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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s RCE submission filed on 06/30/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 06/30/2025. The amendments to the claims, drawings, and specification 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 Claims 1-17 are pending in the application with claims 9-16 withdrawn.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 1-3, 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 herewith.
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 comprises an adjustable height ([0028], [0102]); and
a robotic arm (10, 100) removably attached to and extending laterally from the support assembly ([0018], [0067]), 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 (e.g., 13 or element 90 associated with element 20) for rotating the robotic arm about a longitudinal axis defined therethrough ([0017], [0023], [0049], [0052], [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 (newly 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 2, Kim in view of Smith teaches the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 1. Kim discloses the support assembly comprises a support shell (221, 222) and a head assembly (211) movably supported by the support shell (FIG. 4, [0026]-[0030], [0052]). Smith also teaches the support assembly comprises a support shell (5, 6, 7), a head assembly (2) movably supported by the support shell, and pneumatic cylinders arranged around the support shell and configured to adjust the height of the head assembly (FIGS. 2-3, [0025]-[0028], [0032]). Thus, Kim, modified to include a telescoping lift mechanism as taught by Smith, would have resulted in the features of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Halvorsen and Moore teaches the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 2. Kim discloses the mobile platform comprises stabilizing members (230) (FIG. 4, [0032]-[0036]).
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 comprises an adjustable height ([0028], [0102]); and
a robotic arm (10, 100) removably attached to and extending laterally from the support assembly ([0018], [0067]), 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 (e.g., 13 or element 90 associated with element 20) for rotating the robotic arm about a longitudinal axis defined therethrough ([0017], [0023], [0049], [0052], [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 (newly 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Halvorsen further in view of US Patent No. 3,832,937 (“Moore”).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Halvorsen teaches the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 1. Kim and Halvorsen disclose or teach the support assembly comprises a head assembly (Kim, 211; Halvorsen, horizontal platform at top of element 11) (Kim, FIG. 4; Halvorsen, FIG. 1), but neither Kim nor Halvorsen appear to disclose or teach a support shell or pneumatic cylinders as recited in claim 2. Specifically, Halvorsen appears to be silent as to the details of the telescoping mechanism of the support assembly. Moore (newly cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a telescoping support assembly comprising an adjustable height (3:16-26). Moore teaches the telescoping support assembly comprises a support shell (14), a head assembly (16) movably supported by the support shell, and pneumatic cylinders (11, 12, 13) arranged around the support shell and configured to adjust the height of the head assembly (Abstract, 3:41-4:29). Moore further teaches this configuration provides the advantages of maintaining a rigidified position of the head assembly that is insensitive to load variations on the head assembly (5:33-35). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use the telescoping mechanism as taught by Moore in the modified Kim’s mobile robotic assembly for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Kim in order to enhance stability and positioning, as suggested by Moore, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Halvorsen and Moore teaches the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 2. Kim discloses the mobile platform comprises stabilizing members (230) (FIG. 4, [0032]-[0036]).
Claim 4 is 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 and Moore, further in view of US Publication No. 2019/0322326 (“Summer”).
Regarding claim 4, both (1) Kim in view of Smith and (2) Kim in view of Halverson and Moore teach the mobile robotic assembly of Claim 3. Kim does not appear to disclose the stabilizing members are rotatable between these positions. Summer (previously cited) (see FIGS. 3-4) is similarly directed towards a mobile robotic assembly (100) ([0001]-[0003]) comprising a mobile platform (104) and stabilizing members (124) ([0028], [0030], [0034], [0038]). Summer teaches the stabilizing members are rotatable between the undeployed position and the deployed position ([0005], [0010], [0027], [0031]). Summer further teaches having the stabilizing members rotatable to an undeployed positions provides the advantages of storing the stabilizing members such that they do not interfere with movement of the mobile robotic assembly and such that they allow the mobile robotic assembly to easily travel through confined spaces ([0027], [0032]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to provide rotatable stabilizing members, as taught by Summer, in the modified Kim’s mobile robotic assembly for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Kim in order to enhance maneuverability, as suggested by Summer, would have been obvious to a POSA.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 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.
Additional References
The following references (cited in the attached PTO-892) would also appear to be applicable to Applicant’s amended claims:
US Patent No. 3,871,478: discloses a mobile assembly comprising a mobile platform (18, 22) and a telescoping support assembly configured to telescope vertically from the mobile platform and comprising a support shell (14, 15), a head assembly (4), and pneumatic cylinders (2) arranged around the support shell (FIGS. 1-2, Abstract, 4:33-54, 10:19-24)
US Patent No. 5,263,402: discloses a telescoping support assembly configured to telescope vertically from a platform (16) and comprising a support shell (13), a head assembly (14), and pneumatic cylinders (12) arranged around the support shell (FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, Abstract, 2:29-40, 2:48-52, 3:13-16)
US Patent No. 6,044,927: discloses a scissor-lift support assembly also comprising telescoping elements (18) configured to telescope vertically from a mobile platform (24) (FIGS. 1-2, Abstract, 5:47-6:41)
US Publication No. 2007/0110550: discloses a telescoping support assembly configured to telescope vertically from a mobile platform (3) and comprising a support shell (12), a head assembly (10), and pneumatic cylinders (31) arranged around the support shell (FIG. 1, Abstract, [0025], [0031])
WO Publication No. 2007/141320: discloses a mobile robotic assembly for guiding an end effector (11) comprising a mobile platform (5) and a support assembly which may be a scissor-lift support assembly (6) or telescoping support assembly (106) (FIGS. 2, 16, 17B)
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
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) 272-3191, 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
Prosecution Insights