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 . 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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed on 09/17/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 6-7, 12, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the first debris collecting substrate includes bristles”. However, claim 1 recites the first debris collecting substrate includes a “debris retaining material” and that the “debris retaining material” is configured to “receive the debris collected by a second debris collecting substrate”. Additionally, the instant specification clearly states that the bristles transfer the collected debris towards the fabric (see at least 0034-0038). In this case it is not possible for the “first debris collecting substrate” to include bristles and receive the debris collected by the “second debris collecting substrate” as the instant specification clearly states that the fabric is what retains the debris, not the bristles. As such, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 7, the rationale provided in claim 6 above also applies here, namely in that the “first debris collecting substrate” cannot be bristles. Additionally, it follows that the “second debris collecting substrate” cannot be fabric because claim 1 recites that the “second debris collecting substrate” collects debris from one or more internal structures and transfers the debris to the “first debris collecting substrate”. Again, the instant specification clearly describes the bristles collecting and transferring the debris to a fabric for retainment (see at least 0034-0038). As such, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are similar to those in claim 7 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are similar to those in claim 7 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 7.
*For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claims 6-7, 12, and 18 such that the “first debris collecting substrate” is fabric and the “second debris collecting substrate” is bristles, which is in line with what the instant specification discloses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chin et al., US 20150148955 A1, herein referred to as Chin, and in view of both Park et al., US 20190223678 A1, herein referred to as Park, and VanTongeren, US 20230165362 A1, herein referred to as VanTongeren.
Regarding claim 1, Chin discloses one or more robotic cleaners sized to fit within the one or more internal structures (Paragraphs 0004, 0066; one or more robots may be used for inspecting and cleaning a structure, structures may be present within other vehicles such as airplanes, spacecraft, etc.), each of the one or more robotic cleaners including: a robotic cleaner frame (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0004, 0017; each robot may have a body), each of the one or more robotic cleaners including: two or more rotatable members coupled with the robotic cleaner frame, the two or more rotatable members including a first rotatable member having a first outer surface and a second rotatable member having a second outer surface, each of the first rotatable member and the second rotatable member being a motive member configured to move each of one or more robotic cleaners (Paragraphs 0016, 0023-0025; each robot may have wheels, treads, etc. for moving; the wheels may be affixed with gripping elements that may utilize dry adhesives, suction, etc. for gripping a surface; these outer surfaces of the wheels may be considered as the first and second outer surfaces of the first and second rotatable members), and each of the one or more robotic cleaners including: a charging structure configured to provide power for each of the one or more robotic cleaners, wherein the charging structure is configured to recharge a battery of the one or more robotic cleaners (Paragraphs 0021 and 0041; each robotic cleaner may have solar panels to provide charge to their batteries, each robotic cleaner may also charge other robotic cleaners through a charging port), but fails to disclose a first debris collecting substrate coupled with the first outer surface, the first debris collecting substrate including a debris retaining material, the debris retaining material configured to receive the debris collected by a second debris collecting substrate and the first debris collecting substrate is configured to retain the debris received from the second debris collecting substrate, and the second debris collecting substrate coupled with the second outer surface, the second debris collecting substrate configured to extend from the second outer surface and to collect debris from the one or more internal structures.
However, Park, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a first debris collecting substrate coupled with the first outer surface, the first debris collecting substrate including a debris retaining material (Paragraphs 0053, 0055, 0058, 0092; the robot may include multiple rolling modules which have brushes disposed on the outer surfaces; the rolling modules may also be used for moving the robot body), the second debris collecting substrate coupled with the second outer surface, the second debris collecting substrate configured to extend from the second outer surface and to collect debris from the one or more internal structures (Paragraphs 0053, 0055, 0058, 0092; the brushes may gather and retain debris), and wherein the at least one of the debris collecting substrate is configured to retain collected debris (Paragraphs 0053, 0055, 0058, 0092; the brushes may gather and retain debris)
Additionally, VanTongeren, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the debris retaining material configured to receive the debris collected by a second debris collecting substrate and the first debris collecting substrate is configured to retain the debris received from the second debris collecting substrate (Paragraphs 0046, 0072; edge sweep brush may sweep debris towards the mopping/dusting pad which can itself be a rotatable member).
Therefore, from the teachings of Park and VanTongeren, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Chin to include a first debris collecting substrate coupled with the first outer surface, the first debris collecting substrate including a debris retaining material, the debris retaining material configured to receive the debris collected by a second debris collecting substrate and the first debris collecting substrate is configured to retain the debris received from the second debris collecting substrate, and the second debris collecting substrate coupled with the second outer surface, the second debris collecting substrate configured to extend from the second outer surface and to collect debris from the one or more internal structures, as taught/suggest by Park and VanTongeren. The motivation to do so would be to increase the cleaning efficiency of the robot. By using the wheels to gather and retain debris, the robot can ensure that surfaces are adequately processed. Additionally, having one rotatable member transfer debris to another rotatable member for cleaning can allow for each of the rotatable members to be specialized for a given task (sweeping debris towards a mopping pad; see VanTongeren). This can allow for better processing as the different rotatable members
Regarding claim 2, Chin in view of both Park and VanTongeren renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Chin further discloses the work piece including: a chassis with one or more access portals; wherein the one or more access portals includes a door, window or panel for access to the one or more internal structures (Paragraphs 0004, 0066; one or more robots may be used for inspecting and cleaning a structure, structures may be present within other vehicles such as airplanes, spacecraft, etc.; aircraft, spacecraft, etc. all have windows and doors; the cleaning robots would necessarily have to travel through some fashion of door, window, access panel in order to reach the interior for cleaning).
Regarding claim 3, Chin in view of both Park and VanTongeren renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Chin further discloses wherein at least one of the one or more robotic cleaners is autonomous (Paragraph 0016; each cleaning robot may be autonomous).
Regarding claim 4, Chin in view of both Park and VanTongeren renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Chin further discloses at least one of the one or more robotic cleaners includes one or more sensors (Paragraph 0016; each of the robotic cleaners may be equipped with sensors).
Regarding claim 5, Chin in view of both Park and VanTongeren renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Chin further discloses at least one of the two or more rotatable members are motive members (Paragraphs 0016, 0023-0025; each robot may have wheels, treads, etc. for moving; wheels, treads etc. can be considered motive members).
Regarding claim 6, Chin in view of both Park and VanTongeren renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Chin further discloses at least one or more of the at least one two or more rotatable members (Paragraphs 0016, 0023-0025; each robot may have wheels, treads, etc. for moving) but fails to disclose wherein the second debris collecting substrate includes bristles. However, Park teaches wherein the second debris collecting substrate includes bristles (Paragraphs 0053, 0055, 0058, 0092; the robot may include multiple rolling modules which have brushes disposed on the outer surfaces; the rolling modules may also be used for moving the robot body). Therefore, from the teaching of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Chin, Park, and VanTongeren to include wherein the second debris collecting substrate includes bristles, as taught/suggested by Park. The motivation to do so would be to allow for one of the rotatable members to collect debris using a well-known debris collecting material (bristles).
Regarding claim 7, Chin in view of both Park and VanTongeren renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Chin further discloses a first rotatable member and a second rotatable member positioned on a first side of the robotic cleaner frame, wherein at least one of the first rotatable member and the second rotatable member is a motive member (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0016, 0023-0025; each robot may have wheels, treads, etc. for moving; wheels, treads etc. can be considered motive members; wheels, treads, etc. may be present on different sides of the cleaning robot), but fails to disclose the first debris collecting substrate is coupled with the first rotatable member, the first debris collecting substrate including fabric, and wherein the second debris collecting substrate is coupled with the second rotatable member, the second debris collecting substrate including bristles. However, Park teaches the first debris collecting substrate is coupled with the first rotatable member, the first debris collecting substrate including fabric (Paragraphs 0053, 0055, 0058, 0092; one of the rotatable members may have a mopping surface/pad attached which can include a fabric) and VanTongeren teaches wherein the second debris collecting substrate is coupled with the second rotatable member, the second debris collecting substrate including bristles (Paragraphs 0041-0044; the edge cleaning brush may include bristles; the edge cleaning brush may be a rotatable member). Therefore, from the teachings of Park and VanTongeren, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Chin, Park, and VanTongeren to include the first debris collecting substrate is coupled with the first rotatable member, the first debris collecting substrate including fabric, and wherein the second debris collecting substrate is coupled with the second rotatable member, the second debris collecting substrate including bristles, as taught/suggested by Park and VanTongeren. The motivation to do so would be to utilize multiple debris collection methods. This can lead to an increased cleaning efficiency and can allow for a larger variety of debris to be collected and disposed of. Additionally, as seen in VanTongeren, the use of different cleaning elements (bristles and fabric) can allow for efficient cleaning and transfer of debris from one substrate to another, and can increase the overall efficiency of the robotic system.
Regarding claim 8, Chin in view of both Park and VanTongeren renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Chin further discloses at least one of the two or more rotatable members (Paragraphs 0016, 0023-0025; each robot may have wheels, treads, etc. for moving), but fails to explicitly disclose at least one of the two or more rotatable members is configured to be removed from the robotic cleaner frame. However, Park teaches at least one of the two or more rotatable members is configured to be removed from the robotic cleaner frame (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0100; the rotating member 132 (and consequently the multiple rolling members) may be removed from the robot frame). Therefore, from the teaching of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Chin, Park, and VanTongeren to include at least one of the two or more rotatable members is configured to be removed from the robotic cleaner frame, as taught/suggested by Park. The motivation to do so would be to allow the robotic cleaner to be more easily disassembled for cleaning or repair.
Regarding claim 9, Chin in view of both Park and VanTongeren renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Chin further discloses wherein the charging structure is configured to charge two or more robotic cleaners (Paragraphs 0021 and 0041; each robotic cleaner may have solar panels to provide charge to their batteries, each robotic cleaner may also charge other robotic cleaners through a charging port; this means that the solar panels are able to charge both the first and second robots).
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 11-12, and 15, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 1, 6, and 8, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 1, 6, and 8.
Regarding claim 13, Chin in view of both Park and VanTongeren renders obvious all the limitations of claim 10. Chin further discloses the robotic cleaner is autonomous, the robotic cleaner including one or more optical sensors (Paragraphs 0016, 0025; each cleaning robot may be autonomous; each cleaning robot may have sensors such as a camera which is an optical sensor).
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitations are similar to a portion of those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Chin in view of both Park and VanTongeren renders obvious all the limitations of claim 10. Chin further discloses wherein the robotic cleaner is remote controlled, the robotic cleaner including: a capture structure coupled to the robotic cleaner frame (Paragraphs 0023, 0041; the robotic cleaner may be controlled through remote control instructions; the robotic cleaner may also include adhesives for mounting to a structure which can be considered a capture structure).
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 1-2 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 1-2.
Regarding claim 18, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 1 and 6 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 19, Chin in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 17. Chin further discloses the work piece is an electronic system (Paragraphs 0004, 0066; one or more robots may be used for inspecting and cleaning a structure, structures may be present within other vehicles such as airplanes, spacecraft, etc.; aircraft, spacecraft, etc. can be considered electronic systems).
Regarding claim 20, Chin in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 17. Chin further discloses the robotic cleaner is autonomous (Paragraph 0016; each cleaning robot may be autonomous), but fails to disclose recognizing an obstruction within the internal structure with at least one sensor coupled to the robotic cleaner, and maneuvering away from the obstruction. However, Park teaches recognizing an obstruction within the internal structure with at least one sensor coupled to the robotic cleaner, and maneuvering away from the obstruction (Paragraphs 0053, 0055, 0058, 0076, 0092, 0201; the robotic cleaner may detect an obstacle and avoid the obstacle by skirting around it). Therefore, from the teaching of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Chin and Park to include recognizing an obstruction within the internal structure with at least one sensor coupled to the robotic cleaner, and maneuvering away from the obstruction, as taught/suggested by Park. The motivation to do so would be to ensure the robotic cleaner is able to smoothly and efficiently clean a given structure. By identifying obstacles and avoiding them, the robotic cleaner can prevent collisions and ensure continuous operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
