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 .
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noll (US 2023/0194037) in view of Freeman (US 2017/0305013) OR Williams et al. (US 2020/0047337).
Regarding claim 9, Noll discloses a robot system for operating in a main pipe, the robot comprising: a body [1] configured to be moved within the lined main pipe along the length of the main pipe; a tool [11] mounted on the body for movement with respect to the body to perform an operation within the lined main pipe; a controller [paragraph 18] operatively connected to the body and the tool for controlling movement of the tool in the intersection of the branch conduit with the main pipe to control the angle at which the tool is extended from the main pipe thereby to avoid contact with a wall of the branch conduit [paragraph 15].
Noll fails to disclose scanning the main pipe to create a digital map for the device to reference for positioning/operating within the branch pipe.
Freeman discloses a method for localizing robots in a space with obstructions utilizing a digital map [paragraphs 34 & 35; Figure 3].
Williams discloses a robot platform with event based mode change that utilizes a digital map to perform functions, avoid obstructions, and operate within a service area [paragraph 56; Figure 51].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Noll by adding the digital mapping components as described by Freeman or Williams to enable the device to remotely operate within an ever-changing space, reflecting operations that are required in real-life situations, thereby increasing the versatility and ability of the robot device to perform in notoriously variable pipeline network environments and subsequently increase profitability.
Regarding claims 10-12 and 17, Noll further discloses the tool is a cutting tool configured for cutting into a liner lining the interior of the main pipe [11]; an arm supported by the body and mounting the tool, the arm being movable with respect to the body [15]; a joint connecting the arm to the body, the robot further comprising a motor for driving movement of the arm at the joint [paragraph 48]; the controller causes information concerning the angle of the branch conduit relative to the main pipe to appear on the display [paragraph 15].
Regarding claim 13, although the combination is silent as to the joint including an encoder for tracking movement of the arm, it would have been obvious, if not inherent, one would be included within the Noll/Freeman or Williams set-up to perform the required operations of the prior art combination.
Regarding claims 14-16, although the Noll/Freeman or Williams combination is silent as to the use of a current sensor in the combination, it would have been obvious, if not inherent, one would be included within the Noll/Freeman or Williams set-up as a basic safety precaution for electronics.
Regarding method claims 1-8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pipeline robot in the Noll/Freeman or Williams combination in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method as claimed by the Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights