DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Second Non-Final Rejection
This office action is a second Non-Final Rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 11,235,890 to Dahlstrom in view of GB2551565 by Koivuharju in view of U.S. 2020/0216173 by Suefuku in view of ES2739666 by Ares Lavado (hereafter referred to simply as “Ares” for convenience).
With regard to claims 1 and 6, Dahlstrom teaches a system (shown in Figure 14) for spraying liquid onto a facade of a building, wherein the system comprises a pump (named in Figure 14) for pumping the liquid, a lance tool 1404 for projecting the pumped liquid onto the facade, an umbilical for connecting the pump to the lance tool 1404 such that the liquid is pumped to the lance tool 1404 through the umbilical, and a drone 1414 for moving the lance tool relative to the facade (Col. 38, lines 3-39).
Dahlstrom doesn’t explicitly teach that the liquid sprayed from the lance tool is a solution. However, applicant’s limitation specifying that the pumped and sprayed fluid is a solution specifies intended used (see MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The apparatus of Dahlstrom’s is structurally capable of having the pumped and sprayed liquid be a solution.
Dahlstrom doesn’t explicitly describe the umbilical as comprising a hose. However, Dahlstrom does teach that pumped liquid is supplied to the lance tool via the umbilical. In the art of supplying liquid to drone, it is well known that a hose can successfully be used as an umbilical for supplying liquid to a drone. 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 apparatus of Dahlstrom by having the umbilical comprise a hose for supplying the pumped liquid up to the lance tool. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of supplying liquid to drone, it is well known that a hose can successfully be used as an umbilical for supplying liquid to a drone.
Dahlstrom doesn’t teach that the apparatus comprises a hoisting system for vertically moving a portion of the hose, wherein the hoisting system comprises a winch and at least one cable, and wherein the at least one cable is connected to the hose.
Koivuharju teaches that, when using an umbilical to supply liquid to a flying drone, a portion of the weight of the liquid-channeling umbilical can advantageously be supported using a hoisting system comprising a winch, wherein supporting the weight of the umbilical via the winch is advantageous because the flying drone then does not have to use its own power to uphold the entire weight of the umbilical, wherein the winch system functions by having a cables 30 from a winch 29 hold the cable (see Figure 9) such that a hose segment is delimited between the cable closest to the drone and the drone itself, and wherein the winch serves to vertically move a portion of the hose in front of the facade as the drone moves relative to the facade (abstract; pages 8 and 15).
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 apparatus of Dahlstrom by having a hoisting system of the type taught by Koivuharju used to support the weight of the hose-comprising umbilical, wherein cables extend from a winch positioned at the top of the building, wherein the cables hold the umbilical in order to help support the weight of the umbilical, wherein the winch vertically moves a portion of the umbilical as the drone moves relative to the facade of the building. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Koivuharju, who teaches that, when using an umbilical to supply liquid to a flying drone, a portion of the weight of the liquid-channeling umbilical can advantageously be supported by such a winch system, wherein supporting the weight of the umbilical via the winch is advantageous because the flying drone then does not have to use its own power to uphold the entire weight of the umbilical.
The combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju does not teach that the cables are connected to the hose such that a hose segment has a fixed length that defines a radius within which the drone can travel.
Koivuharju teaches that the support cables can support the umbilical via “a loop, hook, or other means 31” (page 15 of Koivuharju). Koivuharju doesn’t specify what these “other means” could be.
Suefuku teaches that when using an umbilical 50 to supply liquid to a liquid-spraying drone (item 10 in Figure 1), a strap (one of items 23 in Figure 1) used to support the weight of the umbilical can successfully hold weight of the umbilical by being tied to a specific location on the umbilical (Abstract; Par. 0055 and 0073-0076).
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 apparatus of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju by having each cable affixed to the hose-comprising umbilical by having each cable tied to its own specific location on the umbilical. As discussed, Koivuharju teaches that the support cables can support the umbilical via “a loop, hook, or other means 31” (page 15 of Koivuharju). The motivation for having each cable tied to its own specific location on the umbilical was provided by Suefuku, who teaches that when using an umbilical 50 to supply liquid to a liquid-spraying drone (item 10 in Figure 1), a strap (one of items 23 in Figure 1) used to support the weight of the umbilical can successfully hold weight of the umbilical by being tied to a specific location on the umbilical. In this combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku, each cable is tied to its own unique location on the hose-comprising umbilical at a location that can be called a “cable-tied-to-umbilical location”. In this combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku, a hose segment is delimited between the cable-tied-to-umbilical location closest to the drone and the drone itself, and this hose segment has a fixed length that defines a radius within which the drone can travel.
The combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku does not explicitly recite that the fixed length of the hose segment and the cables define a total suspension length size such that the cables and the hose segment suspend the drone in the air upon loss of flight capability by the drone.
Ares teaches that, when using a flying drone to spray liquid onto a building, there is a safety concern because if the drone fails (for whatever reason) it may fall onto a person or otherwise cause damage when falling towards the ground (Abstract; page 4-5 of translation). Ares teaches that this safety concern can addressed by ensuring that, if the drone fails, it can only be suspended at a distance (from the ground) so that people will not get hit from the falling drone (pages 4-5 of translation).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku by optimizing the total length that the cables and the hose segment (the hose segment is delimited between the cable-tied-to-umbilical location closest to the drone and the drone itself, as discussed above) would allow the drone to fall (and thus the total length the drone can be suspended once fallen) down a building facade if the drone suddenly fails to fly for whatever reason. In this combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares, both the maximum length that the cables (of the hoisting system) will contribute to a failing-to-fly drone falling (and potentially hitting a passerby down below) is optimized and the length of the hose segment is optimized such that a person could not be hit (and thus harmed) by such a falling drone, and the maximum length that the cables will contribute to a failing-to-fly drone falling corresponds to applicant’s maximum hoisting length. In this combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares, the combination of the hose segment and the maximum length that the cables (of the hoisting system) will contribute to a failing-to-fly drone falling can be considered to collectively define a total suspension length, and this total suspension length results in a failed-to-fly drone being suspended above the ground at a height that would not hit (and thus harm) a person. Motivation for performing the optimization was provided by Ares, who teaches that, when using a flying drone to spray liquid onto a building, there is a safety concern because if the drone fails (for whatever reason) it may fall onto a person or otherwise cause damage when falling towards the ground (Abstract; page 4-5 of translation). Ares teaches that this safety concern can addressed by ensuring that, if the drone fails, it can only be suspended at a distance (from the ground) so that people will not get hit from the falling drone. Ares is thus considered to teach that the distance that a failed drone can fall towards the earth is a result-effective variable, as it affects whether a person could get hit by the falling drone or not. The maximum length that the cables (of the hoisting system) will contribute to a failing-to-fly drone falling (and potentially hitting a passerby down below) can be considered a result-effective variable because that length affects whether a passerby could potentially be hit by the drone if it suddenly stops flying for whatever reason, while the maximum length of the cables also affect whether the cables are long enough such that the drone can be positioned to successfully perform desired cleaning along the height of the building façade. Similarly, the length of the hose segment can be considered a result effective variable because it affects whether a passerby could potentially be hit by the drone if it suddenly stops flying for whatever reason, while the length of the hose segment also affects how far the drone can fly around and perform spray-cleaning while the cables hold the umbilical weight at a given position along the building façade.
With regard to claim 3, in developed combination the combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares, the total length that the cables and the hose segment (the hose segment is delimited between the cable-tied-to-umbilical location closest to the drone and the drone itself, as discussed above) would allow the drone to fall (and thus the total suspension length) down a building facade if the drone suddenly fails to fly (for whatever reason) is optimized, and that total length is optimized to prevent a passerby from being hit (and thus hurt) by a falling drone. In this combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares, the total suspension length is less than the height of the façade in order to prevent a passerby from being hit (and thus hurt) by a falling drone.
With regard to claim 4, the apparatus of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares further comprises a reservoir (item 1410 in Figure 14 of Dahlstrom; reads on tank) for supplying the liquid to the pump (Col. 38, lines 3-39 of Dahlstrom).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares does not explicitly discuss that the drone flies according to a pre-defined path when discussing the embodiment of Figure 14 of Dahlstrom.
Dahlstrom teaches many different embodiments in his specification, and when discussing another embodiment, Dahlstrom points out that a drone can successfully perform a working flight by having a controller control the drone to fly according to a pre-defined path while performing work at a site (Col. 17, line 45 to Col. 18, line 6).
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 apparatus of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares such that the apparatus comprises a controller that is preprogramed to control the flight of the drone as it moves along a pre-defined flight path when moving relative to the facade to performed spraying. Dahlstrom points out that a drone can successfully perform a working flight by having a controller control the drone to fly according to a pre-defined path while performing work at a site, and the motivation for performing the modification would be to allow the drone to successfully perform facade spraying in an advantageously automated manner.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 11,235,890 to Dahlstrom in view of GB2551565 by Koivuharju in view of U.S. 2020/0216173 by Suefuku in view of ES2739666 by Ares Lavado (hereafter referred to simply as “Ares” for convenience).
With regard to claim 7, Dahlstrom teaches a method for spraying liquid onto a facade of a building using a cleaning system (shown in Figure 14), wherein the cleaning system comprises a pump (named in Figure 14) for pumping the liquid, a lance tool 1404 for projecting the pumped liquid onto the facade, an umbilical for connecting the pump to the lance tool 1404 such that the liquid is pumped to the lance tool 1404 through the umbilical, and a drone 1414 for moving the lance tool relative to the facade (Col. 38, lines 3-39).
Dahlstrom teaches many different embodiments in his specification, and Dahlstrom doesn’t explicitly teach that the system of Figure 14 is used to spray a solution onto the facade. Dahlstrom’s Figure 14 seems to illustrate a soapy mixture being sprayed onto the facade, but, when discussing the embodiment of Figure 14, Dahlstrom doesn’t explicitly recite that the spray lance is spraying a soapy mixture. However, elsewhere in the specification, Dahlstrom teaches that a facade-spraying drone can advantageously be used to clean a facade by spraying a mixture of soap and water onto the facade of a building, wherein the mixture of soap and water is in a tank before being pumped up to the drone (Col. 11, line 11 to Col. 12, line 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 method of Dahlstrom by having the system of Dahlstrom’s Figure 14 configured to spray a mixture of soap and water onto the building’s facade in order to clean the facade. Motivation for performing the medication was provided by Dahlstrom, who teaches that a facade-spraying drone can advantageously be used to clean a facade by spraying a mixture of soap and water onto the facade of a building, wherein the mixture of soap and water is in a tank before being pumped up to the drone.
This modified method Dahlstrom does not explicitly teach that the water of the water-and-soap mixture has gas molecules dissolved therein such that the water of the water-and-soap mixture can be considered a solution. However, in the art of spray cleaning, it is well known that non-degassed water can successfully be used to spray-clean a surface. 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 method of Dahlstrom such that the water of the water-and-soap mixture is non-degassed water having gas molecules (from air) dissolved therein. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that in the art of spray cleaning, it is well known that non-degassed water can successfully be used to spray-clean a surface. Water with gas molecules dissolved therein is a solution.
Dahlstrom doesn’t explicitly describe the umbilical as comprising a hose. However, Dahlstrom does teach that pumped liquid is supplied to the lance tool via the umbilical. In the art of supplying liquid to drone, it is well known that a hose can successfully be used as an umbilical for supplying liquid to a drone. 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 method of Dahlstrom by having the umbilical comprise a hose for supplying the pumped liquid up to the lance tool. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of supplying liquid to drone, it is well known that a hose can successfully be used as an umbilical for supplying liquid to a drone.
Dahlstrom doesn’t teach that the system comprises a hoisting system for vertically moving a portion of the hose, wherein the hoisting system comprises a winch and at least one cable, and wherein the at least one cable is connected to the hose.
Koivuharju teaches that, when using an umbilical to supply liquid to a flying drone, a portion of the weight of the liquid-channeling umbilical can advantageously be supported using a hoisting system comprising a winch, wherein supporting the weight of the umbilical via the winch is advantageous because the flying drone then does not have to use its own power to uphold the entire weight of the umbilical, wherein the winch system functions by having a cables 30 from a winch 29 hold the cable (see Figure 9) such that a hose segment is delimited between the cable closest to the drone and the drone itself, and wherein the winch serves to vertically move a portion of the hose in front of the facade as the drone moves relative to the facade (abstract; pages 8 and 15).
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 method of Dahlstrom by having a hoisting system of the type taught by Koivuharju used to support the weight of the hose-comprising umbilical, wherein cables extend from a winch positioned at the top of the building, wherein the cables hold the umbilical in order to help support the weight of the umbilical, wherein the winch vertically moves a portion of the umbilical as the drone moves relative to the facade of the building. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Koivuharju, who teaches that, when using an umbilical to supply liquid to a flying drone, a portion of the weight of the liquid-channeling umbilical can advantageously be supported by such a winch system, wherein supporting the weight of the umbilical via the winch is advantageous because the flying drone then does not have to use its own power to uphold the entire weight of the umbilical.
The combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju does not teach that the cables are connected to the hose such that a hose segment has a fixed length that defines a radius within which the drone can travel.
Koivuharju teaches that the support cables can support the umbilical via “a loop, hook, or other means 31” (page 15 of Koivuharju). Koivuharju doesn’t specify what these “other means” could be.
Suefuku teaches that when using an umbilical 50 to supply liquid to a liquid-spraying drone (item 10 in Figure 1), a strap (one of items 23 in Figure 1) used to support the weight of the umbilical can successfully hold weight of the umbilical by being tied to a specific location on the umbilical (Abstract; Par. 0055 and 0073-0076).
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 method of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju by having each cable affixed to the hose-comprising umbilical by having each cable tied to its own specific location on the umbilical. As discussed, Koivuharju teaches that the support cables can support the umbilical via “a loop, hook, or other means 31” (page 15 of Koivuharju). The motivation for having each cable tied to its own specific location on the umbilical was provided by Suefuku, who teaches that when using an umbilical 50 to supply liquid to a liquid-spraying drone (item 10 in Figure 1), a strap (one of items 23 in Figure 1) used to support the weight of the umbilical can successfully hold weight of the umbilical by being tied to a specific location on the umbilical. In this combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku, each cable is tied to its own unique location on the hose-comprising umbilical at a location that can be called a “cable-tied-to-umbilical location”. In this combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku, a hose segment is delimited between the cable-tied-to-umbilical location closest to the drone and the drone itself, and this hose segment has a fixed length that defines a radius within which the drone can travel.
The combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku does not explicitly recite that the fixed length of the hose segment and the cables define a total suspension length size such that the cables and the hose segment suspend the drone in the air upon loss of flight capability by the drone.
Ares teaches that, when using a flying drone to spray liquid onto a building, there is a safety concern because if the drone fails (for whatever reason) it may fall onto a person or otherwise cause damage when falling towards the ground (Abstract; page 4-5 of translation). Ares teaches that this safety concern can addressed by ensuring that, if the drone fails, it can only be suspended at a distance (from the ground) so that people will not get hit from the falling drone (pages 4-5 of translation).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku by optimizing the total length that the cables and the hose segment (the hose segment is delimited between the cable-tied-to-umbilical location closest to the drone and the drone itself, as discussed above) would allow the drone to fall (and thus the total length the drone can be suspended once fallen) down a building facade if the drone suddenly fails to fly for whatever reason. In this combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares, both the maximum length that the cables (of the hoisting system) will contribute to a failing-to-fly drone falling (and potentially hitting a passerby down below) is optimized and the length of the hose segment is optimized such that a person could not be hit (and thus harmed) by such a falling drone, and the maximum length that the cables will contribute to a failing-to-fly drone falling corresponds to applicant’s maximum hoisting length. In this combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares, the combination of the hose segment and the maximum length that the cables (of the hoisting system) will contribute to a failing-to-fly drone falling can be considered to collectively define a total suspension length, and this total suspension length results in a failed-to-fly drone being suspended above the ground at a height that would not hit (and thus harm) a person. Motivation for performing the optimization was provided by Ares, who teaches that, when using a flying drone to spray liquid onto a building, there is a safety concern because if the drone fails (for whatever reason) it may fall onto a person or otherwise cause damage when falling towards the ground (Abstract; page 4-5 of translation). Ares teaches that this safety concern can addressed by ensuring that, if the drone fails, it can only be suspended at a distance (from the ground) so that people will not get hit from the falling drone. Ares is thus considered to teach that the distance that a failed drone can fall towards the earth is a result-effective variable, as it affects whether a person could get hit by the falling drone or not. The maximum length that the cables (of the hoisting system) will contribute to a failing-to-fly drone falling (and potentially hitting a passerby down below) can be considered a result-effective variable because that length affects whether a passerby could potentially be hit by the drone if it suddenly stops flying for whatever reason, while the maximum length of the cables also affect whether the cables are long enough such that the drone can be positioned to successfully perform desired cleaning along the height of the building façade. Similarly, the length of the hose segment can be considered a result effective variable because it affects whether a passerby could potentially be hit by the drone if it suddenly stops flying for whatever reason, while the length of the hose segment also affects how far the drone can fly around and perform spray-cleaning while the cables hold the umbilical weight at a given position along the building façade.
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares, as developed thus far, does not teach that the drone flies at most up to the height of the hose portion held by the cables.
Koivuharju teaches using their hoist (see Figure 9 of Koivuharju) to move their connection points (where the calves 30 connect to Koivuharju’s umbilical) up and down in coordination with vertical movements of the drone in order to advantageously prevent the umbilical from undesirably applying forces to the flying drone (page 15 of Koivuharju).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares such that the relative positioning of the hose portion held by the cables and the drone are optimized for the flight of the drone. Koivuharju teaches using their hoist (see Figure 9 of Koivuharju) to move their connection points (where the cables 30 connect to Koivuharju’s umbilical) up and down in coordination with vertical movements of the drone in order to advantageously prevent the umbilical from undesirably applying forces to the flying drone. Koivuharju is thus considered to teach that the relative positioning of a drone and umbilical connection points (where the cables 30 connect to Koivuharju’s umbilical) are a result-effective variable, as this relative positioning is a result-effective variable that affects whether or not the umbilical connection points undesirably exert force(s) on the flying drone.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 11,235,890 to Dahlstrom in view of GB2551565 by Koivuharju in view of U.S. 2020/0216173 by Suefuku in view of ES2739666 by Ares Lavado (hereafter referred to simply as “Ares” for convenience) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0155344 by Mura Yañez (hereafter referred to as “Yanez” for convenience).
With regard to claim 9, in the combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares, the liquid reservoir (item 1410 in Figure 14 of Dahlstrom) and the pump for the liquid are located on the ground, not on top of the structure that has the facade (see Figure 14 of Dahlstrom).
Yanez teaches that when using a reservoir, a pump, and an umbilical to provide cleaning liquid to a done used to clean a building’s facade, the reservoir and pump can successfully performs their roles of providing cleaning liquid to the drone while location on top of the building (Par. 0123-0133; Figures 27 and 28 of Yanez).
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 method of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares by having the ground equipment (including the reservoir 1410 and the pump) located on the top of the building whose facade is cleaned by the drone. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yanez, who teaches that when using a reservoir, a pump, and an umbilical to provide cleaning liquid to a done used to clean a building’s facade, the reservoir and pump can successfully performs their roles of providing cleaning liquid to the drone while location on top of the building.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 11,235,890 to Dahlstrom in view of GB2551565 by Koivuharju in view of U.S. 2020/0216173 by Suefuku in view of ES2739666 by Ares Lavado (hereafter referred to simply as “Ares” for convenience) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0155344 by Mura Yañez (hereafter referred to as “Yanez” for convenience).
With regard to claim 10, in the combination of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares, the liquid reservoir (item 1410 in Figure 14 of Dahlstrom) and the pump for the liquid are located on the ground, not on top of the structure that has the facade (see Figure 14 of Dahlstrom).
Yanez teaches that when using a reservoir, a pump, and an umbilical to provide cleaning liquid to a done used to clean a building’s facade, the reservoir and pump can successfully perform their roles of providing cleaning liquid to the drone while location on top of the building (Par. 0123-0133; Figures 27 and 28 of Yanez).
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 method of Dahlstrom in view of Koivuharju in view of Suefuku in view of Ares by having the ground equipment (including the reservoir 1410 and the pump) located on the top of the building whose facade is cleaned by the drone. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yanez, who teaches that when using a reservoir, a pump, and an umbilical to provide cleaning liquid to a done used to clean a building’s facade, the reservoir and pump can successfully perform their roles of providing cleaning liquid to the drone while location on top of the building.
Response to Arguments
As discussed at the start of this office action, this office action is a second Non-Final Rejection. New obviousness rejection have been presented in this office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
