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 .
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 07/22/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-17 are pending in the application with claims 9-16 withdrawn. Claims 1-8 and 17 are examined herein
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR Patent No. 10-1955165 (“Kim”) in view of WO Publication No. 2010/020670 (“Smith”).
The following rejections are based on the machine translation of Kim provided with the PTO-892 dated 11/07/2024 and the machine translation of Smith provided with the PTO-892 dated 04/23/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Kim (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-2, 4-6) discloses a mobile robotic assembly for guiding an end effector (88) in inspecting reactor vessel heads (2) ([0002], [0006], [0090], [0100]), the mobile robotic assembly comprising:
a mobile platform (212) ([0019], [0022]-[0025]);
a support assembly (211, 215) configured to extend vertically from the mobile platform, wherein the support assembly has an adjustable height and comprises a connector plate (e.g., bottom portion of 11 accommodating element 97 as shown in FIG. 6) rotatable relative to the mobile platform about a vertical axis ([0028], [0047], [0052], [0058]-[0059], [0067]-[0068], [0102]);
a mounting base (e.g., middle and top portions of 11 as shown in FIG. 6) removably attached to the support assembly via the connector plate ([0047], [0052], [0067]); and
a robotic arm (100) removably attached to and extending laterally from the mounting base ([0052]), wherein the end effector is removably connectable to an end of the robotic arm ([0090], [0100]), the robotic arm comprising:
articulation joints (22, 32, 42, 52) ([0074]-[0077]);
motor assemblies (e.g., elements 90 associated with elements 30, 40, 50) for driving selective articulations at each of the articulation joints ([0058], [0073], [0083]);
discrete segments (80) extending between the articulation joints ([0046], [0085]-[0088]); and
a rotation motor assembly (element 90 associated with element 20) for rotating the robotic arm relative to the mounting base about a longitudinal axis of the robotic arm ([0017], [0052], [0084]), wherein the connector plate is configured to rotate the mounting base and the robotic arm about the vertical axis ([0017], [0023], [0049], [0058], [0084]).
Kim appears to disclose the support assembly is a scissor-lift (215) support assembly rather than a telescoping support assembly as recited in claim 1. Smith (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-3) is similarly directed towards a mobile assembly comprising a mobile platform (3) and a scissor-lift support assembly (2, 4) configured to extend vertically from the mobile platform, wherein the support assembly comprises an adjustable height ([0005], [0024]-[0026]). Smith teaches the scissor-lift support assembly is also a telescoping support assembly configured to telescope vertically from the mobile platform ([0027]). Smith further teaches the telescoping mechanism provides the advantages of having a high lifting height with fewer scissor elements, allowing for a light weight and compact design with high stability ([0009], [0027]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to modify Kim’s scissor-lift support assembly to have telescoping elements, as taught by Smith, for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Kim in order to enhance stability, as suggested by Smith, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Smith teaches the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 1. Kim discloses a drive wheel assembly (225) ([0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Smith teaches the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 1. Kim discloses the articulation joints comprise a first articulation joint (22) that is coupled closest to the telescoping support assembly along the robotic arm and positionable directly above at least a portion of the mobile platform (FIG. 2, [0074]-[0077]).
Claims 1, 5, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US Publication No. 2021/0323163 (“Halvorsen”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim (see FIGS. 1-2, 4-6) discloses a mobile robotic assembly for guiding an end effector (88) in inspecting reactor vessel heads (2) ([0002], [0006], [0090], [0100]), the mobile robotic assembly comprising:
a mobile platform (212) ([0019], [0022]-[0025]);
a support assembly (211, 215) configured to extend vertically from the mobile platform, wherein the support assembly has an adjustable height and comprises a connector plate (e.g., bottom portion of 11 as shown in FIG. 6) rotatable relative to the mobile platform about a vertical axis ([0028], [0047], [0052], [0058]-[0059], [0067]-[0068], [0102]);
a mounting base (e.g., middle and top portions of 11 as shown in FIG. 6) removably attached to the support assembly via the connector plate ([0047], [0052], [0067]); and
a robotic arm (100) removably attached to and extending laterally from the mounting base ([0052]), wherein the end effector is removably connectable to an end of the robotic arm ([0090], [0100]), the robotic arm comprising:
articulation joints (22, 32, 42, 52) ([0074]-[0077]);
motor assemblies (e.g., elements 90 associated with elements 30, 40, 50) for driving selective articulations at each of the articulation joints ([0058], [0073], [0083]);
discrete segments (80) extending between the articulation joints ([0046], [0085]-[0088]); and
a rotation motor assembly (element 90 associated with element 20) for rotating the robotic arm relative to the mounting base about a longitudinal axis of the robotic arm ([0017], [0052], [0084]), wherein the connector plate is configured to rotate the mounting base and the robotic arm about the vertical axis ([0017], [0023], [0049], [0058], [0084]).
Kim appears to disclose the support assembly is a scissor-lift (215) support assembly rather than a telescoping support assembly as recited in claim 1. Halvorsen (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a mobile robotic assembly for guiding an end effector (4) comprising a mobile platform (2) and a support assembly (11) configured to extend vertically from the mobile platform, wherein the support assembly comprises an adjustable height ([0016]). Halvorsen teaches the support assembly may be a scissor-lift support assembly or a telescoping support assembly configured to telescope vertically from the mobile platform ([0016]). Accordingly, Halvorsen teaches that it was known that scissor-lift mechanisms and telescoping mechanisms are elements that are functional equivalents for raising and lowering structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSA to substitute Kim’s scissor-lift mechanism with a telescoping mechanism. Substitution of the known element of a telescoping mechanism for the known element of a scissor-lift mechanism would have yielded the predictable result of raising and lowering Kim’s robotic arm.
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Halvorsen teaches the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 1. Kim discloses a drive wheel assembly (225) ([0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Halvorsen teaches the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 1. Kim discloses the articulation joints comprise a first articulation joint (22) that is coupled closest to the telescoping support assembly along the robotic arm and positionable directly above at least a portion of the mobile platform (FIG. 2, [0074]-[0077]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of (1) Kim in view of Smith or (2) Kim in view of Halverson, further in view of US Publication No. 2015/0190925 (“Hoffman”).
Regarding claim 6, both (1) Kim in view of Smith and (2) Kim in view of Halverson teach the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 1. Kim discloses sensors (250, 260) for measuring a distance and determining movement of the mobile robotic assembly ([0039]-[0043]), but appears to be silent as to the specific type of sensors. Hoffman (previously cited) (see FIGS. 2A, 9-10) is similarly directed towards a mobile robotic assembly comprising sensors (262, 362, 500) for determining movement of the mobile robotic assembly ([0004], [0072], [0077], [0103], [0119]-[0120], [0129], [0148]). Hoffman teaches the sensors may include a LIDAR sensor for measuring distances ([0072]). Hoffman further teaches the LIDAR sensor provides the advantage of remotely measuring properties to determine range and/or other information of a distant target ([0072], [0125]) and further teaches using a variety of different types of sensors, including LIDAR, in order to enable the mobile robotic assembly to make intelligent decisions about actions to take in the environment ([0125]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a LIDAR sensor, as taught by Hoffman, in the modified Kim’s mobile robotic assembly for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Kim in order to determine positional and environmental information for controlling movement of the mobile robotic assembly, as suggested by Hoffman, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 7, both (1) Kim in view of Smith and Hoffman and (2) Kim in view of Halverson and Hoffman teach the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 6. Kim discloses the at least one LIDAR sensor is positioned at a front portion of the mobile platform (FIGS. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 8, both (1) Kim in view of Smith and (2) Kim in view of Halverson teach the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 1, but do not appear to teach a camera assembly. Hoffman (see FIG. 2A) is similarly directed towards a mobile robotic assembly ([0003], [0137], [0160]). Hoffman teaches the mobile robotic assembly comprises a camera assembly (262, 272) ([0072], [0093]). Hoffman further teaches the camera assembly provides the advantage of allowing operators to remotely observe and review the activity of the mobile robotic assembly, thereby better control and visibility ([0004], [0072], [0077], [0103], [0119]-[0120], [0129], [0148]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a camera assembly, as taught by Hoffman, in the modified Kim’s mobile robotic assembly for visualization and control the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Kim in order to monitor and control inspection activities, as suggested by Hoffman, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach the features of the telescoping support assembly as recited in claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “[s]econd module (20) cannot satisfy both the claimed ‘rotation motor assembly’ of Claim 1 and the separately recited ‘first articulation joint’ of Claim 17” (emphasis omitted) (Remarks, pp. 9-10). However, in the prior Office action and above, Kim’s element 90 (translated as the “driving unit”) is mapped to the claimed “rotation motor assemblies,” not Kim’s element 20, and Kim’s element 22 (translated as the “rotary cover,” “rotation cover”) is mapped to the claimed “first articulation joint.” Kim discloses these as separate structures ([0073]-[0075], [0082]-[0083]).
Applicant’s remaining arguments directed towards the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are directed towards newly added and/or amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims, specification, and/or drawings.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 270-5217, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
