on the received distance signal, steer the mobile carrier to maintain a constant distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft because WO’365 teaches it can avoid collisions and maintain contact with the surface to be cleaned and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 18, the modified apparatus of US’635 teaches the cleaning robot of claim 17. The modified apparatus of US’635 further includes wherein the cleaning head and the mobile carrier are interconnected via a set of robot arm segments and a set of joints (see fig. 2-4 of US’635), wherein the distance signal is based on a position of at least one joint of said set of joints (proprioceptive sensors C1-C2, ... Cn distributed in the positioning mechanism of the pickling head, which indicate to the central unit 34 the relative position of each part of this positioning mechanism with respect to another part, page 6 of WO’365)
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marrero US 2002/0108635 (US’635) in view of Jimenez Huertas et al. US 2012/0152281 (US’281).
Regarding claim 19, US’635 teaches an aircraft cleaning robot comprising a self-propelled mobile carrier (apparatus 30 for performing cleaning of an aircraft including mobile base 40 having a plurality of wheel members 50 for allowing the mobile base 40 to travel along surfaces F operated remotely by operator from booth B, abstract, para. 39-48, see fig. 2 and 16);
a robot arm having a proximal end attached to the mobile carrier and a distal end provided with a cleaning head (the boom member 60 preferably includes a first boom arm 61 which has a proximal end portion pivotally connected to the rotatable platform 43, the boom member 60 further preferably includes yet a fourth boom arm 67 having a proximal end portion rotatably mounted to a distal end portion of the third boom arm 65, para. 44-48, see fig. 2),
the robot arm being movable between a collapsed transport position and an extended working position (boom member having a proximal end portion rotatably mounted to the mobile base and being movable between a retracted position and an extended para. 40-50);
and a controller configured to control the position of the cleaning head relative to the mobile carrier by operating the robot arm (FIG. 2 illustrates an operator O remotely operating the apparatus 30 from a remote operator booth B, para. 42 see fig. 2, therefore remote operator booth B is a controller configured to send commands from the operator to apparatus 30 to perform cleaning),
and to drive the mobile carrier along an aircraft to be cleaned, while cleaning the aircraft (mobile base 40 having a plurality of wheel members 50 for allowing the mobile base 40 to travel along surfaces F, a plurality of wheels 50' are connected to a lower portion of the base 38 and are also each connected to the drive 42' so that the plurality wheels 50' responsively move the base 38 in a plurality of different directions, e.g., radial directions and other directions as previously described, responsive to the drive 42', the present invention also provides methods of maintaining an aircraft A, including cleaning, the method can also advantageously include moving the base 40 in at least forward, lateral, diagonal, and rotational directions about the support surface F, supplying fluid to the maintenance tool 80, and suctioning fluid from the maintenance tool 80 para. 40-51, see fig. 11-12 and 16).
US’635 does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: receive a position signal indicating whether the robot arm is in the transport position or the working position and, based on the position signal, set a driving limitation of the mobile carrier.
US’281 teaches a vehicle and method for cleaning parabolic trough solar collectors (2) by means of a motorized vehicle (abstract). The drawback to be resolved consists of improving the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of collector surface, avoiding the structural obstacles that prevent complete cleaning of certain areas with more difficult access. The vehicle includes a control system for maintaining the relative work position between the collectors and the vehicle and prevent the vehicle from colliding with the collectors while operating the vehicle as a working speed. While the vehicle is operating at least one of the cleaning brushes of at least one of the cleaning arms is movable in relation to the corresponding pivot head by means of a shaft connected to said cleaning brush and actuated by means of a retraction actuator. Said refraction actuator can receive a signal from the proximity sensors when said proximity sensors detect the presence of an obstacle susceptible of interfering with any of the cleaning brushes. (para. 6-8, 26-38, 51-58 and 67). Therefore, US’281 teaches providing sensors to a cleaning apparatus, such as the cleaning apparatus of US’635, can be used to signal obstacles during cleaning and moving the vehicle to prevent collision with structural obstacles and improve the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of the surface to be cleaned. Wherein, moving the vehicle to avoid obstacles and setting a working speed reads on a “driving limitations”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’635 to include wherein the controller is configured to: receive a position signal indicating whether the robot arm is in the transport position or the working position and, based on the position signal, set a driving limitation of the mobile carrier because US’281 teaches it can be used to signal obstacles during cleaning and moving the vehicle to prevent collision with structural obstacles improving the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of the surface to be cleaned and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 20, the modified apparatus of US’635 teaches the cleaning robot of claim 19. The modified apparatus of US’635 further includes moving the vehicle to avoid obstacles reads on a driving limitations as well as setting a working speed, as discussed above, which reads on a driving limitation comprises at least one of: setting a transport position limit speed and setting a maximum steering angle of a set of wheels. The examiner notes that the transport position limit speed is higher than a working position limit speed and said maximum steering angle is larger in the transport position than in the working position recites the intended use of the apparatus. And a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The controller of the modified apparatus of US’635 is capable of limiting movement of the vehicle to avoid obstacles as well as setting a working speed and therefore would be capable of operating at the recited values after setting a transport limit speed and a maximum steering angle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have known that the structural limitations of the controller taught by the prior art and the controller claimed would have been the same and since the claim is directed towards an apparatus, the apparatus is independent of the intended use.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12076759 in view of Marrero US 2002/0108635 (US’635).
Claim 1 of the instant application is sustainably similar to claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12076759 because they both require an aircraft cleaning robot comprising: a mobile carrier comprising a first set of wheels and a second set of wheels; a robot arm comprising a proximal end attached to the mobile carrier and a distal end provided with a cleaning head; and a controller configured to control a position of the cleaning head relative to the mobile carrier by operating the robot arm, and to drive the mobile carrier along an aircraft to be cleaned
U.S. Patent No. 12076759 does not recite the mobile carrier comprising a first set of wheels and a second set of wheels wherein one of said first and second sets of wheels operates as a front set of wheels and the other of said first and second sets of wheels operates as a rear set of wheels wherein each of the front set of wheels and the rear set of wheels are steerable, and the controller is configured to control a steering angle of each of the front and rear sets of wheels.
However, mobile carriers having two sets of wheels used for cleaning aircraft are well known in the art, as discussed above with regard to the teachings of US’635.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12076759 to include the mobile carrier comprising a first set of wheels and a second set of wheels wherein one of said first and second sets of wheels operates as a front set of wheels and the other of said first and second sets of wheels operates as a rear set of wheels wherein each of the front set of wheels and the rear set of wheels are steerable, and the controller is configured to control a steering angle of each of the front and rear sets of wheels because US’635 teaches that mobile carriers having two sets of wheels used for cleaning aircraft are well known in the art, and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12076759
Claim 17 of the instant application is sustainably similar to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12076759 and broader in scope because both claims require an aircraft cleaning robot comprising a mobile carrier; a robot arm having a proximal end attached to the mobile carrier, and a distal end provided with a cleaning head; and a controller configured to control a position of the cleaning head relative to the mobile carrier by operating the robot arm, and to drive the mobile carrier along an aircraft to be cleaned, while cleaning the aircraft, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a distance signal indicating a change of distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft; and based on the received distance signal, steer the mobile carrier to maintain a constant distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12076759 in view of Marrero US 2002/0108635 (US’635) and Jimenez Huertas et al. US 2012/0152281 (US’281).
Claim 19 of the instant application is sustainably similar to claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12076759 because they both require an aircraft cleaning robot comprising a self-propelled mobile carrier; a robot arm having a proximal end attached to the mobile carrier and a distal end provided with a cleaning head; and a controller configured to control the position of the cleaning head relative to the mobile carrier by operating the robot arm, and to drive the mobile carrier along an aircraft to be cleaned, while cleaning the aircraft.
U.S. Patent No. 12076759 does not recite the robot arm being movable between a collapsed transport position and an extended working position, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a position signal indicating whether the robot arm is in the transport position or the working position and, based on the position signal, set a driving limitation of the mobile carrier.
However, the robot arm being movable between a collapsed transport position and an extended working position is well known in the art based on the teachings of US’635 as discussed above. Further US’281 teaches receiving a position signal indicating whether the robot arm position and, based on the position signal, set a driving limitation of the mobile carrier can be used to signal obstacles during cleaning and moving the vehicle to prevent collision with structural obstacles improving the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of the surface to be cleaned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’635 to include the robot arm being movable between a collapsed transport position and an extended working position, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a position signal indicating whether the robot arm is in the transport position or the working position and, based on the position signal, set a driving limitation of the mobile carrier because US’281 teaches it can be used to signal obstacles during cleaning and moving the vehicle to prevent collision with structural obstacles improving the accessibility of the brushes to the largest possible area of the surface to be cleaned and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C) and US’635 teaches it is well known in the art to retract the robot arm when not in use and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Response to Amendment
Applicants amendments have over come the 112 rejection from the non-final mailed 4-17-26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4-17-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in the remarks filed 6-23-26 that Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer concurrently herewith to overcome the double patenting rejection. However, no terminal disclaimer has been filed and therefore the double patenting rejection has not been overcome.
Applicants arguments that the controller is configured to, based on the received distance signal, "steer the mobile carrier to maintain a constant distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft is a claim limitation that integrates the abstract idea into a particular application has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. The recitation of “based on" and “steer” is recited with a high level of generality and does not recite any particular direction or movement. Applicant references the October 2019 Update example 45, however the discussed example 45 is eligible because Limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exception (the comparison of the mold temperature with the target temperature) to control the operation of the injection molding apparatus, a particular object and that controlling results in a specific outcome, “opening the mold” based on a single particular event “the polyurethane has reached a target percentage”. In the instant claim many unspecified operating outcomes can results from the controlled steering and therefore reads as generally “applying” the judicial exception to a technical field.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wheels that mechanically pivot) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues that a wheel is “steerable” only if the wheel itself physically pivots. This is not a claim limitation and it is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the term steer. Under broadest reasonable interpretation the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term See MPEP 2111.01. The ordinary meaning of “steer” is to guide, control, or direct the course of a vehicle. Nothing in that definition requires that the guiding be accomplished by angular displacement of a wheel. The definition is directed to the result, controlling the course, and is not limited to one particular mechanical arrangement. A wheel that participates in the guiding, controlling or directing the course of the vehicle is therefore a “steerable” wheel under broadest reasonable interpretation weather the course is directed by pivoting the wheel, by selecting the wheels direction to drive by differential output among wheels or by any other means. Applying that meaning, steerable as recited in claim 1 encompasses any wheel through which the course of the mobile carrier is directed. US’635 teaches “each of the plurality of wheels 50' is drivable or movable responsive to the drive 42' in a selected direction independent of each of the other plurality of wheels 50'” para. 48, see fig. 16, and this direction selection of how the base 38 is directed along its course. The course of the base is directed by the wheels, which is the definitional act of steering. Similarly, “steering angle” is the angle at which the course is directed. The claim recited only “steering angle” broadly that reads on the selected angular direction in which the wheel drives the vehicle. US’635 teaches that the plurality wheels 50' responsively move the base 38 in a plurality of different directions, para. 48. Each of the plurality of wheel members 50 of the mobile base 40 includes an omni-directional vehicle wheel for providing at least forward, lateral, diagonal, and rotational motion of the mobile base 40 para.43, see fig. 5 arrows and fig. 12.
Applicants arguments that that the apparatus of Marrero is designed to be fixed in place on the support surface before the arm is unfolded and any actual cleaning takes place and does not move across the aircraft during maintenance, has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. As discussed above and in the non-final office action mailed 4-17-26, US’635 states that the method “can also advantageously include moving the base 40 in at least forward, lateral, diagonal, and rotational directions about the support surface F, supplying fluid to the maintenance tool 80.” “during operation of a maintenance procedure upon an aircraft A”. Base movement and tool operation are recited as parts of a single maintenance method, and fig. 11-12 depict multiple apparatus 30 moving around the aircraft A with directional arrows during maintenance. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, see MPEP 2123. The registering members are optional in that “the method can further include the base 40 further having a plurality of support surface registering members 45”. A structure expressly disclosed as retractable does not immobilize the apparatus for the duration of the maintenance operation. Nothing in US’635 states that the legs must be engaged whenever the tool 80 is in use. The “erratic movement” assertion is unsupported attorney arguments. US’635 does not characterizes the wheels 50’ as unstable, drift-prone, or unsuited to travel over surface F during maintenance. Applicants’ arguments appear to be an opinion, and not factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2145 I. Applicants supplies no declaration or documentary evidence for the asserted handling issues. Further, US’635 operates on “the floor F of a maintenance hangar, warehouse, or other maintenance region,” para. 39, that is, a prepared flat interior surface, not the outdoor uneven terrain applicant suggests. Therefore, the floor F of US’635 is specifically selected for operation and movement of the maintenance tool in performance of the disclosed method.
In response to applicant's argument that De Langlois positions its guide beam 16 precisely before applying the working head to the surface of the aircraft and any movement of the working head across the aircraft surface is thereafter effected by moving the carriage 17 along the beam, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The rejection does not propose bodily incorporation of WO’365’s beam 16 and carriage 17 into US’635. WO’365 teaches a known technique of using distance data to control positioning relative to the aircraft surface and that it can avoid collisions and maintain contact with the surface to be cleaned and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references to include the operator using the sensed information to remotely operate the maintenance apparatus 30, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, WO’365 teaches that operating a cleaning apparatus, such as the apparatus of US’635, can include receiving a distance signal indicating a change of distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft in order to avoid collisions and maintain contact with the surface to be cleaned. Since the booth of US’635 is configured to steer the apparatus 30 remotely a, as discussed above, the sensor information as taught by WO’365 could be used by the operator of US’635 to send instructions to steer the mobile carrier to maintain a constant distance between the mobile carrier and the aircraft.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an electronic controller feedback loop) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim merely recites “based on” generally without any particular limitation for the controller to make the decision on how to steer. The controller is required to receive distance measurement signals and send signals to the mobile carrier to control the steering, where the steering controls sent are “based on”, in a general way the received distance. This does not restrict the “base on” decision to being made by the controller. The claim is therefore not limited to the controller making the decision on how to modify the steering of the mobile carrier, rather it is open an operator performing the decision making.
Conclusion
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 ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights