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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 5-21-26 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5-21-26.
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, 6-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda et al. US 2022/0203413 (US’413) evidenced by Manyapu et al. US 2019/0177011 (US’011).
Regarding claim 1, US’413 teaches a system for electrodynamic dust shielding (dust removal apparatus, an ionizer portion configured to mix ions into the gas to be jetted out of the jetting portion when a voltage is applied to the ionizer portion, the ionizer portion being provided between the compression portion and the jetting portion, abstract), the system comprising:
an electrodynamic dust shield device external to an object having dust (FIG. 1 illustrates the dust removal apparatus 10 configured to remove dust from a target object 18, an ionizer portion 28 configured to mix ions into the gas to be jetted out of the jetting portion 26 when a voltage is applied thereto. the dust removal gas mixed with the ions is jetted out of the jetting portion 26 to the solar panel 18A or the radiator 18B as the target object 18. Accordingly, when the dust removal gas mixed with the ions hits the charged regolith 32 attached to the surface of the solar panel 18A or the radiator 18B, static electricity of the regolith 32 is removed. As a result, the regolith 32 loses electric force, so that adhesive force to the solar panel 18A or the radiator 18B due to electrostatic attraction of the regolith 32 weaken. The adhesive force of the regolith 32 attached to the target object 18 mainly includes van der Waals force and electrostatic attraction between the surface of the target object 18 and the regolith 32. para. 41-50 and 61-76, see fig. 1-3 and 8. The use of ions to weaken electrostatic attraction/van der Waals force between the regolith/dust and the target object reads on an electrodynamic dust shield device, this is further evidenced by US’011 who teaches generally, EDS (electrodynamic dust shield) technology utilizes electrostatic and/or electrodynamic and/or dielectrophoretic forces to repel dust particles from approaching the surface, and/or carry deposited dust particles off the surface of a material. Repelling of dust particles is accomplished by creating electric fields that levitate the approaching dust particles away from the surface. Deposited dust particles are carried away by breaking the adhesive forces between the dust and the surface due to electrostatics or Van der Waal forces and then levitate the dust away from the surface of the material, para. 55)
wherein the electrodynamic dust shield device electrodynamically removes dust from the object (as discussed above ions are blown onto a target object to weaken electrostatic attraction/van der Waals force between the regolith/dust and the target object which removes the regolith/dust from the target object).
Regarding claim 6, US’413 teaches the system of claim 1. US’413 further teaches wherein the dust removal device includes an electromagnetic manager for managing electromagnetic interference (earth electrode 28C would perform the function of managing electromagnetic interference).
Regarding claims 7-8, US’413 teaches the system of claim 1. US’413 further teaches a robotic manipulator for manipulating the electrodynamic dust shield, with regard to claim 7 and wherein the electrodynamic dust shield device is an end effector that is picked up and moved by the robotic manipulator, with regard to claim 8 (the robot arm 36 configured to move the jetting portion 26 which include lifting/picking up of the jetting portion, para. 64-70 and 88-91, see fig. 3-4 and 8).
Regarding claim 9, US’413 teaches the system of claim 7. US’413 further teaches wherein the electrodynamic dust shield device is positioned by the robotic manipulator within proximity of the object to impose an electric field on particles of the dust, which causes motion of the particles away from the object (the robot arm 36 configured to move the jetting portion 26 to get charged particles at the surface containing dust, the charged particle interact with the dust on the object inducing movement of the dust by manipulating electrostatic interactions, para. 64-77 and 82-91, see fig. 3-4 and 8)
Regarding claim 10, US’413 teaches the system of claim 7. US’413 further teaches a platform for supporting the robotic manipulator, and wherein the platform is a vehicle platform (a vehicle 66 including a dust removal apparatus 64 with reference to FIG. 8, para. 86-91).
Regarding claim 14, US’413 teaches the system of claim 1. US’413 further teaches wherein the electrodynamic dust shield device is positioned and operated by a human operator (para. 31 and 48, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, US’413 teaches the system of claim 1. US’413 further teaches wherein the object is any one or more of a heat exchanger radiator surface (radiator 18B, para. 44 see fig. 4 and 8).
Regarding claim 16, US’413 teaches the system of claim 1. US’413 further teaches wherein dust mitigation capabilities of the electrodynamic dust shield is applied to Mars exploration (the dust removal apparatus 10, 42, 62, 64 can be configured to perform dust removal on other celestial objects such as Mars, para. 94).
Regarding claim 17, US’413 teaches the system of claim 1. US’413 further teaches for dust shielding of any one or more of solar arrays (solar panel 18A, para. 44 and 75, see fig. 4 and 8)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’413 evidenced by US’011 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lao-Peamthong et al. WO 2010/109261 (WO’261).
Regarding claim 2, US’413 teaches the system of claim 1.
US’413 does not teach wherein the electrodynamic dust shield device includes an electric field generator that generates an electric field to remove the dust from external surfaces of the object.
WO’261 teaches an arrangement (1) for removing undesired particles (3) from a surfaces (2) comprising an airflow generator (4) that generates an airflow that affects the particles (3) with aerodynamic drag forces, the arrangement (1) comprises an charger (5), ionizing the airflow (B) from the airflow generator (4) with one and the same electrical polarity, positive or negative, the ionized airflow charging the particles (3) to the same polarity as the ions and an attractor (6) that comprises an electrode with the opposite electrical polarity to that of the ions generated by the airflow generator (4) and the charger (5), the attractor affecting the electrical charged particles (3) with an electrostatic attraction force that lifts the particles (3) from the surface (2), the lifted particles (3) been floating above the surface (2) and transported essentially parallel to the surface (2) under the influence of aerodynamic drag forces from the airflow (B) (abstract). Ionizers ("Preventing Electrostatic Problems in Semiconductor Manufacturing", A. Steinman, Compliance Engineering, 2004) are ion generators that act by generating positive and/or negative air ions, e.g. with the use of a very high electric field (corona ionization). This increases the conductivity of the air and when the ionized air comes in contact with a charged surface, the surface attracts ions of the opposite polarity, which neutralizes the static electricity. (page 7). Therefore, WO’261 teaches that the ion generator of US’413 can generate the ions by generating very high electric field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of US’413 to include the electrodynamic dust shield device includes an electric field generator that generates an electric field to remove the dust from external surfaces of the object because WO’261 teaches that the ion generator of US’413 can generate the ions by generating very high electric field and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 3, the modified system of US’413 teaches the system of claim 2.
The modified system of US’413 does not teach wherein the electric field generator generates an electric field that varies from positive to negative field profiles to move the dust off of the object.
WO’413 further teaches figure 4 is a diagram showing the voltage waveform of an AC ioniser. Positive and negative ions are produced by applying a high voltage AC waveform according to figure 4 to the neutralizer 8. Only one emitter is required to produce ions; both positive and negative ions are produced at each emitter. The main reason to involve a neutralizer 8 is, according to the description above, to avoid adhesion of other particles to the surface been cleaned (see fig. 1-4 pages 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of US’413 to include the electrodynamic dust shield device includes an electric field generator that generates an electric field to remove the dust from external surfaces of the object because WO’261 teaches it avoids adhesion of other particles to the surface that has been cleaned and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 4, US’413 teaches the system of claim 1.
US’413 does not teach wherein the electrodynamic dust shield device includes a dust storage area that stores the dust.
WO’261 teaches a device similar to the device of US’413 as discussed above. The device includes a dust collector and preferably at least one neutralizer. An air blower preferably accomplishes the airflow. In contrast to conventional well-known surface dry cleaning methods, the technology according to the invention involves charging the dust particles with ions instead of neutralizing them. The electrostatic attraction is overcome thanks to evolving Coulombic force between the charged electrode and the opposite charged dust particles. As a result, the dust particles are lifted from the surface and transported to the dust collector via a controlled airflow (page 12). The collector prevents particles for getting resuspended to the surface being cleaned (page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of US’413 to include wherein the electrodynamic dust shield device includes a dust storage area that stores the dust because WO’261 teaches it prevents particles for getting resuspended to the surface being cleaned and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 5, the modified system of US’413 teaches the system of claim 4. The modified system of US’413 does not explicitly teach wherein the dust from the dust storage area is collected and analyzed, however, it is noted that the applicant claimed configuration of “the system" recites the intended use of the apparatus. And a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The modified apparatus of US’413 teaches an apparatus which cleans dust from a surface and collects it, this dust can be remove from the collector and use in any way including analyzing it and therefore would be capable of being used to collect dust to analyze. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have known that the structural limitations of the system taught by the prior art and the system claimed would have been the same and since the claim is directed towards an apparatus, the apparatus is independent of the intended use.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’413 evidenced by US’011 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zasche US 2020/0331151 (US’151).
Regarding claim 11, US’413 teaches the system of claim 7. US’413 further teaches control device executing control software for controlling movement of the robotic manipulator, wherein the control device controls movement of the robotic manipulator thereby enabling controlled movement of the electrodynamic dust shield device (the CPU 50 is a central processing unit and is configured to execute various programs and control the flow rate adjusting portion 30, the ionizer portion 28, and the robot arm 3, para. 66).
US’413 does not teach wherein the robotic manipulator includes a plurality of booms and joints, wherein the control device controls movement of the joints.
US’151 teaches a robot arm with a robot-hand drive device (abstract). the robot arm including booms and joints for positioning an end effector (see fig. 1). The configuration allows the robot arm has a compact configuration (para. 4-19 and 41-48). Therefore, US’151 teaches it is common to configure a robot arm, such as the robot arm of US’413, with booms and joints and such a configuration achieves a robotic arm having a compact configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of US’413 to include wherein the robotic manipulator includes a plurality of booms and joints, wherein the control device controls movement of the joints because US’151 teaches it is common to configure a robot arm, such as the robot arm of US’413, with booms and joints and such a configuration achieves a robotic arm having a compact configuration and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 12-13, the modified system of US’413 teaches the system of claim 11. US’413 further teaches a camera vision system for providing image data to the control device to position the electrodynamic dust shield device to the object, with regard to claim 12, and wherein the camera vision system and/or control device identifies surfaces which require dust removal, with regard to claim 13 (The first sensor 44 is a camera provided outside the jetting portion 26 as one example. The controlling portion 48 estimates and determines an attached part, a type, or a material of the target object 18 or the powder dust attached to the target object 18 by use of image data captured by the first sensor 44. Further, the controlling portion 48 measures the distance between the jetting portion 26 and the target object 18 by use of the image data captured by the first sensor 44, para. 64-69, see fig. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights