DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 – 17 and 35 - 46 in the reply filed on May 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 2, 2025. Claims 18 – 34 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 – 17 and 35 - 46 are pending and examined below.
Claim Objections
The applicant’s filing on May 2, 2025 is not completely responsive. According to 37 CFR 1.121(c), applicant should have submitted an complete up-to-date listing of all the claims indicating their current status, i.e., each claim filed should have been followed by a status indicator in parentheses, such as: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), or (Not entered). (See MPEP § 714.) The new listing should have indicated which claims are pending and which claims are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7 – 8 and 35, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,828,780 B2 to Orr (herein after "Orr publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 35,
the Orr publication discloses an autonomous utility cart (200) for use by a worker to carry an item through a working environment with open areas and fixed structures (see Abstract and Col. 4, lns 33 – 58), said autonomous utility cart comprising:
a cart structure (202) adapted to carry the item, said cart structure having at least one rotatable and turnable wheel;
a platform (202) with first and second drive wheels (210, 212)(see FIGS. 2A – 2B and Col. 8, ln 67 through Col. 9, ln 3), said platform being secured to said cart structure and said drive wheels being spaced from said turnable wheel (see FIGS. 2A and 2B), said platform having a navigation and movement system including a first drive motor with a first drive shaft to selectively rotate said first drive wheel and a second drive motor with a second drive shaft to selectively rotate said second drive wheel (see FIGS. 2A and 2B and Col. 1, lns 40 – 43), a programmed processor (116) with a processor memory (118), one of either first and second motor encoders (114) to obtain rotational movement data for each of said drive shafts and an IMU (102) to obtain three axis data (see Col. 5, lns 31 – 36), circuitry electrically and communicatingly connecting said processor, memory, motors and one of either said encoders and said IMU (Col. 8, ln 39 through Col. 9, ln 2), said processor sending movement instructions to said drive motors sufficient to independently rotate said first and second drive shafts to propel said cart structure along straight and curved paths of travel (see Col. 9, lns 3 – 12, where “[t]he robotic system 200 may further include data storage 118 including program instructions 120 stored thereon that when executed by one or more processors 116 of the robotic system 200 while operating in an environment, cause the robotic system 200 to perform various operations. The operations may include (i) controlling the motor 216 to cause the robotic system 200 to navigate on a surface 218 within the environment based on data received from the one or more sensors 208”)(Emphasis added), and said processor using one of either said rotational movement data and said three axis data to determine current location data when said platform is at a current location;
a communication device (124) with at least one key to obtain selected destination data when said current location of said platform is at a selected destination (see FIG. 1; Col. 8, lns 25 – 29 “the control system 108 may receive an input (e.g., from a user or from another robot) indicating an instruction to perform a particular set of one or more tasks. The input to control system 108 may be received via the communication link(s) 124”; Col. 9, lns 47 – 53, where “the operations of the robotic system 200 further include (i) receiving, via a wireless communication link 124 of the robotic system 200, a request for delivery of an item to a location in the environment, and (ii) controlling the motor 216 to cause the robotic system 200 to navigate on the surface within the environment to the location based on data received from the one or more sensors 208”)(Emphasis added), said communication device being in electrical communication with said navigation and movement system and mounted to one of either said cart structure and said platform, and the worker touching said at least one key to store said selected destination data in said processor memory (see Col. 8, lns 25 – 29);
a scanning device (102, 208) with a substantially circumferential sensing range and a digital camera, said scanning device and said digital camera obtaining working environment data sufficient to locate the open areas and fixed structures, said scanning device and said digital camera being mounted on one of either said platform and said cart structure and being in electrical communication with said circuitry (see FIG. 1; Col. 5, lns 4 – 10, where “sensor(s) 102 may include, for example, one or more force sensors, torque sensors, velocity sensors, acceleration sensors, position sensors, proximity sensors, motion sensors, location sensors, load sensors, temperature sensors, touch sensors, depth sensors, ultrasonic range sensors, infrared sensors, object sensors, and/or cameras, among other possibilities”; Col. 5, lns 26 – 31, where “sensor(s) 102 may include RADAR, LiDAR, infrared (IR), ultrasonic, one or more cameras (e.g., stereoscopic cameras for 3D vision), a global positioning system (GPS) transceiver, and/or other sensors for capturing information of the environment in which the robotic system 100 is operating”; see also FIGS. 3A – 4B and Col. 10, lns 11 – 12 for “one or more sensors 208”)(Emphasis added);
a power source (104) in electric power supplying communication with said circuitry (see FIG. 1 and Col. 5, lns 54 – 56, where “robotic system 100 may also include one or more power source(s) 104 configured to supply power to various components of the robotic system 100”), said communication device, said scanning device and said digital camera, said power source being mounted to one of either said platform and said cart structure (see FIGS 1 – 4B and Col. 8, lns 41 – 48); and,
wherein said navigation and movement system uses said working environment data, said selected destination data and said current location data to plan a route and movement instructions for said platform and cart structure to travel through the working environment to said selected destination (see Col. 9, lns 4 – 12).
As to claims 7 – 8,
the Orr publication discloses a plurality of radar sensors mounted to said cart structure, each of said radar sensors obtaining radar sensor data and being in electrical communication with said circuitry, and wherein the working environment includes temporary obstacles, and said navigation and movement system uses said radar sensor data to avoid the temporary obstacles when traveling along said route to said selected destination, and wherein said navigation and movement system uses said radar sensor data obtained by said radar sensors with said working environment data obtained by said sensing device and said camera to locate the open areas and fixed structures in the working environment. (See Col. 5, lns 16 – 36.)
As to claim 36,
the Orr publication discloses that said radar sensor is a plurality of radar sensors mounted to said cart structure, said working environment data includes local environment data, and each of said radar sensors obtains moving object data and is in electrical communication with said circuitry, and wherein the working environment includes temporary obstacles, and said system uses said local environment data and said moving object data to avoid the temporary obstacles when traveling along said route to said selected destination. (See Col. 5, lns 16 – 36.)
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.
Claims 9 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Orr publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0040409 A1 to Biber et al. (herein after "Biber et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 9 and 37,
the Orr publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
said autonomous cart traveling on a floor surface supported by a subsurface including subsurface structures, said radar sensor obtains subsurface data for at least one of said subsurface structures, and said navigation and movement system uses said subsurface data to localize said platform and said cart structure in the working environment.
Using at least one sensor to obtain subsurface data is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Biber et al. publication who discloses “a robotic vehicle (1), in particular a robotic vehicle (1) designed for self-contained operations, with drive means (5) for the movement of the vehicle (1) on the subsurface (11), and with control means (7) for the activation of the drive means (5) in accordance with the measured intensity of the infrared radiation.” (See Abstract.) In particular, the Biber et al. publication discloses “sensors 8, 9 measur[ing] the intensities 13, 14 that are shown in FIG. 4, whereby the intensity that is labeled with the reference sign 13 represents the intensity of the infrared radiation reflecting from the subsurface 11 and the intensity that is labeled with the reference sign 14 represents the intensity of visible light reflecting from the subsurface 11.” Such disclosure suggests an autonomous cart traveling on a floor surface supported by a subsurface including subsurface structures, wherein the radar sensor obtains subsurface data for at least one of said subsurface structures, and the navigation and movement system uses the subsurface data to localize the platform and the cart structure in the working environment.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Orr publication so that said autonomous cart travels on a floor surface supported by a subsurface including subsurface structures, wherein said radar sensor obtains subsurface data for at least one of said subsurface structures, and wherein said navigation and movement system uses said subsurface data to localize said platform and said cart structure in the working environment, as suggested by the Biber et al. publication, in order to facilitate self-contained operation of the autonomous cart.
Claims 2 – 3, 13 – 15 and 41 – 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Orr publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0179329 A1 to Keivan et al. (herein after "Keivan et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 2,
the Orr publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
said cart structure having a lower tray, a cart front end and a cart rear end, said drive wheels and said encoders being mounted under said lower tray proximal said front end, said at least one rotatable and turnable wheel is mounted under said lower tray proximal said rear end, said processor, said memory and said circuitry for said navigation and movement system being enclosed in a housing mounted under said lower tray, said drive wheels and said at least one rotatable and turnable wheel being mounted external to said housing, and said circuitry in said housing being in electrical communication with external wiring to said drive wheels and said encoders.
The Keivan et al. publication discloses a cart structure having a lower tray, a cart front end and a cart rear end, wherein said drive wheels and said encoders mounted under said lower tray proximal said front end, said at least one rotatable and turnable wheel mounted under said lower tray proximal said rear end, said processor, said memory and said circuitry for said navigation and movement system enclosed in a housing mounted under said lower tray, said drive wheels and said at least one rotatable and turnable wheel mounted external to said housing, and said circuitry in said housing in electrical communication with external wiring to said drive wheels and said encoders.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Orr publication with a lower tray, a cart front end and a cart rear end, wherein said drive wheels and said encoders are mounted under said lower tray proximal said front end, said at least one rotatable and turnable wheel are mounted under said lower tray proximal said rear end, said processor, said memory and said circuitry for said navigation and movement system are enclosed in a housing mounted under said lower tray, said drive wheels and said at least one rotatable and turnable wheel are mounted external to said housing, and said circuitry in said housing in electrical communication with external wiring to said drive wheels and said encoders, as suggested by the Keivan et al. publication, in order for the autonomous cart to accommodate different sized payload.
As to claim 3,
the Orr publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
said housing being selectively slidably secured to said cart structure under said lower tray.
In FIGS. 4A and 4B, the Orr publication discloses the housing structure for the first wheel (210) and second wheel (212) slidably secured to said cart structure. Such disclosure suggests said housing being selectively slidably secured to said cart structure under said lower tray.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Orr publication so that said housing is selectively slidably secured to said cart structure under said lower tray, as suggested by the Orr publication, in order to accommodate specific working environments.
As to claims 13 – 14 and 41 – 42,
the Orr publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
said cart structure includes an item supporting surface to support the item and a payload area above said item supporting surface, the item having an item location when placed on said item supporting surface, said radar sensor being aimed at said item supporting surface and said payload area to obtain radar sensor item data including item location data pertaining to said item location, and wherein said item location extends beyond said perimeter of said cart structure and said navigation and movement system uses said radar sensor item data to plan said route and movement instructions for said platform and said cart structure to travel through the working environment.
Using at least one sensor mounted to a mobile vehicle to sense items carried by the mobile device is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Keivan et al. publication who discloses a cart structure including an item supporting surface to support the item and a payload area above said item supporting surface, the item having an item location when placed on said item supporting surface. (See FIG. 1A.) The Keivan et al. publication also discloses that “[t]o obtain the weight of the payload, the weight of the cart body is subtracted from the accumulated total weight sensed by the load cells.” (See 72.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests a cart structure that includes an item supporting surface to support the item and a payload area above said item supporting surface, the item having an item location when placed on said item supporting surface, said radar sensor being aimed at said item supporting surface and said payload area to obtain radar sensor item data including item location data pertaining to said item location, and wherein said item location extends beyond said perimeter of said cart structure and said navigation and movement system uses said radar sensor item data to plan said route and movement instructions for said platform and said cart structure to travel through the working environment.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Orr publication with an item supporting surface to support the item and a payload area above said item supporting surface, the item having an item location when placed on said item supporting surface, wherein said radar sensor is aimed at said item supporting surface and said payload area to obtain radar sensor item data including item location data pertaining to said item location, and wherein said item location extends beyond said perimeter of said cart structure and said navigation and movement system uses said radar sensor item data to plan said route and movement instructions for said platform and said cart structure to travel through the working environment, as suggested by the Keivan et al. publication, in order to indicate the autonomous cart maybe overloaded, which may be used by other components of the system to notify an operator or stop the cart's motion.
As to claims 15 and 43,
the Orr publication is considered to disclose one of the fixed structures being an obscuring structure that visually obscures a moving object in an adjacent open area beyond the obscuring structure, and said moving object data includes obscured adjacent moving object data, and said navigation and movement system uses said obscured adjacent moving object data to plan an alternate route to avoid a collision with said moving object. (See Col. 5, lns 16 – 36.)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 – 12 and 18 – 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,592,815 (‘815 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance,
instant claims 1 and 35 corresponds to claims 11 and 12 of the ‘815 patent; and
instant claims 4 and 6 corresponds to claims 18 and 19 of the ‘815 patent;
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10 – 12, 16 – 17, 38 – 40 and 44 – 46 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.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666