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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Priority is being given to 10/29/2021.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 10/15/2025.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 12, and 19 are amended.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19 are currently rejected.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended claims particularly to the mapping of Ulbrich. Both Ceniza and Ulbrich teach a “damper” and a sensor recessed into a groove. However in Ceniza the groove (40) is being the bumper (30) and houses a bump switch to detect when the bumper is depressed. Ulbrich teaches a sensor (22) that is recessed into the “bumper” (parts 21 and 23 together) though a groove or cutout. The applicant appears to argue that the load sensor 21 and contact sensor 23 are not a bumper but a housing. The examiner does not see a distinction between those two terms in the context of the claims. The claims to not recite any material or structural limitations of the bumper besides that it protrudes from the surface of the body and has a groove that the sensor is housed in. Ulbrich satisfies both of these requirements by providing a barrier that the load can come into contact with while protecting the recessed sensor. Fig. 4B of Ulbrich clearly shows that the sensor 22 is recessed into the portion 21 and that any object approaching the system would come into contact with the limit switches 23 first and then the structure 21 as the limit switches are fully depressed. The structure of Ulbrich would provide the argued unclaimed intended use of to absorb weight of contact between the robot and the load to be moved. Applicant argues that the contact sensor (23) of Ulbrich extends past the surface of the structure (21) and does not allow contact with the structure (21). This is unpersuasive because contact sensors are known in the art to depress and would be pushed flush with the structure (21) so that the load would be contacting the limit switches (23) and the structure (21). The examiner also maps both the switches and the structure to the “damper” so contacting one or the other portions of that would satisfy the claimed limitation. Therefore the examiner is maintaining the rejections as shown in the updated rejections below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniza et. al. (US 11,260,707), herein Ceniza in view of Ulbrich et. al. (US 2024/0067510), herein Ulbrich and Yamana et. al. (US 2023/0251668), herein Yamana.
Regarding claim 1:
Ceniza teaches:
A delivery robot (An automated guided vehicle (AGV) [col 1, line 15]) comprising:
a main body configured to be movable with respect to a ground (The vehicle 20 may include a vehicle body 20a mounted on wheels 20b [col 3, lines 1-2]);
a first coupling (fig. 2A and 2B, dolly tongue receptacle 30) positioned on an upper surface of the main body (see at least fig. 2A showing receptacle 30 mounted on the front lower surface of the robot body 20a. examiner notes that inverting the surface is a reversal of parts that results in the same functionality and would be an obvious design choice.); and
a first unit (fig. 1, rotatable tongue 19a and opening 19c) coupled to a tray (fig. 1, tongue 19a is mounded on the bottom of the dolly 19), wherein the tray is movable (to move the dolly along a ground surface [col 2, lines 55-56]),
wherein the first coupling comprises:
a module body (fig. 5, pin mechanism 22) coupled to the upper surface of the main body (The vehicle 20 may include a locking pin mechanism 22 attached to (or incorporated into) the vehicle body 20a [col 3, lines 10-11]);
a damper (fig. 3b, dolly tongue receptacle 30)
a docking protrusion (fig. 3B, switch 40) formed at the upper surface of the module body (examiner notes the exact location of the switch would be an obvious design choice.) and configured to determine whether or not docking is completed according to proximity of the tray (The switch 40 may be structured to be operable by movement of the dolly tongue receptacle 30 from the first position to the second position [col 4, lines 22-24]); and
an actuator (fig. 1A, locking pin mechanism 22) formed at the upper surface of the module body behind the docking protrusion (fig. 3A, locking pin 24 protruding out of the surface of locking pin mechanism 22 and behind the vehicle body 20a; examiner notes that the system of Ceniza is simply and inverted version of the claimed system and would be an obvious modification which results in the same function. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(a).) configured to be driven to be coupled with the first unit when the first coupling and the tray are located adjacent to each other (The locking pin mechanism 22 may include locking pin 24 and a locking pin actuation mechanism 22a structured to extend the locking pin 24 from a retracted position (i.e., a position outside the opening 19c formed in the tongue 19a) to an extended position where a portion of locking pin 24 resides inside the opening 19c, thereby connecting the dolly tongue 19a to the vehicle 20 [col 3, lines 10-24]), and
wherein the actuator comprises an actuator bar (fig. 3A, locking pin 24) and a driver configured to operate the actuator bar (fig. 1A, actuation mechanism 22a),
wherein the first unit (fig. 1, rotatable tongue 19a and opening 19c) comprises:
a lock mounted to one end of the tray (fig. 1, opening 19c) and including a locking groove into which the actuator bar is inserted (A portion of the tongue 19a may have an opening 19c formed therein and structured to receive the locking pin 24 which is extendibly/retractably mounted on the vehicle 20. [col 2, lines 60-63]); and
a guide extending from the lock (see figs. 2B and 3B, 19a as well as D1 of tongue which goes around the opening 19c) and having a width greater than a width of the lock (see figs. 2B and 3B, opening 19c is smaller than D1 and width of tongue 19a),
wherein the actuator bar is smaller than the locking groove in a front to rear direction (examiner notes that in order for the actuator bar to fit though the locking groove it would inherently need to be smaller than the opening.), and wherein a front surface of the lock is brought into contact with the rear surface of the damper when the tray moves forward relative to the main body (as can be seen in the difference between figs 3b and 4b any gap between the pin and the hole would result in front to back motion and allow for the damper to absorb the motion.).
Ebrahimi also teaches:
a main body configured to be movable with respect to a ground (fig. 6, a mobile robotic chassis 600 with wheels 607);
a first coupling (fig. 6, middle part 603) structured to couple to one surface of the main body (fig. 6, front part 601 and rear part 602);
Ulbrich also teaches:
a docking protrusion (fig. 4, load sensor laser distance sensor 22) formed at the upper surface of the module body (fig. 4 laser sensor 22 is protruding out of the base 12 in a vertical direction. Examiner notes that making this laser piece integral or separable is an obvious design choice with the result being a sensor that is embedded behind a bumper barrier above the surface of the base. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(b).), which is inserted into the damper groove (fig. 4b cavity in which laser distance sensor 22 is inset.) and configured to determine whether or not docking is completed according to proximity of the tray (the load platform load sensor 21 for detecting a load 143 on the load platform 12 in greater detail. A laser distance sensor 22 is located in the center and one contact sensor 23 each, in this case a limit switch, is located to the sides of it. [0114]); and
Ceniza does not explicitly teach, however Ulbrich
teaches:
a damper (fig. 4, load sensor 21 and contact sensor 23) disposed at an upper surface of the module body (fig. 4a, load platform 12) and including a damper groove at a rear surface (fig. 4, showing cavity that laser distance sensor 22 is inset within.)
wherein a front surface of the damper in which the damper groove is defined protrudes more to the actuator (fig. 4, showing load sensor 21 and contact sensor 23 extending horizontally past laser distance sensor 22.) than a front surface of the docking protrusion that is exposed to an outside (fig. 4, showing cavity that laser distance sensor 22 is inset within.),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ceniza to include the teachings as taught by Ulbrich with a reasonable expectation of success. Ulbrich teaches the benefits of “Transporting loads is a fundamental component of intralogistics. Autonomous industrial trucks can be used for this. The autonomous industrial truck claimed according to the invention is able, by means of the implemented navigation, load receiving and load placing methods, to ensure efficient transporting of loads. The invention relates to an autonomous industrial truck having a rearwardly-directed sensor unit for detecting the load and the loading environment and implemented process sequences for approaching the load, receiving the load and placing the load. [Ulbrich, abstract]”.
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich does not explicitly teach, however Yamana
a lock mounted to one end of the tray and including a locking groove into which the actuator bar is inserted (fig. 5a, hole 511; a lock guide 510 may be attached on the lower side of the bottom shelf 400 of the shelving unit 130. The lock guide 510 may include a hole 511 in which the solenoid lock pin 211 is inserted when the solenoid lock pin 211 projects [0076])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ceniza in view of Ulbrich to include the teachings as taught by Yamana with a reasonable expectation of success. Yamana teaches the benefits of “The autonomous vehicle includes a docking mechanism configured to dock with the conveyance target, a sensor configured to acquire object position data related to a position of an object within a measurement range, and a controller configured to control, based on the object position data acquired from the sensor, the conveyance performed by the autonomous vehicle docked with the conveyance target. The measurement range of the sensor includes at least an area above the autonomous vehicle. [Yamana, abstract]”
The combination of Yamana in view of Ulbrich teaches:
wherein the actuator bar is smaller than the locking groove in a front to rear direction, and wherein a front surface of the lock is brought into contact with the rear surface of the damper when the tray moves forward relative to the main body (The combination of Yamana and Ulbrich would result in the claimed limitation. Ulbrich teaches a damper as claimed above. Yamana teaches a towing means where the cart is towed with its own wheels still on the ground and shows that the locking pin has a gap that allows for some wiggle room between the cart and the robot. As the robot would slowdown, the cart would inherently continue to move until it hits a stopper, which would be the damper as taught by Ulbrich in the combination.)
Regarding claim 19:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich and Yamana discloses all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Yamana further teaches:
wherein the actuator bar is disposed to be spaced apart from at least one of front and rear surfaces of the locking groove that define the locking groove (see at least fig. 5a showing a gap between the locking pin 211 and the hole 511).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniza et. al. (US 11,260,707), herein Ceniza in view of Ulbrich et. al. (US 2024/0067510), herein Ulbrich and Yamana et. al. (US 2023/0251668), herein Yamana in further view of Rosenstein et. al. (US 9,498,886), herein Rosenstein.
Regarding claim 2:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich and Yamana discloses all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ceniza further teaches:
a second unit including a wheel (fig. 5, vehicle body 20a), the wheel being configured to be movable with respect to the ground (to move the dolly along a ground surface [col 2, lines 55-56])
a third unit (fig. 5, pin mechanism 22)
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich and Yamana does not explicitly teach, however Rosenstein teaches:
a third unit extending in one direction from one end of the second unit (The robot body 110, in the examples shown, includes a base 120, at least one leg 130 extending upwardly from the base 120, and a torso 140 supported by the at least one leg 130. The base 12.0 may support at least portions of the drive system 200. The robot body 110 also includes a neck 150 supported by the torso 140. The neck 150 supports a head 160, which supports at least a portion of the interfacing module 300. [col 6, lines 27-34]; fig. 1, neck 150, torso 140, and leg 130 portions (extension unit)); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein to include the teachings as taught by Rosenstein with a reasonable expectation of success. Rosenstein teaches the benefits of “In some examples, the robot 100 can receive user inputs into the web pad 310 (e.g., via a touch screen), as shown in FIG. 10E. In some implementations, the wd) pad 310 is a display or monitor, while in other implementations the web pad 310 is a tablet computer. The web pad 310 can have easy and intuitive controls, such as a touch screen, providing high interactivity. The web pad 310 may have a monitor display 312 (e.g., touch screen) having a display area of 150 square inches or greater movable with at least one degree of freedom. [Rosenstein, col 12, lines 32-43]” which provides an intuitive way to control a mobile robot.
a display housing (fig. 1, web pad 310 in head 160) extending from an end portion of the third unit (fig. 1, head 160 extending from neck 150) at a predetermined angle with respect to the third unit (The tilter 154 may move the head at an angle θ.sub.T (e.g., about the Y axis) with respect to the torso 140 independently of the rotator 152. In some examples that titter 154 includes a titter motor 155, which moves the head 150 between an angle θ.sub.T of ±90° with respect to Z-axis. Other ranges are possible as well, such as ±45°, etc. [col 10, lines 36-41]).
Ulbrich further teaches:
a display housing extending from an end portion of the third unit (At the top of the superstructure 13 is a panel with control elements 24 at the front, with a display 30 behind it [0112]) at a predetermined angle with respect to the third unit (see at least fig. 2 showing screen at a relatively flat angle with respect to the superstructure.).
Regarding claim 3:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein discloses all the limitations of claim 2, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ceniza further teaches:
a second coupling disposed on an upper surface of the second unit and is structured to detachably couple the second unit and the first coupling (examiner notes that the mobile robot of Ceniza inherently has some coupling part that affixes the “first coupling” to the “second unit”.); and
Rosenstein further teaches:
a time of flight (TOF) camera (these sensors may include, but not limited to, proximity sensors, contact sensors, three-dimensional (3D) imaging/depth map sensors, a camera (e.g., visible light and/or infrared camera), sonar, radar, LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging, which can entail optical remote sensing that measures properties of scattered light to find range and/or other information of a distant target), LADAR (Laser Detection and Ranging), etc. [col 15, lines 41-48]; The proximity sensors 410, 420 may be converging infrared (IR) emitter-sensor elements, sonar sensors, ultrasonic sensors, and/or imaging sensors (e.g., 3D depth map image sensors) that provide a signal to the controller 500 when an object is within a given range of the robot 100.) disposed at a lateral surface of the second unit (fig. 1, proximity sensors 410 spaced apart on the sloped side of the base 120) and provided in plurality spaced apart from one another (the robot 100 includes an array of sonar-type proximity sensors 410 disposed (e.g., substantially equidistant) around the base body 120 [col 16, lines 12-15]) along a periphery of the lateral surface (fig. 1, proximity sensors 410 spaced apart on the sloped side of the base 120).
Ulbrich further teaches:
a second coupling disposed on an upper surface of the second unit and is structured to detachably couple the second unit and the first coupling (examiner notes that the mobile robot of Ulbrich inherently has some coupling part that affixes the “first coupling” to the “second unit”.); and
Regarding claim 5:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein discloses all the limitations of claim 3, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rosenstein further teaches:
wherein the second unit further comprises a main body lidar disposed toward a front side and disposed above the TOF camera (see at least fig. 1, laser scanner 440 and 3D image sensors 450 on the front and above sensors 410).
Regarding claim 6:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein discloses all the limitations of claim 3, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rosenstein further teaches:
wherein the second unit extends perpendicular to the upper surface of the second unit (see at least fig. 1, sections 130, 140, and 150 extend perpendicularly upward from the base 120), and
wherein the third unit comprises:
a camera provided at a front surface thereof and being capable of shooting terrain ahead (The robot 100 may include first and second 3-D image sensors 450a, 450b (depth cameras) to provide robust sensing of the environment around the robot 100. The first 3-D image sensor 450a is mounted on the torso 140 and pointed downward at a fixed angle to the ground G. By angling the first 3-D image sensor 450a downward, the robot 100 receives dense sensor coverage in an area immediately forward or adjacent to the robot 100, which is relevant for short-term travel of the robot 100 in the forward direction. The rear-facing sonar 410j provides object detection when the robot travels backward. If backward travel is typical for the robot 100, the robot 100 may include a third 3D image sensor 450 facing downward and backward to provide dense sensor coverage in an area immediately rearward or adjacent to the robot 100. [col 21, lines 27-41]);
a speaker that transmits sound to an outside (The torso 140 may house a microcontroller 145, the microphone(s) 330, the speaker(s) 340 [col 10, line 67- col 11, line 1]); and
wherein the third unit includes a rear surface structured to fix at least one of the first coupling and the tray (see at least fig. 1, basket 340 is coupled to the rear side of the “extension unit” and in light of Ceniza, would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to instead of having a fixed basket, instead provide a temporary instead of fixed coupling means to allow the robot to attach to and move moveable trays.).
Regarding claim 7:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein discloses all the limitations of claim 2, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rosenstein further teaches:
wherein the display housing comprises:
a display configured to display a state of the main body (the robot 100 can receive user inputs into the web pad 310 (e.g., via a touch screen), as shown in FIG. 10E. In some implementations, the wd) pad 310 is a display or monitor, while in other implementations the web pad 310 is a tablet computer. The web pad 310 can have easy and intuitive controls, such as a touch screen, providing high interactivity. The web pad 310 may have a monitor display 312 (e.g., touch screen) having a display area of 150 square inches or greater movable with at least one degree of freedom. [col 12, lines 32-42]) and output a screen for controlling the main body (The computing device 310 may be a tablet computer, portable electronic device, such as phone or personal digital assistant, or a dumb tablet or display (e.g., tablet that acts as a monitor for an atom-scale PC in the robot body 110). In some examples, the tablet computer can have a touch screen for displaying a user interface and receiving user inputs. [col 14, lines 16-22]);
an inclined portion structured to support the display (The neck 150 may house a pan-tilt assembly 151 that may include a pan motor 152 having a corresponding motor driver 156a and encoder 138a, and atilt motor 154 152 having a corresponding motor driver 156b and encoder 138b. The head 160 may house one or more web pads 310 and a camera 320. [col 11, lines 7-13]; the head 160 supports one or more portions of the interfacing module 300. The head 160 may include a dock 302 for releasably receiving one or more computing tablets 310, also referred to as a web pad or a tablet PC, each of which may have a touch screen 312. The web pad 310 may be oriented forward, rearward or upward. [col 11, lines 15-20]); and
an angle adjustment portion structured to adjust an angle of the display (The head 160 may be sensitive to contact or touching by a user, so as to receive touch commands from the user. For example, when the user pulls the head 160 forward, the head 160 tilts forward with passive resistance and then holds the position. [col 10, lines 48-53]).
Claim(s) 4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniza et. al. (US 11,260,707), herein Ceniza in view of Ulbrich et. al. (US 2024/0067510), herein Ulbrich, Yamana et. al. (US 2023/0251668), herein Yamana, and Rosenstein et. al. (US 9,498,886), herein Rosenstein in further view of Qi et. al. (US 11,480,953), herein Qi.
Regarding claim 4:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein discloses all the limitations of claim 3, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein don’t explicitly teach, however Qi teaches:
a first wheel configured to move the main body in a direction in which the third unit is defined and a direction opposite to the direction in which the third unit is defined (The mobile base 102 has one or more motorized wheels 110 and a plurality of stabilizing wheels 112. The motorized wheels 110 are configured to rotate and/or roll in any given direction to move the AGV 100. [col 3, lines 29-32]); and
a second wheel configured to be steerable to allow the main body to rotate (The stabilizing wheels 112 may be caster-type wheels. If desired, any or all of the stabilizing wheels 112 may be motorized. [col 3, lines 32-34]; examiner notes that the caster wheels are steerable in that they will steer themselves based on the movement created by the drive wheels 110. If the applicant intends for this to more specifically mean that the steering is directly controlled, rack and pinion or other type of controlled steering methods are well known in the art.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein to include the teachings as taught by Qi with a reasonable expectation of success. Qi teaches the benefits of “automated guided vehicles (AGVs) having an autonomous broadcasting system. In various embodiments, once the AGV arrives at a designated area, the autonomous broadcasting system will send a broadcast notification to workers within a pre-determined range or workers who are responsible for the designated area. One or more workers may accept the job task and come to the AGV to perform the required task. The autonomous broadcasting system can increase the efficiency of loading/unloading process and avoid tasks from being left unattended. While the term AGV is used, the concept of this disclosure can be applied to any self-driving systems, such as driverless Forklift AGVs, or any mobile robots, such as autonomously-navigating mobile robots, inertially-guided robots, remote-controlled mobile robots, and robots guided by laser targeting, vision systems, or roadmaps. In addition, while the embodiments of this disclosure are described with respect to AGVs moving inventory in a warehouse environment, the embodiments and the concept may also be used in any type of environment such as hospital, airport, or shopping center, etc. [Qi, col 2, lines 38-60]”
Regarding claim 10:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein discloses all the limitations of claim 2, upon which this claim is dependent.
Rosenstein further teaches:
wherein the module body is provided with a front groove that is concavely recessed to allow the third unit to be inserted therein (see at least fig. 1 showing an opening through which the vertical portion of the robot is inserted though. Although not a groove on the front side, functionally it provides the same purpose of providing a means with which the vertical portion can insert into the bottom portion of the robot. The exact placement and shape of the groove is an obvious design choice and something that could be achieve though routine optimization absent any unexpected results resulting from the claimed design.), and
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein don’t explicitly teach, however Qi teaches:
wherein the module body is provided with a front groove that is concavely recessed to allow the third unit to be inserted therein (see at least fig. 1, showing main body 140 vertically protruding out of upper surface 106. Although not explicitly stated, there is inherently a cutout on the front of the upper surface that allows the main body 140 to connect in with the lower body of the robot), and
wherein a plurality of module TOF cameras are provided at a lateral surface of the module body to be spaced apart from one another along a periphery of the module body (one or more sensors 156 may be provided around the mobile base 102 (only two sides are shown). The sensors 156 may be any suitable sonar sensors, ultrasonic sensors, infrared sensors, radar sensors, LiDAR sensors and/or any suitable proximity sensors that can be configured to detect the presence of nearby objects. [col 5, lines 15-21]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Rosenstein to include the teachings as taught by Qi with a reasonable expectation of success. Qi teaches the benefits of “automated guided vehicles (AGVs) having an autonomous broadcasting system. In various embodiments, once the AGV arrives at a designated area, the autonomous broadcasting system will send a broadcast notification to workers within a pre-determined range or workers who are responsible for the designated area. One or more workers may accept the job task and come to the AGV to perform the required task. The autonomous broadcasting system can increase the efficiency of loading/unloading process and avoid tasks from being left unattended. While the term AGV is used, the concept of this disclosure can be applied to any self-driving systems, such as driverless Forklift AGVs, or any mobile robots, such as autonomously-navigating mobile robots, inertially-guided robots, remote-controlled mobile robots, and robots guided by laser targeting, vision systems, or roadmaps. In addition, while the embodiments of this disclosure are described with respect to AGVs moving inventory in a warehouse environment, the embodiments and the concept may also be used in any type of environment such as hospital, airport, or shopping center, etc. [Qi, col 2, lines 38-60]”
Regarding claim 11:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, Rosenstein, and Qi discloses all the limitations of claim 10, upon which this claim is dependent.
Qi further teaches:
wherein the module body includes a module lidar formed toward a rear thereof and configured to scan a rear side of the main body (the sensors 144 may be provided at the front end 195 and the rear end 193 (only front end is shown). The sensor 144 can be disposed at a cutout 148 below the console 104. The cutout 148 extends across the width of the mobile base 102 and may expand radially outwardly from the sensor 144 to the edge of the mobile base 102. The expansion of the cutout 148 allows the sensors to provide greater sensing area for the AGV 100. Alternatively or additionally, a sensor 191 similar or identical to the sensor 144 may be disposed at one or more corners of the mobile base 102. Likewise, the sensor 144, 191 may be any suitable sonar sensors, ultrasonic sensors, infrared sensors, radar sensors, and/or laser sensors such as LiDAR (light detection and ranging) sensors that can be configured to maintain proper distance and detect the presence of nearby objects that are stationary or moving. [col 5, lines 26-40]).
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceniza et. al. (US 11,260,707), herein Ceniza in view of Ulbrich et. al. (US 2024/0067510), herein Ulbrich and Yamana et. al. (US 2023/0251668), herein Yamana in further view of Wu et. al. (US 2024/0164606), herein Wu.
Regarding claim 12:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich and Yamana discloses all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ceniza further teaches:
wherein the upper surface of the module body is equal to or smaller than the upper surface of the main body (see at least fig. 1 showing vehicle body 20a having larger upper surface than locking pin mechanism 22.), and
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich and Yamana does not explicitly teach, however Wu teaches:
wherein the module body includes rolling pins disposed on the upper surface of the module body in a direction opposite to a direction in which the actuator bar is disposed and configured to be rotatable (see at least figs. 2 and 4 showing guiding rollers 116; on both sides of the docking cavity, there are symmetrically placed edge-guiding roller structures 116. By limiting the left and right sides of the robot 200 with the edge-guiding roller structures 116, the robot can enter the docking cavity at an angle. For example, the robot 200 can enter the station at an angle range of 150 degrees, meaning the robot's movement direction is at a 150-degree angle to the entrance of the docking cavity. This makes it easier for the robot 200 to enter the docking cavity and ensures more accurate entry with the help of the edge-guiding roller structures 116, improving alignment accuracy. The edge-guiding roller structures 116 allow the robot 200 to enter the docking cavity of the base station more smoothly and accurately, facilitating the positioning of the robot 200 and improving docking efficiency. [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ceniza in view of Ulbrich and Yamana to include the teachings as taught by Wu with a reasonable expectation of success. Wu teaches the benefits of “an edge-guiding roller structure 116 on the pedestal 1101 to assist in docking the robot 200, allowing it to enter the docking cavity at an angle. When robot 200 dock with a traditional base station, they often need to move directly towards the docking area, and the robot's movement direction needs to be 180 degrees opposite to the docking area to ensure proper docking with the base station. In an embodiment, the docking cavity has a horizontal docking angle, enabling the robot 200 to smoothly dock when its movement direction is 180 degrees opposite to the entrance of the docking cavity… The edge-guiding roller structures 116 allow the robot 200 to enter the docking cavity of the base station more smoothly and accurately, facilitating the positioning of the robot 200 and improving docking efficiency. [Wu, 0081]]”
Regarding claim 13:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
Wu further teaches:
wherein at least a portion of the guide is guided by the rolling pins (on both sides of the docking cavity, there are symmetrically placed edge-guiding roller structures 116. By limiting the left and right sides of the robot 200 with the edge-guiding roller structures 116, the robot can enter the docking cavity at an angle. For example, the robot 200 can enter the station at an angle range of 150 degrees, meaning the robot's movement direction is at a 150-degree angle to the entrance of the docking cavity. This makes it easier for the robot 200 to enter the docking cavity and ensures more accurate entry with the help of the edge-guiding roller structures 116, improving alignment accuracy. The edge-guiding roller structures 116 allow the robot 200 to enter the docking cavity of the base station more smoothly and accurately, facilitating the positioning of the robot 200 and improving docking efficiency [0081]).
Regarding claim 14:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim is dependent.
Wu further teaches:
wherein the guide comprises:
first portions extending from the lock in an inclined manner (see at least fig. 4 showing rounded edge of robot 200);
second portions having a width that corresponds to a separation distance between the rolling pins disposed at both sides of the module body and extending in a lengthwise direction of the guide (see at least fig. 4 showing overall width of the robot 200); and
a third portion connecting the second portions disposed at both sides of the lock (see at least fig. 4 showing body of the robot connecting the parts).
Yamana further teaches:
wherein the guide comprises:
first portions extending from the lock in an inclined manner (fig. 5a, flanged edges of frame guides 410);
second portions having a width that corresponds to a separation distance between the rolling pins disposed at both sides of the module body and extending in a lengthwise direction of the guide (fig. 5a, frame guides 410); and
a third portion connecting the second portions disposed at both sides of the lock (fig. 5a, underside of bottom shelf 400).
Regarding claim 15:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Wu further teaches:
wherein the first portions are guided by the rolling pins when the first coupling approaches the lock (referring to FIG. 2, there is an edge-guiding roller structure 116 on the pedestal 1101 to assist in docking the robot 200, allowing it to enter the docking cavity at an angle. When robot 200 dock with a traditional base station, they often need to move directly towards the docking area, and the robot's movement direction needs to be 180 degrees opposite to the docking area to ensure proper docking with the base station. [0081]).
Regarding claim 16:
Ceniza in view of Ulbrich, Yamana, and Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Yamana further teaches:
wherein a gap is defined between the first coupling and the second portions (see at least fig. 5b showing a gap (gray area) between lock guide 510 and the top of the robot.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Itozawa (US 2022/0242708) discloses This carrying system is a carrying system in which a load is carried by an autonomous mobile robot. The autonomous mobile robot has: a platform on which the load is placed; a control unit that controls the level of the platform; and an engaging part that engages with a predetermined object in a surrounding environment when the platform is raised.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665