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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/026,614 filed on 03/16/2023 in which claims 1-23 have been presented for examination in a first action on the merits.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of preliminary amendment filed on 03/16/2023 in which claims 1 and 12 are currently amended. By this amendment, claims 1-23 are still pending in the application for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 1 19(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. The certified copy of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the international Bureau.
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's benefit claim to International ApplicationPCT/JP21/28698, filed on 03 August 2021, of which this Application is a National Stage entry.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 03/16/2023 and 10/23/2024 have been considered and placed of record. Initialed copies are attached herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the limitations of, “wherein the auxiliary battery is one of the detachable rechargeable batteries housed in the housing portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this underlined limitations in the claim. Note both parent claim 1 and intervening claim 5 recite a single detachable rechargeable battery.
In claim 12, the underlined limitations of, “…the station includes a charging unit that houses at least one of the another detachable rechargeable batteries” lack antecedent basis since parent claim 1 only recites a single “another detachable rechargeable battery” and render the claim indefinite.
For examination purpose, the limitations of, “…the station includes a charging unit that houses at least one of the another detachable rechargeable batteries” should and would read for examination purpose -- …the station includes a charging unit that houses at least one of the another detachable rechargeable battery --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13-21 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 12 and thus they inherit the same deficiencies and are also objected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10,12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitations of, “wherein the auxiliary battery is one of the detachable rechargeable batteries housed in the housing portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this underlined limitations in the claim. Note both parent claim 1 and intervening claim 5 recite a single detachable rechargeable battery.
Claim 12 recites, the underlined limitations of, “…the station includes a charging unit that houses at least one of the another detachable rechargeable batteries” which lacks antecedent basis since parent claim 1 only recites a single “another detachable rechargeable battery” and thus render the claim indefinite.
Claims 13-21 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 12 and thus are also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6,8,10-17,19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan USPAT 7,352,153 in view of Matsufuji et al., (Matsufuji) US 20140350707 and KIM US 2021/0094178 and in further view of Yang et al., (Yang) USPAT 9,650,022.
Regarding claim 1: Yan at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-2,5 and 8: A mobile robot(2) comprising: a moving unit(23)(note- The driving unit 23 includes wheel sets 232 mounted on left and right sides of the housing 21, and motors 231 coupled to and controlled by the control unit 22 for driving rotation of the wheel sets 232 so as to enable forward and backward movement, as well as clockwise and counterclockwise rotation, of the mobile robot 2 on the floor 4; see col. 3, lines 45-59); a work unit(26)(see col. 4, lines 17-26); and a control unit(22)(see col. 3, lines 45-48), wherein the moving unit(23) has a function of moving the mobile robot(2)(see col. 3, lines 45-59) , the work unit(26) has a function of performing predetermined work(such as vacuuming and sucking in dust and other particles; see col. 4, lines 17-22), the control unit(22) performs calculations for controlling at least operations of the moving unit(23) and the work unit(26)(see col. 3, lines 50-53), and outputs a control command to each of the moving unit(23) and the work unit(26), and a power supply unit (24) which includes a rechargeable battery (241)(see col. 3, lines 45-65)
However, Yan does not teach the limitations of:
a robot power control unit; the robot power control unit includes at least one housing portion for a detachable rechargeable battery, the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion supplies power to the moving unit and the work unit, and the predetermined work includes battery replacement work in which the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion is detached from the housing portion and another detachable rechargeable battery is attached from an outside to the housing portion.
Matsufuji teaches factual evidence of that a control unit may be divided into a power supply control unit only for control with respect to supply of power(construed as robot power control unit) and a robot control unit only for control with respect to a robot(robot controller)(see [0107]).
However, the combination of Yan and Matsufuji fails to expressly disclose the limitations of:
the robot power control unit includes at least one housing portion for a detachable rechargeable battery, the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion supplies power to the moving unit and the work unit.
However, Kim teaches factual evidence of a power supply (160) which is supplied with external power and internal power to supply the power to each component of the transporting robot (100), under the control of the robot controller (190). The power supply (160) may include a battery, and the battery may be an embedded battery or a replaceable battery([0086])(note-the fact that the battery being replaceable involves necessarily the steps of: battery replacement work in which the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion is detached from the housing portion and another detachable rechargeable battery is attached from an outside to the housing portion).
The combination of Yan, Matsufuji and Kim still does not expressly disclose the limitations of: “and the predetermined work includes battery replacement work in which the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion is detached from the housing portion and another detachable rechargeable battery is attached from an outside to the housing portion”.
Yang is an analogous art, namely battery replacement robot with mobile storage rack and battery replacement method. Yang discloses factual evidence that the predetermined work includes battery replacement work(battery replacement robot 1) in which the detachable rechargeable battery(battery storage rack 12) housed in the housing portion(rechargeable battery rack unit 2.) is detached from the housing portion and another detachable rechargeable battery is attached from an outside to the housing portion(see Figs. 1-2; col. 7, lines 61-col. 8, line 17).
Yan, Matsufuji, Kim and Yang are robot systems analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang to include a robot power control unit; the robot power control unit includes at least one housing portion for a detachable rechargeable battery, the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion supplies power to the moving unit and the work unit, and the predetermined work includes battery replacement work in which the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion is detached from the housing portion and another detachable rechargeable battery is attached from an outside to the housing portion into the mobile robot of Yan, The advantages for doing so is to shorten the operation time of the battery replacement by avoiding to repeat the operation of the battery replacement robot in a large space and at a long distance and thus improving the efficiency of the battery replacement while simplifying the mechanism, as per the teachings of Yang (col. 6, lines 36-67)
Accordingly claims 1 and 22 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Yan in view of Matsufuji and Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Yan further discloses, wherein the battery replacement work is performed in a case where a remaining power amount of the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion becomes a predetermined value or less(Yan; col. 3, lines 11-21).
Regarding claim 3, Yan in view of Matsufuji and Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Kim further discloses, wherein the another detachable rechargeable battery has been charged.(Note-The power supply (160) may include a battery, and the battery may be an embedded battery or replaceable battery([0086])(note-the fact that the battery being replaceable involves necessarily the steps of: battery replacement work in which the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion is detached from the housing portion and another detachable rechargeable battery is attached from an outside to the housing portion).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang to include, wherein the another detachable rechargeable battery has been charged, in order to shorten the operation time of the battery replacement and to improve the efficiency of the battery replacement, as per the teachings of Yang (col. 6, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 4, Yan in view of Matsufuji and Kim discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Yan further discloses, wherein the battery replacement work is performed by driving(via moving unit 23) the work unit(26) by using power supplied from a station(1) to which the mobile robot(2) is electrically connected(see Figs. 5-8 and steps 515 to 525 of Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Kim further discloses, wherein the robot power control unit includes an auxiliary battery, and the battery replacement work is performed by driving the work unit by using power stored in the auxiliary battery(note- a power supply (160) which is supplied with external power and internal power to supply the power to each component of the transporting robot (100), under the control of the robot controller (190). The power supply (160) may include a battery, and the battery may be an embedded battery or a replaceable battery([0086]).
Regarding claim 6, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Matsufuji further discloses, wherein the work unit includes a manipulator including a robot arm and a robot hand(see Matsufuji; [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Matsufuji further discloses, wherein at least a part of the function of the control unit is provided outside the mobile robot (see Matsufuji [0107])(see also Kim; [0049] and remote control system 300) .
Regarding claim 10, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 5. Kim further discloses, wherein the auxiliary battery is one of the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion(see Kim [0086]).
Regarding claim 11, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 5. Kim further discloses, wherein the auxiliary battery is rechargeable by using power stored in the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion(see Kim; [0086]).
Regarding claim 12, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Yan further discloses, A mobile robot system comprising(see Yan; Figs. 1-2,5 and 8):the mobile robot(2) according to claim 1; and a station(1) to which the mobile robot(2) is electrically connectable, wherein the station(2) includes a charging unit(as provided by first charging contacts 12; see Figs. 1,5,7 and 8) that houses(via casing 11) at least one of the another detachable rechargeable battery(as modified by Kim, [0086]).
Regarding claim 13, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 12. Yan further discloses, wherein the battery replacement work is performed in a case where a remaining power amount of the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion becomes a predetermined value or less(Yan; col. 3, lines 11-21).
Regarding claim 14, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 12. Kim further discloses, wherein the another detachable rechargeable battery has been charged(Kim; [0086]).
Regarding claim 15, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 12. Yan further discloses, wherein the battery replacement work is performed by driving the work unit(23) by using power supplied from the station(1) to which the mobile robot(2) is electrically connected(as shown in Figs. 5-8 and steps 515 to 525 of Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 16, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 12. Kim further discloses, wherein the robot power control unit includes an auxiliary battery, and the battery replacement work is performed by driving the work unit by using power stored in the auxiliary battery(see Kim; [0086]).
Regarding claim 17, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 12. Matsufuji further discloses, wherein at least a part of the function of the control unit is provided outside the mobile robot((see Matsufuji [0107])(see also Kim; [0049] and remote control system 300)
Regarding claim 19, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 16. Kim further discloses, wherein the auxiliary battery is one of the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion(see Kim [0086]).
Regarding claim 20, Yan in view of Matsufuji , Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 16. Kim further discloses, wherein the auxiliary battery is rechargeable by using power stored in the detachable rechargeable battery housed in the housing portion(see Kim; [0086]).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan USPAT 7,352,153 in view of Matsufuji et al., (Matsufuji) US 2014/035070 and KIM US 2021/0094178 and Yang et al., (Yang) USPAT 9,650,022 and in further view of Kaneko et al., (Kaneko) US 2007/0216347
Regarding claim 9, Yan in view of Matsufuji , Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 4 but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of, “wherein a lock used when electrically connecting the mobile robot and the station is provided between the mobile robot and the station”.
Kaneko is in the same field of endeavor and discloses factual evidence of, wherein a lock(constituted by the engaging pins 61 on the guide pins 60 and the guide slits 51 formed in the guide sleeves 50; see Figs. 10-11 and [0015],[0018]-[0019],[0061],[0063],[0069] and [0078]) used when electrically connecting the mobile robot(1) and the station(20) is provided between the mobile robot and the station.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Kaneko by having, wherein a lock used when electrically connecting the mobile robot of Yan as modified by Matsufuji, Kim and Yang and the station be provided between the mobile robot and the station, as recited, for the advantages of locking the robot and the charging station to maintain the connection between the power receiving terminal and the power supplying terminal when the power receiving terminal and the power supplying terminal are connected to each other. With such a configuration, the locking mechanism maintains the connection between the power receiving terminal and the power supplying terminal even if an external force is exerted on the robot during charging for some reason, so that disconnection between the connectors during charging is prevented, as per the teachings of Kaneko ([0015]).
Accordingly claim 9 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 12 but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of, “wherein a lock used when electrically connecting the mobile robot and the station is provided between the mobile robot and the station”.
Kaneko is in the same field of endeavor and discloses factual evidence of, wherein a lock(constituted by the engaging pins 61 on the guide pins 60 and the guide slits 51 formed in the guide sleeves 50; see Figs. 10-11 and [0015],[0018]-[0019],[0061],[0063],[0069] and [0078]) used when electrically connecting the mobile robot(1) and the station(20) is provided between the mobile robot and the station.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Kaneko by having, wherein a lock used when electrically connecting the mobile robot of Yan as modified by Matsufuji Kim and Yang and the station be provided between the mobile robot and the station, as recited, for the advantages of locking the robot and the charging station to maintain the connection between the power receiving terminal and the power supplying terminal when the power receiving terminal and the power supplying terminal are connected to each other. With such a configuration, the locking mechanism maintains the connection between the power receiving terminal and the power supplying terminal even if an external force is exerted on the robot during charging for some reason, so that disconnection between the connectors during charging is prevented, as per the teachings of Kaneko ([0015]).
Accordingly claim 18 would have been obvious.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yan USPAT 7,352,153 in view of Matsufuji et al., (Matsufuji) US 2014/035070 and KIM US 2021/0094178 and Yang et al., (Yang) USPAT 9,650,022 and in further view of Di Pietrantonio et al., (Di Pietrantonio) US 2018/0179037 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of, wherein the work unit includes a piston used for the battery replacement work.
Di Pietrantonio discloses factual evidence of, wherein the work unit includes a piston used for the battery replacement work(see Fig. 3 and pistons(5))(see [0019],[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Yan as modified by Matsufuji, Kim and Yang to avail of the teachings of Di Pietrantonio by having, wherein the work unit includes a piston used for the battery replacement work, as recited, in order to supply a lifting and positioning system of an electric vehicle for battery swap in which the vehicle is more accurately and solidly placed with respect to the existing systems, as per the teachings of Di Pietrantonio([0006]).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yan USPAT 7,352,153 in view of Matsufuji et al., (Matsufuji) US 2014/035070 and KIM US 2021/0094178 and in further view of Yang et al., (Yang) USPAT 9,650,022
Regarding claim 21, Yan in view of Matsufuji, Kim and Yang discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 12 but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of, further comprising another station in addition to the station. Yan only shows a single station (1). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include in the mobile robot system of Yan as modified by Matsufuji, Kim and Yang to further comprising an additional charging station in order to accommodate an additional source of charging power and/or alternatives to a plurality of mobile robots.
Accordingly claim 21 would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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, TAELOR KIM can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 January 8, 2026