DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed February 18, 2026 for the above identified patent application.
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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation-in-part of the prior applications No. 17/111,898 and 63/323,369. The amended claims appear to contain a newly added limitation that was not disclosed in the prior applications. For example, the limitation “a plurality of discrete machine vision cameras, mounted at varying heights along the mast assembly” was not described in the prior applications. The newly claimed camera positioning of “mounted at varying heights” is illustrated in Figures 5-11, and was not included in the prior applications. Accordingly, the added limitation does not afford the benefit of the earlier filing dates of the prior applications.
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(s) 1, 4-16,18-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN 104669275) in view of Poluboiarinov (USPub 2022/0300000).
Note: applicant cannot rely on the filing date of the parent application to overcome this rejection because the claimed arrangement of a mast with vision cameras was not sufficiently disclosed in the prior applications.
Ma teaches a self-contained robotic arm system comprising: an operating platform (1); a robotic arm subsystem (7-10) coupled to the operating platform; a control subsystem (6), coupled to the operating platform and configured to effectuate movement of the robotic arm assembly; a mast assembly (18,19) coupled to (via 8) and configured to rotate (about 7) with the robotic arm subsystem; and a panoramic machine vision system (16) coupled to the mast assembly and configured to enable a user of the self-contained robotic arm system to visually monitor areas proximate the self-contained robotic arm system, wherein the panoramic machine vision system (16) uses a camera mounted on a moveable mounting member (17), wherein the panoramic machine vision system (16) is mounted on the mast assembly above the robotic arm subsystem to maintain a field of view over the robotic arm subsystem.
Ma does not teach the machine vision system includes a plurality of discrete machine vision cameras mounted on the mast assembly configured to provide a plurality of discrete machine vision fields of view, wherein the plurality of discrete vision cameras define a combined field of view surrounding the self-contained robotic arm system. However, it was known in the robotic art to provide the claimed vision system. For example, Poluboiarinov teaches a mobile robot having a mast assembly (330), a plurality of discrete machine vision cameras (326) mounted on the mast assembly configured to provide a plurality of discrete machine vision fields of view, wherein each discrete machine vision camera of the plurality of discrete vision cameras is mounted in a separate orientation on the mast assembly for a separate field of view to define a combined field of view surrounding the self-contained robotic arm system. In paragraph [0078] and elsewhere, Poluboiarinov discloses six cameras (326) mounted at different orientations around the mast to provide a 360 degree panoramic view. Further, Poluboiarinov teaches an additional vision camera (328) disposed above the six cameras (326), wherein the six vison cameras (326) and the additional vision camera are positioned at varying heights along the mast.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the mast of Ma with a mast having multiple cameras mounted at different heights along the mast, as taught by Poluboiarinov, motivation being to provide an improved panoramic field of vision around the robotic device at any given time during operation.
Claims 4, 19, and 22: Ma does not teach an audio system coupled to the mast assembly. The prior art to Poluboiarinov teaches a microphone built into an intercom (322) and mounted to the mast (330). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the mast of Ma with a microphone built into an intercom (audio system) and mounted to the mast, as taught by Poluboiarinov, motivation being to enable a user to audibly monitor areas proximate the robotic system.
Claim 5: Ma teaches the control subsystem includes an electric control subsystem (power supply and wireless communication).
Claims 6 and 8: Ma does not specifically disclose the arm including a pneumatic control subsystem having pneumatic controls/pneumatic actuators or a hydraulic control subsystem having hydraulic controls/hydraulic actuators. However, it was notoriously known in the art to control a robot arm using either a pneumatic control arrangement or a hydraulic control arrangement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the robotic arm system of Ma with either a pneumatic control arrangement or a hydraulic control arrangement, as was notoriously known in the art, motivation being provide an alternative control arrangement that produces a particular robot output, such as arm movement speed and lifting capacity.
Claim 7: Ma teaches the electric control subsystem includes one or more of: electronic controls; and one or more electronic actuators.
Claims 9, 20, and 24: Ma teaches the robotic arm subsystem includes one or more of: an arm base assembly; a shoulder joint assembly coupled to the arm base assembly; an upper arm assembly coupled to the should joint assembly; an elbow joint assembly coupled to the upper arm assembly; a lower arm assembly coupled to the elbow joint assembly; a wrist joint assembly coupled to the lower arm assembly; and a gripper (15) assembly coupled to the wrist joint assembly.
Claims 10 and 21: Ma teaches (Fig. 1) the mast assembly is coupled (either directly or indirectly) to the arm base assembly of the robotic arm subsystem.
Claims 11-13: Ma teaches the shoulder joint assembly, elbow joint assembly, and the wrist joint assembly being configured to enable rotation about one or more of the X, Y and Z axis.
Claim 14: Ma teaches the operating platform is a moveable (via 2-4) operating platform.
Claim 15: Ma teaches the moveable operating platform includes one or more of: an autonomous mobile base or a non-autonomous mobile base.
Claim 18: Poluboiarinov teaches at least of portion of the plurality of discrete machine vision fields (the cameras 326 overlap with the thermal camera 328) of view are configured to overlap to reduce / eliminate blind spots proximate the self-contained robotic arm system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the mast of Ma with multiple cameras (such as visual and thermal cameras) mounted about the mast with overlapping vision fields, as taught by Poluboiarinov, motivation being to provide an improved panoramic field of vision around the robotic device.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (USP 8,322,249) in view of Poluboiarinov (USPub 2022/0300000), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (USPub 2020/0182623).
Ma does not teach the vision system including a LIDAR system. Huang teaches a vision system including a LIDAR system (211). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the vision system of Ma with a LIDAR, as taught by Huang, motivation being to facilitate in identifying objects within the operating space of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s primary argument is that the prior art to Poluboiarinov does not teach a plurality of discrete machine vision cameras, mounted at varying heights along the mast assembly. As noted by applicant, and acknowledged by the examiner, Poluboiarinov teaches six panoramic 360 degrees cameras (326) and thermal PTZ camera (328) integrated on a surveillance tower (330). Referring to Fig. 3, Poluboiarinov illustrates the thermal PTZ camera (328) positioned above the six panoramic 360 degrees cameras (326), such that the six vison cameras (326) and the thermal PTZ camera (328) are positioned at varying heights along the mast.
Accordingly, the claims stand rejected based on the disclosure of Ma and Poluboiarinov for teaching each and every claim limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the prior art to Tang et al. (CN 111267106) and Murphy et al. (USPub 2022/0305641) for teaching a robotic device having a vision device mounted on a mast, wherein the mast is supported for rotation with a robotic arm.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 571-270-7778. 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights