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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on November 25, 2024. Claims 1-13 are amended. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 25, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 15 recites the limitation: “…on which the device is detachably…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis of this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to be changed to read: “…on which a device is detachably…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2020/0094413).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a mounting device (FIGS. 1-5) for detachably mounting a device (FIG. 4) on a crawler (FIG. 2) of a sewer inspection and/or maintenance system ([0001, 0002]), wherein the mounting device has a rear side and a front side (indicated below), wherein the mounting device has a largely vertical lower portion, a largely vertical upper portion, and a sloping middle portion (indicated below), wherein the middle portion connects the lower portion to the upper portion, the upper portion is arranged offset rearwards or forwards by a predetermined offset (Δd) relative to the lower portion (illustrated below),
PNG
media_image1.png
526
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first adapter (FIG. 3, (25), [0056, 0063]), by means of which the mounting device is detachably mountable directly or indirectly on the crawler (FIGS. 2, 3, “…a fourth interface 25 that is matched with the second interface 33…”, [0056]), is arranged on the rear side and/or on the front side of the lower portion (FIG. 3), and a second adapter (FIG. 3, (24), [0056, 0063]), on which the device is detachably mountable on the mounting device (FIGS. 3, 4, “…a third interface 24 that is matched with the first interface 11…”, [0056]), is arranged on the front side and/or on the rear side of the upper portion (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Liu further discloses the mounting device according to claim 1, wherein the first adapter and the second adapter each have connectors, wherein the connectors of the first adapter are routed to the connectors of the second adapter (“…the third microprocessor is connected between the first microprocessor and the second microprocessor through the first interface 11, the third interface 24, the fourth interface 25 and the second interface 33.”, [0056]; “…the third interface 24 and the fourth interface 25 are also skillfully arranged to let the lifting device be electrically connected with the camera module 1 and the crawler 3…”, [0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu further discloses the mounting device according to claim 1, wherein the mounting device is produced in a lightweight construction (“weight can be reduced”, Abstract; “…simple connection mode, and are convenient to carry…weight can be reduced…without using a traditional large control box.”, [0040]; “…lighter…”, [0065]).
Regarding claim 10, Liu further discloses the mounting device according to claim 1, wherein the device comprises an inspection unit, in particular an inspection camera ([0002, 0004, 0053, 0061, 0078]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is similarly rejected as in claim 1 above, wherein Liu further discloses a crawler (FIG. 2) of a sewer inspection and/or maintenance system ([0001, 0002]) comprising with a mounting device (FIG. 3) detachably mounted directly or indirectly on the crawler (FIGS. 2, 3, “…a fourth interface 25 that is matched with the second interface 33…”, [0056]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu further discloses the crawler according to claim 11, wherein the crawler has a connection unit (FIG. 2, (33), [0053, 0055, 0056]) which corresponds to the first adapter of the mounting device in order to detachably mount the mounting device on the connection unit (FIGS. 2, 3, “…a fourth interface 25 that is matched with the second interface 33…”, [0056]).
Regarding claim 13, Liu further discloses the crawler according to claim 11, wherein the crawler has a lifting unit (FIG. 3, (22), [0056]), at the free end of which a connection module (FIG. 2, (33), [0056]) is provided (indicated below) which corresponds to the first adapter of the mounting device in order to detachably mount the mounting device on the connection module (FIGS. 2, 3, “…a fourth interface 25 that is matched with the second interface 33…”, [0056]).
PNG
media_image2.png
858
606
media_image2.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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2020/0094413) as applied to claims 1, 2, 8, and 10-13 above, and further in view of Yang (KR 20190051485).
Regarding claim 3:
Liu discloses the mounting device according to claim 1.
Liu does not specifically disclose that the mounting device has at least two first support rods.
Yang teaches a sewer exploration device (FIGS. 1, 2), wherein the mounting device has at least two first support rods, wherein the one first support rod projects beyond the profile of the mounting device on the left side of the mounting device, and the other first support rod projects beyond the profile of the mounting device on the right side of the mounting device ((130), [0041-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Yang’s with the mounting device taught by Liu for the purpose of guiding the movement of the sewage exploration device in the sewer pipe (Yang: [0041]).
Regarding claim 4:
Liu and Yang disclose and teach of the mounting device according to claim 3, wherein Yang further discloses that the mounting device has at least two second support rods, wherein the one second support rod projects beyond the profile of the mounting device on the left side of the mounting device, and the other second support rod projects beyond the profile of the mounting device on the right side of the mounting device (FIGS. 1, 2, (130), [0041-0044]).
Regarding claim 6:
Liu and Yang disclose and teach of the mounting device according to claim 4, wherein Yang further discloses that the second support rods project less beyond the profile of the mounting device than the first support rods (FIGS. 1, 2, wherein the length of the guide adjusting part (131) may be adjusted, [0041-0044]).
Regarding claim 7:
Liu and Yang disclose and teach of the mounting device according to claim 3, wherein Yang further discloses that the first support rods and/or the second support rods are designed to be bendable and have a predetermined restoring force (FIGS. 1, 2, guide spring (133), [0041-0044])).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2020/0094413) as applied to claims 1, 2, 8, and 10-13 above, and further in view of Zuo et al. (CN 111515917).
Regarding claim 9:
Liu discloses the mounting device according to claim 1.
Liu does not specifically disclose that the second adapter can be pivoted about a pivot axis from the front side to the rear side of the upper portion.
Zuo teaches a robot for inspecting underground pipeline, wherein the second adapter can be pivoted about a pivot axis from the front side to the rear side of the upper portion, preferably by at least 180° (FIGS. 1, 2, wherein (260) can be pivoted from the front side to the rear side of (250) by (210)/(250) by at least 180°).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Zuo’s with the mounting device taught by Liu for the purpose of widening the inspection range (Zuo: [0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANG-CHI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5299. The examiner can normally be reached MRF 9am-5pm.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 5712723555. 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.
/FANG-CHI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights