DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/07/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant' s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 11/07/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2026 and 03/04/2026 were filed and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 3-6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirkx (WO 2008142642 A1) in view of Horinouchi (US 20130330162 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dirkx discloses a surface treating system (see Fig. 1, 1) comprising: a robotic unit (2) comprising a main body (body of 2), a traction arrangement (3, 4, 5) that defines a ground plane of the robotic unit (see Fig. 8-I(1), 44), and an articulated arm (6), wherein the articulated arm comprises an upper arm section (7) and a lower arm section (9), wherein the upper arm section is attached to the main body at a shoulder joint (8), and wherein the lower arm section is attached to the upper arm section at an elbow joint (10), and an end effector (11) is defined at a distal end of the lower arm section, a suction conduit extends through the upper arm section to the lower arm section (see page 6 lines 31-33, wherein “The stabilizing arm 6 comprises a vacuum hose (not shown) which is connected with one end to the suction head 11 and with an opposite end to a container located in the housing 2; see Fig. 7, wherein joint 8 shows an opening between the first arm portion 7 and the housing 2), wherein the articulated arm is movable between a stowed position (position wherein 7 and 9 are fully retracted) and a fully deployed position (position wherein 7 and 9 are fully extended) through a substantially vertical plane of motion (vertical plane through 7 and 9), wherein in the fully deployed position, the articulated arm is configured so that substantially all of the lower arm section and at least some of the upper arm section extends parallel with and directly adjacent to the ground plane (in the position wherein 7 and 9 are fully extended, both sections of the arm are capable of being parallel to the ground plane), and wherein in the stowed position (position wherein 7 and 9 are fully retracted), the upper arm section (7) extends generally perpendicular to the ground plane (44). First, note that “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed.” See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Second, note that “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). In this instance, the drawings of Dirkx clearly show the structure of the surface treating system and do not show any structural features which would prevent the articulated arm from being parallel to the ground plane, nor are there any structural features which would prevent the upper arm section from being perpendicular to the ground plane. Additionally, the plurality of drawings disclose a wide operating range of the articulated arm. Therefore, the articulated arm of Dirkx can inherently extend parallel with the ground plane and extend perpendicular to the ground. Dirkx fails to disclose the upper arm section includes parallel arm members extending from the shoulder joint to the elbow joint, and in the stowed position, the lower arm section is positioned substantially between the parallel arm members of the upper arm section. However, Horinouchi teaches the upper arm section (see Fig. 1; 14a) includes parallel arm members (left and right members of 14a) extending from the shoulder joint (14c) to the elbow joint (14d), and in the stowed position (see Fig. 4-5), the lower arm section (14b) is positioned substantially between the parallel arm members of the upper arm section (see Fig. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Dirkx with an upper arm section including parallel arm members and a lower arm that is positioned substantially between the parallel arm members in the stowed position, as taught by Horinouchi, to provide a storage space for the upper and lower arm sections (see paragraph [0021]), which provides a more compact robotic arm (see paragraph [0103]); an allows for the robot to be light weight, compact, and storable in spaces between consumer electronics or furniture (see paragraph [0050]). As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the suction conduit (Dirkx; not shown) extends through one parallel arm member (Horinouchi; left and right members of 14a) to the lower arm section (Dirkx; 9). Note that MPEP 2143.03(I) states "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the suction conduit of Dirkx is external to the parallel arm members of Horinouchi, it would be crushed when the robot is in the stowed position in Fig. 4-5 of Horinouchi, and prevent the system from being in the stowed position. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would use an internal suction conduit that passes through a parallel arm member so that the system can properly be stowed and not damage the suction conduit.
Regarding claim 3, Dirkx discloses in the stowed position (position wherein 7 and 9 are fully retracted) the upper arm section (7) and lower arm section (9) at least partially overlap (see Fig. 1, wherein 7 and 9 overlap at 10).
Regarding claim 4, Dirkx discloses the elbow joint (10) is defined at a mid-point along a length of the articulated arm (6) between the shoulder joint (8) and the end effector (11).
Regarding claim 5, Dirkx discloses a drive mechanism (motor) which is configured to actuate at least one of the shoulder joint (8) and the elbow joint (10) (see page 8 lines 22-26, wherein the joint 8 preferably has two degrees of freedom, namely rotation around the X-axis and Y-axis which rotations are controlled by motors (not shown). The joint 10 preferably has one degree of freedom, namely a rotation around the Y-axis, which rotation is preferably controlled by a motor (not shown)).
Regarding claim 6, Dirkx discloses the drive mechanism (motor) is configured to drive the elbow joint (10) (see page 8 lines 25-26, wherein the joint 10 preferably has one degree of freedom, namely a rotation around the Y-axis, which rotation is preferably controlled by a motor (not shown)).
Regarding claim 15, Dirkx discloses the articulated arm (6) is controlled by an on-board controller in communication with a sensor system (see page 9 lines 1-2, wherein the stair-climbing device 1 further more comprises a number of sensors (not shown) controlled by a processor (not shown).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirkx (WO 2008142642 A1) in view of Horinouchi (US 20130330162 A1) and Gilbertson (US 9827677 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Dirkx fails to disclose the drive mechanism includes a motor located at the elbow joint. However, Gilbertson teaches the drive mechanism includes a motor located at the elbow joint (see column 22 lines 53-55, wherein the joints 206, 208, 212, 216, 222, and 226 may be actuated by an electric motor mounted within and/or adjacent to the joints). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Dirkx with a drive mechanism in the elbow joint, as taught by Gilbertson, because Mounting the drive mechanism inside the joint may decrease the amount of parts protruding from the robotic device 200, preventing the robot from snagging on furniture, curtains, and other household items as the robot moves around a home (reduces the likelihood of protruding parts hooking/colliding with another robot in a commercial or industrial setting) (see column 22 lines 59-65).
Claim 8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirkx (WO 2008142642 A1) in view of Horinouchi (US 20130330162 A1) and Vertut (US 4283165 A).
Regarding claim 8, Dirkx fails to disclose the drive mechanism comprises a transmission that extends at least in part along the upper arm section. However, Vertut teaches the drive mechanism (see Fig. 2-5) comprises a transmission (pulleys and cables) that extends at least in part along the upper arm section (4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Dirkx with a drive mechanism comprising a transmission that extends at least in part along the upper arm section, as taught by Vertut, to isolate the orientation movements from the position movements, which considerably simplifies its control by computer (see column 1 lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of claim 8 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the transmission (Vertut, cables and pulleys) and the suction conduit (Dirkx, vacuum hose) extend along separate arm members of the upper arm section (Dirkx, Fig. 7, wherein one would extend along the left prong of 7 at joint 8 and the other would extend along the right prong of 7 at joint 8).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of claim 8 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the drive mechanism (Vertut, cables and pulleys) includes a drive motor (Vertut, 22) located at the main body of the robotic unit (Vertut, 1) and configured to control the movement of the elbow joint by way of the transmission (Vertut, Fig. 3, joint at 7).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of claim 8 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the drive mechanism (Vertut, cables and pulleys) is configured to drive movement of the end effector (Vertut, 3).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of claim 8 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the end effector (Vertut, 3) is configured to rotate (Vertut, about 10) with respect to an axis of the lower arm section (Vertut, axis of 6), as driven by the drive mechanism (Vertut, cables and pulleys).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of claim 8 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations the end effector (Vertut, 3) is configured to extend along the axis of the lower arm section (Vertut, axis of 6), as driven by the drive mechanism (Vertut, cables and pulleys).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments filed 01/07/2026, with respect to claim 1, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that were necessitated by an amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights