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 statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a separate fluid path to increase the outer diameter of the robot after the main body is everted” as claimed in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
There does not appear to be a separate fluid path in any of the drawings as all the fluid appears to flow through the main body, and there is no reference character used to point to a separate fluid path.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “one or more of root hairs on the body tube that model plant roots, radial branch extensions that model plant root systems, and radial swelling that models plant root growth.”
Claim 15 recites “root hairs on the body tube that model plant roots,”.
It is unclear what would or would not read on the recitations of “that model plant roots”, “that model plant root systems”, “that models plant root growth” because there is no standard root for all plants. Different plants of different types of root growth and there does not appear to be a way to ascertain what would or would not meet these limitations. For examination purposes, any hair-like structures, radial branch extensions, or radial swelling will be interpreted to meet these recitations.
The dependent claims are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 10, 11, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hou et al. (US 2010/0089593), hereinafter ‘Hou’.
Hou discloses:
1. (Original) A self-anchoring everting robot comprising a flexible body tube (10, 14) that accepts fluid and can be everted via pressure (paragraph [0041], [0050] discloses a fluid pumped into the annular space between 12 and 14 to result in a downward force to evert the inner tube 12 to become the expanded tube 14) to provide tip growth (paragraph [0041] discloses tip growth at 16) and one or more of root hairs on the body tube that model plant roots (paragraph [0039] discloses that stiffening member 39 is arranged at an outer or inner surface of the unexpanded tubular element, therefore when everted to form the expanded tubular element, the, the stiffening members 39 meet the limitation of root hairs on the body tube), radial branch extensions that model plant root systems, and radial swelling that models plant root growth.
3. (Currently Amended) The self-anchoring robot of claim 1 wherein the root hairs comprise plastic film folded into a substantial
PNG
media_image1.png
28
20
media_image1.png
Greyscale
shape and adhered to the body tube to be external when everted (see Fig. 5e, the shape as claimed is formed on the body tube, paragraph [0036] discloses forming stiffening members integrally with the tube or connected in any suitable manner).
10. (Original) The self-anchoring robot of claim 1, comprising root hairs, wherein the root hairs are resiliently shaped to be biased against the direction of robot pull-out (the root hairs in the form of stiffening members as seen in Figs. 5a-5f appear to be shaped to be biased against a direction of pulling out of the bore).
11. (Original) The self-anchoring robot of claim 1, comprising root hairs, wherein the root hairs comprise a resilient hook shape (root hair/ stiffening member 39 appears to be a hook shape).
12. (Original) The self-anchoring robot of claim 1, comprising root hairs, wherein the root hairs comprise a diameter that is a substantial diameter compared to the main body (absent further limitations as to what constitutes a “substantial” diameter, and since importing limitations from the specification is improper, this limitation is interpreted to be met by the root hairs/stiffening members have a diameter).
15. (Original) A method for deploying a self-anchoring everting robot comprising a flexible body tube that accepts fluid and can be everted via pressure to provide tip growth, root hairs on the body tube that model plant roots,
the method comprising steps of:
everting into a material (10)
a plurality of body tubes or
body tube portions (body tube portions 10, 12, 14 ) with root hairs as shallow hairy branches at an angle to a surface of the material (hairy branches 39, 38, it should be noted that "at an angle" includes 90 degrees and all angles and is therefore a broad limitation) ;
and everting a plurality of additional longer body tubes or
body tube portions with root hairs vertically (without establishing a frame of reference, it is unclear what direction would meet this limitation; as best understood, since the body tube portions of Hou are everted vertically into the bore, this limitation is met)
and/or at a smaller angle into the surface of the material.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders (US 2011/0247755).
Sanders renders obvious:
1. (Original) A self-anchoring everting robot (the device of Sanders is capable of being used as a self-anchoring everting robot as it is a machine that effectuates the everting structure and is capable of being powered on autonomously) comprising a flexible body tube (1) that accepts fluid and can be everted via pressure to provide tip growth and one or more of root hairs on the body tube that model plant roots (paragraph [0019] discloses a pressurizing fluid introduced into the interior 8 and causing the liner to evert and extend progressively in direction 9, which causes the root hairs in the form of felt as discussed in paragraph [0003], which are everted with the tube), radial branch extensions that model plant root systems, and radial swelling that models plant root growth (Fig. 12, end 27 of the tube 1 shows radial swelling).
2. (Original) The self-anchoring robot of claim 1, comprising a combination of two or three of the root hairs, radial swelling and radial branch extensions (Sanders discloses root hairs in the form of felt, and radial swelling at the end of the tube at 27).
5. (Currently Amended) The self-anchoring robot of claim 1, wherein the body formed of composite high pressure skin and air tight bladder arranged to permit pressure to evert the high pressure skin (paragraph [0002] discloses tube formed from a flexible skin of a substantially impermeable material such as plastic, paragraph [0003] discloses polyvinyl chloride or polyurethane impregnated with resin).
6. (Original) The self-anchoring robot of claim 5, wherein the high pressure skin is a durable composite fabric (felt combined with the body of the tube is a high pressure skin that is interpreted to be a fabric).
7. (Original) The self-anchoring robot of claim 6, wherein the bladder is a thermoplastic material (paragraph [0003] discloses polyvinyl chloride or polyurethane impregnated with resin).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alavi (US 20100239797).
Regarding claim 8, Sanders renders obvious the self-anchoring robot of claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the durable composite is a fabric laminate of polyester film and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fibers.
However, Alavi discloses an inflatable casing similar to Sanders and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Alavi discloses a flexible multi-layer material for an inflatable casing; discloses wherein the durable composite is a fabric laminate of polyester film and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fibers and teaches that its combination of materials for its casing provides for high stability, tear resistance, and a high modulus of elasticity and is applicable in for many different uses (Alavi, abstract, paragraph [0006], [0027], [0029], [0031], [0032]).
Since high stability, tear resistance is beneficial, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Sanders to have used the casing material of Alavi, which includes wherein the durable composite is a fabric laminate of polyester film and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fibers.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keller (US 5816345).
Regarding claim 9, Sanders renders obvious the self-anchoring robot of claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the durable composite is an aramid plastic fabric.
However, Keller discloses an everting liner similar to Sanders and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Keller discloses using a durable composite including an aramid plastic fabric (Keller, Col. 4 lines 11-20), with a liner configured to be everted.
Since using an aramid plastic fiber for an everting casing/tube that is inflated is known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Sanders to have used an aramid plastic fabric as the durable composite as a matter of simple substitution of one known suitable material for another to yield only the expected results of a functioning everting casing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13, 14, 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not appear to disclose nor render obvious the limitations of claims 4, 13, 14, 16 in combination with their base claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hawkes et al. (US 2019/0217908) disclose a robotic everting device that is similar to the everting device of Sanders, and therefore renders obvious a self-anchoring everting robot
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights