DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 26 September 2024 and 10 April 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-11 were originally filed.
Claims 12-14 were added by the preliminary amendment filed 07 April 2025.
Claims 1-11 were amended by the preliminary amendment filed 07 April 2025.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moreau et al., US20220268392 (“MOREAU”) in view of Albis Plastics GmbH, DE202017006834U1 (“ALBIS”).
Re claim 1, MOREAU discloses an inspection device that is adapted to inspect regions of machines and/or system components and/or pipeline systems, said regions being inaccessible to persons [0005], comprising:
at least one drive carriage and at least one further carriage which has an inspection unit and is connectable to the drive carriage via a joint unit [Fig.1 and associated text],
wherein the drive carriage comprises a housing, two wheels which are held on the housing so as to be rotatable about two rotational axes aligned with each other, a first electric motor which has a first motor shaft and which rotates a first wheel, and a second electric motor which has a second motor shaft and which rotates the a second wheel [0019-0022],
MOREAU fails to explicitly disclose wherein each electric motor rotates the respective wheel in rotation via a transmission, and wherein the rotational axes extend between the first and second motor shafts of the electric motors
However, ALBIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an inspection device with a plurality of electric motors and associated transmissions for independent wheel operation [pp.3-4]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOREAU to include the particular structure of ALBIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the dimensions of the transmission small and light [ALBIS at p.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ALBIS merely teaches that it is well-known to employ electric motor and transmission pairs coupled to respective wheels of an inspection device. Since both MOREAU and ALBIS disclose similar inspection devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 2, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 1, as shown above.
MOREAU fails to explicitly disclose the transmissions are of identical design
However, ALBIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an inspection device with a plurality of electric motors and associated identical transmissions for independent wheel operation [pp.3-4]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOREAU to include the particular structure of ALBIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the dimensions of the transmission small and light [ALBIS at p.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ALBIS merely teaches that it is well-known to employ electric motor and transmission pairs coupled to respective wheels of an inspection device. Since both MOREAU and ALBIS disclose similar inspection devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 3, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 1, as shown above.
MOREAU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the transmissions have a plurality of gearwheels
However, ALBIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an inspection device with a plurality of electric motors and associated identical transmissions wherein the transmissions have a plurality of gearwheels [pp.3-4]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOREAU to include the particular structure of ALBIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the dimensions of the transmission small and light [ALBIS at p.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ALBIS merely teaches that it is well-known to employ electric motor and transmission pairs with a plurality of gearwheels. Since both MOREAU and ALBIS disclose similar inspection devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 4, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 3, as shown above.
MOREAU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the geometries of the gearwheels of each transmission are selected in such a way that the drive speed is lower than the motor speed
However, ALBIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an inspection device with a plurality of electric motors and associated identical transmissions wherein the geometries of the gearwheels of each transmission are selected in such a way that the drive speed is lower than the motor speed [pp.3-4]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOREAU to include the particular structure of ALBIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the dimensions of the transmission small and light [ALBIS at p.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ALBIS merely teaches that it is well-known to employ electric motor and transmission pairs with a plurality of specific gearwheels. Since both MOREAU and ALBIS disclose similar inspection devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 5, MOREAU/ LBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 3, as shown above.
MOREAU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gearwheels are each fastened via a shaft-hub connection to axles which are rotatably mounted on the housing, are aligned with the rotational axes and on which the wheels are held in a rotationally fixed manner, and to the first and second motor shafts of the electric motors
However, ALBIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an inspection device with a plurality of electric motors and associated identical transmissions wherein the gearwheels are each fastened via a shaft-hub connection to axles which are rotatably mounted on the housing, are aligned with the rotational axes and on which the wheels are held in a rotationally fixed manner, and to the first and second motor shafts of the electric motors [pp.3-4]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOREAU to include the particular structure of ALBIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the dimensions of the transmission small and light [ALBIS at p.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ALBIS merely teaches that it is well-known to employ electric motor and transmission pairs with a plurality of specific gearwheels. Since both MOREAU and ALBIS disclose similar inspection devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 6, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 5, as shown above.
MOREAU further discloses wherein the axles are positioned form-fittingly between a housing shoulder projecting upwards into an interior of the housing and at least one axle holder placed on the housing shoulder from above and connected thereto [Figs.1-3 and associated text]
Re claim 8, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 1, as shown above.
MOREAU further discloses wherein at least one annular anchor projecting outwards to a front or a rear is provided on the housing and forms part of the joint unit [Figs.1-3 and associated text]
Re claim 9, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 8, as shown above.
MOREAU further discloses wherein the joint unit has an elongate connecting element which, at its opposite end regions, has through-holes which extend parallel to one another and are each adapted to receive an anchor [Figs.1-3 and associated text]
Re claim 10, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 9, as shown above.
MOREAU further discloses wherein the connecting element has two connecting element halves which are detachably connected to one another, wherein a dividing line between the connecting element halves runs through the through-holes in their direction of extent [Figs.1-3 and associated text]
Re claim 11, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 10, as shown above.
MOREAU further discloses wherein one connecting element half has at least one connecting pin which, in an assembled stat of both connecting element halves engages in a corresponding recess o the other connecting element half [Figs.1-3 and associated text]
Re claim 12, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 3, as shown above.
MOREAU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the transmissions have exactly two gearwheels in each case
However, ALBIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an inspection device with a plurality of electric motors and associated identical transmissions wherein the transmissions have exactly two gearwheels in each case [pp.3-4]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOREAU to include the particular structure of ALBIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the dimensions of the transmission small and light [ALBIS at p.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ALBIS merely teaches that it is well-known to employ electric motor and transmission pairs with a plurality of specific gearwheels. Since both MOREAU and ALBIS disclose similar inspection devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 13, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 5, as shown above.
MOREAU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gearwheels are each fastened via a shaft-hub connection via a form-fitting shaft-hub connection to the axles
However, ALBIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an inspection device with a plurality of electric motors and associated identical transmissions wherein the gearwheels are each fastened via a shaft-hub connection via a form-fitting shaft-hub connection to the axles [pp.3-4]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOREAU to include the particular structure of ALBIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the dimensions of the transmission small and light [ALBIS at p.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ALBIS merely teaches that it is well-known to employ electric motor and transmission pairs with a plurality of specific gearwheels. Since both MOREAU and ALBIS disclose similar inspection devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 14, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 6, as shown above.
MOREAU further discloses wherein the axles are detachably connected [Figs.1-3 and associated text]
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over MOREAU/ALBIS in view of Bryner et al., US11872707 (“BRYNER”).
Re claim 7, MOREAU/ALBIS renders obvious the inspection of claim 1, as shown above.
MOREAU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wheels each have a rim and a magnetic ring held on the rim and forming a running surface of the wheel
However, BRYNER, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an inspection device wherein the wheels each have a rim and a magnetic ring held on the rim and forming a running surface of the wheel [0466-0470]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOREAU to include the particular structure of BRYNER. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an inspection device with improved environmental capabilities [BRYNER at 0002]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, BRYNER merely teaches that it is well-known to employ electric motor and transmission pairs with a specific wheel structure. Since both MOREAU and BRYNER disclose similar inspection devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
Prosecution Insights