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 .
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 pressurized duct, subject matter of claims 9 and 10, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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) 2-4, 7-8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN 114407048 A) in view of Buchstab (US 2013/0226340 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ma et al. discloses a routing inspection robot for positioning a device and a positioning system for positioning a device, wherein the positioning system has a lifting arm (Figure 3: 15, 17, 21) which is arranged on a base carrier (Figure 3: 13),
the base carrier is arranged on the crawler (Figure 3: 22),
the lifting arm is configured to pivot relative to the base carrier via a pivot axis (Figure 3: foldable pan-tilt arm 4),
and the base carrier is configured to rotate about an axis of rotation relative to the crawler (Figure 3: 13, Specific implementation examples paragraph 9).
Ma et al. does not disclose the base carrier is movable or displaceable along a movement axis relative to the crawler wherein the movement axis extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the crawler.
Buchstab discloses a transport carrier vehicle with a robotic arm on a base carrier that is movable or displaceable along a movement axis relative to the crawler using a moving bearing device wherein the movement axis extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the crawler (Figures 1 and 2: transport carrier 1, robotic arm 2, base carrier 3, movement axis 18, moving positioning device 17b Paragraph 53: the base can be moved in the horizontal direction). The base is displaceable for the purpose of increasing the working range of the robotic arm (Paragraphs 52 and 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to
modify the invention of Ma et al. by including the moving bearing device disclosed by Buchstab to allow the base carrier to be moveable or displaceable relative to the crawler for the purpose of increasing the working range of the robotic arm.
Regarding Claim 3, Ma et al. in view of Buchstab disclose the limitations of claim 2. Ma et al. additionally discloses a receiving unit that is arranged at the free end of the lifting arm for receiving the device (Figure 3: 19).
Regarding Claim 4, Ma et al. in view of Buchstab disclose the limitations of claim 2. Ma et al. additionally discloses the lifting arm has at least two lifting arm sections (Figure 3: 15, 17, 21) which are coupled to one another in an articulated manner (forearm pitch joint 16, jib pitch joint 20), and wherein the free end of one of the two lifting arm sections is arranged on the base carrier in a deflectable or pivotable manner (Figure 3: boom pitch joint 14).
Regarding Claim 7, Ma et al. in view of Buchstab disclose the limitations of claim 3. Ma et al. additionally discloses the receiving unit (Figure 3: 19 and 18) is configured to pivot relative to the lifting arm over a predetermined angular range (Figure 3: pitching joint 18).
Regarding Claim 8, Ma et al. in view of Buchstab disclose the limitations of claim 3. Ma et al. additionally discloses the receiving unit is rotatably mounted at the free end of the lifting arm (Specific implementation examples paragraph 6),
and is designed in two parts, wherein a first part (Figure 3: 18, Specific implementation examples paragraph 6) of the receiving unit is rotatable relative to the second part (Figure 3: 19) of the receiving unit.
Regarding Claim 12, Ma et al. in view of Buchstab disclose the limitations of claim 2. Ma et al. additionally discloses a receiving unit that is arranged at the free end of the lifting arm for receiving the device (Figure 3: 19).
Regarding Claim 13, Ma et al. in view of Buchstab disclose the limitations of claim 2. Ma et al. additionally discloses the lifting arm has at least two lifting arm sections (Figure 3: 15, 17, 21) which are coupled to one another in an articulated manner (forearm pitch joint 16, jib pitch joint 20), preferably via a swivel joint , and wherein the free end of one of the two lifting arm sections is arranged on the base carrier in a deflectable or pivotable manner (Figure 3: boom pitch joint 14).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN 114407048 A) in view of Buchstab (US 2013/0226340 A1) in further view of Su et al. (CN 116034967 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Ma et al. in view of Buchstab disclose the limitations of claim 2. The combination as applied in claim 2 does not disclose a pressurized duct formed in the lifting arm.
Su et al. disclose a crawler with a robotic lifting arm, a pressurized duct formed in the lifting arm, and a spraying unit (Figures 4 and 8 show the mechanical arm 232, crawler, drug delivery tube 12 going through the lifting arm). These components are used for the purpose of improving the quality of spraying (Background Technique Paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the combination as applied in claim 3 by including a pressurized duct formed in the lifting arm and spraying unit disclosed by Su et al. for the purpose of improving the quality of spraying.
Regarding Claim 10, Ma et al. in view of Buchstab in further view of Su et al. disclose the limitations of claim 9. The combination as applied in claim 9 discloses the pressurized duct is designed as a continuous pressurized duct from one end to the other end of the lifting arm, which is coupled to the crawler on the crawler side (Su et al. Figures 2, 4, and 8 show the drug delivery tube 12 going from the medicine storage box 11 to the spraying unit 4).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objected drawings, the claims regarding the absolute encoder and gimbal, claims 6, 11, and 15, have been canceled and the drawing objections regarding those features are withdrawn.
The claims regarding the pressurized duct, claims 9 and 10, remain. MPEP 608.02(d) outlines under 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings”.
Regarding objected Abstract, a replacement abstract has been received, and the abstract objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the Objected Claims, claim 2 has been amended to remove the dashes and claims 1, 5, and 14 have been withdrawn. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), claims 5, 6, and 14 have been canceled. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), claims 3-4, 7-10, 12, and 13 have been amended and claims 1, 5, and 6 have been canceled. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1), the updates to the claims would overcome the previous rejection therefore new mapping has been applied based on the claim amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kennerknecht et al. (US 2025/0084629 A1).
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 JONATHAN TRAC whose telephone number is (571)272-8528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/J.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights