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 .
Acknowledgement
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s Amendment to the Claims (filed 4/20/2026).
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informality: in claim 14 line 8, “comprise” should be changed to --comprises--. 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 1-13 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.
In claim 1 line 14, it is unclear whether the limitation “a ferrous tower” is the same as or different from the limitation “a ferrous tower” in claim 1 line 5. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Does Applicant mean --the ferrous tower--?
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, 4-6, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RU 2 605 234 C1, cited by Applicant.
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11, and 12, RU 2 605 234 C1 (at least Fig.; see annotated Fig. attached herewith) discloses
(claim 1) a climbing robot for climbing ferrous structures (pipeline), comprising:
a first drive unit 1, a second drive unit 1 coupled to a pivot mechanism 10, and a third drive unit 1, wherein the second drive unit 1 is coupled to the first 1 and third 1 drive units, wherein each of the first 1, second 1, and third 1 drive units comprise a wheel arrangement 5 comprising at least one wheel 5 configured to adhere to a ferrous tower (pipeline), and each wheel 5 is independently controllable; and,
wherein a first wheel arrangement 5 is the wheel arrangement 5 of one of the first 1, second 1, and third 1 drive units, and a second wheel arrangement 5 is the wheel arrangement of another one of the first 1, second 1, and third 1 drive units, and
wherein the pivot mechanism 10 is arranged to change an average distance between the first 5 and second 5 wheel arrangements in response to movement, about a point of the pivot mechanism 10 by an angle, of the first 1 and third 1 drive units with respect to each other (at least Fig.);
the climbing robot further comprising a restoration-force arrangement 6 configured to bias at least one of the wheel arrangements 5, 5, 5 to a surface of a ferrous tower, wherein the restoration-force arrangement 6 is distinct from each wheel arrangement 5, 5, 5 of the first 1, second 1, and third 1 drive units;
(claim 4) wherein the first wheel arrangement 5 is the wheel arrangement of one of the first 1 and third 1 drive units, and the second wheel arrangement 5 is the wheel arrangement of the second drive unit 1, wherein the change in the average distance between the first and second wheel arrangements is an increase in the average distance between the first and second wheel arrangements (at least Fig.);
(claim 5) wherein the first wheel arrangement 5 is the wheel arrangement of the first drive unit 1, and a third wheel arrangement 5 is the wheel arrangement of the third drive unit 3,
wherein the pivot mechanism 10 is arranged to decrease an average distance between the first and third wheel arrangements in response to movement about the point of the pivot mechanism 10 by an angle, of the first and third drive units with respect to each other (at least Fig.);
(claim 6) wherein the first wheel arrangement 5 is the wheel arrangement of the first drive unit 1, and the second wheel arrangement 5 is the wheel arrangement of the third drive unit 1, wherein the change in the average distance between the first and second wheel arrangements is a decrease in the average distance between the first and second wheel arrangements (at least Fig.);
(claim 8) wherein each wheel arrangement 5 of the first 1, second 1, and third 1 drive units comprise two wheels 5, 5;
(claim 11) wherein the centre of mass of the climbing robot is off-centre (due to camera 12 on first drive unit 1) and optionally the third drive unit comprises the power source for the climbing robot;
(claim 12) wherein each wheel 5 comprises permanent magnets 6 to adhere to a ferrous structure (pipeline).
PNG
media_image1.png
831
668
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 2 605 234 C1 in view of Kirby et al. (US 5,456,568), both cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 2 and 3, RU 2 605 234 C1 (at least Fig.; see annotated Fig. attached herewith) discloses the claimed invention except for
(claim 2) wherein the pivot mechanism 10 is a dual gear pivot mechanism comprising two partially-circular elements arranged to couple at a pitch point, and the point of the pivot mechanism 10 is the pitch point of the dual gear pivot mechanism; and
(claim 3) wherein a pivot point of each of the two partially-circular elements is fixed relative to the second drive unit.
Kirby et al. (at least Figs. 1-6) discloses that it is known in the art to provide
(claim 2) a pivot mechanism that is a dual gear pivot mechanism comprising two partially-circular elements arranged to couple at a pitch point, and the point of the pivot mechanism is the pitch point of the dual gear pivot mechanism; and
(claim 3) wherein a pivot point of each of the two partially-circular elements is fixed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pivot mechanism of RU 2 605 234 C1 with the dual gear pivot mechanism comprising two partially-circular elements according to the teachings of Kirby et al., in order to achieve the desirable result of improving maneuverability.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 2 605 234 C1 in view of CN 113619703 A, both cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 7, RU 2 605 234 C1 (at least Fig.; see annotated Fig. attached herewith) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first drive unit and the second drive unit are coupled in order to allow the first drive unit and the second drive unit to yaw and roll with respect to each other; and,
wherein the second drive unit and the third drive unit are coupled so to allow the second and third drive units to yaw and roll with respect to each other.
But CN 113619703 A (at least Figs. 1-21) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a robot, wherein a first drive unit 1 and a second drive unit 2 are coupled (via universal joint 4) in order to allow the first drive unit 1 and the second drive unit 2 to yaw and roll with respect to each other; and,
wherein the second drive unit 2 and a third drive unit 3 are coupled (via universal joint 4) so to allow the second 2 and third 3 drive units to yaw and roll with respect to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first, second, and third drive units of RU 2 605 234 C1 with the universal joints according to the teachings of CN 113619703 A, in order to achieve the desirable result of improving maneuverability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 2 605 234 C1 in view of Lin et al. (WO 2018/121080 A1), both cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 13, RU 2 605 234 C1 (at least Fig.; see annotated Fig. attached herewith) discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose wherein the climbing robot further comprises a controller configured to control the wheels of the first wheel arrangement and the wheels of the second wheel arrangement to change the average distance between the first and second wheel arrangements, wherein the pivot mechanism is arranged to cause the first and third drive units to move with respect to each other about a point of the pivot mechanism by an angle, in response to the change in the average distance between the first and second wheel arrangements.
But Lin et al. (at least Figs. 1-5B; see annotated Fig. 2 attached herewith) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a climbing robot comprising a controller (at least Abstract) configured to control wheels of a first wheel arrangement and wheels of a second wheel arrangement to change an average distance between the first and second wheel arrangements, wherein a pivot mechanism 120 is arranged to cause first and third drive units to move with respect to each other about a point of the pivot mechanism 120 by an angle, in response to a change in the average distance between first and second wheel arrangements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the climbing robot of RU 2 605 234 C1 with the controller according to the teachings of Lin et al., in order to achieve the desirable result of improving controllability of the climbing robot.
PNG
media_image2.png
395
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 9 and 10 in this case, is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the restoration-force arrangement is an elastic material” now included in claim 9, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 14 and 15 in this case, is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the first arm further comprises a first connection point arranged to connect to an elastic material, wherein the second arm further comprises a second connection point arranged to connect to the elastic material, wherein the elastic material is coupled between the first and second connection points and arranged to bias the pitch point” now included in claim 14, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, it is the Examiner’s position that each wheel arrangement 5 is distinct from the restoration-force arrangement (magnet 6) in RU 2 605 234 C1. Therefore, at least claim 1 is sufficiently broad that the reference to RU 2 605 234 C1 is still applicable. See rejection(s) above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6675. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason D. Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights