The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the step of moving the autonomous mobile robot dolly away from the autonomous mobile robot (claim 3) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3, 7 and 9-11 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 3, the recitation “moving the … dolly away from the … robot” is not understood. Not only is this not shown in the drawings, as noted above in par. 2, but the written specification fails to describe how or in what manner this would be performed, i.e., whether it is done manually, by using the trailer, or by using some other device.
Regarding this and the related drawing objection in par. 2 above, applicant argues that par. [0015] of the specification discloses that the mobile robot dolly is lifted by the lift plate to a raised position off the floor and can then be moved by the tugger vehicle to another location. This is not persuasive, as it does not explain how the dolly is moved away from the robot. Merely raising the dolly off the floor does not necessarily mean that the dolly is moved away from the robot, because it does not preclude raising the robot along with the dolly.
Claim 7, line 10, the recitation “the lifting plate” (emphasis added) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11 depends from cancelled claim 8. It is assumed claim 7 was intended.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaltenegger (US 3,424,325) in view of Wolfe et al (CN 103875000) and Grimaldo (US 3,931,895), all previously cited.
Kaltenegger shows a method of moving a mobile object 17, the method comprising:
positioning a base 9 comprising a platform 11 (which could be a “second” platform) of a transport trailer (note col. 4:25-30 discloses that the unitary wheeled vehicle 1a shown in Figs. 8-10 can alternatively be a trailer connected to a drive vehicle, i.e., a “tractor-trailer” combination) under a frame 18 of the mobile object (col. 3:27-30), the (second) platform carrying a lifting plate 10 that is operatively connected to an actuator 22/23 that is configured to raise the lifting plate, the (second) platform and the lifting plate being sized and configured to fit beneath the mobile object;
raising the lifting plate using the actuator thereby raising the mobile object to a raised position (col. 3:30-44); and
moving the transport trailer from one location to a different location with the lifting plate and the mobile object in the raised position (col.3:45-48).
Note that although the above-noted passages reference the Figs. 1-7 embodiment, a substantially equivalent method would apply to the trailer version of the Figs. 8-10 embodiment, except that the object being carried on the vehicle 1 in Fig. 7 would obviously be on the trailer instead.
It is also noted that Kaltenegger provides hydraulic unit 33 shown in Figs. 11-12 on the lifting plate.
Kaltenegger does not show that the mobile object being moved is an autonomous mobile robot dolly.
Wolfe shows an autonomous mobile robot dolly 163 that is normally carried or towed by an autonomous mobile robot 110 (Fig. 3), wherein, under certain conditions, the robot can send a notification to support personnel that a problem requiring further action has occurred.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Kaltenegger by applying it to an autonomous mobile robot dolly, as shown by Wolfe, to move the dolly in the event a problem occurred such that it was unable to be moved by the robot.
Kaltenegger also does not show that the base further comprises a first platform connected to the second platform in a side-by-side arrangement, or that the transport trailer is moved from the one location to the different location with the lifting plate and the autonomous mobile robot dolly in the raised position and the first and second platforms in the side-by-side-arrangement.
Grimaldo shows a transport trailer comprising: a base 11 comprising a first platform 12 and a second platform 19/20 connected to the first platform in a side-by-side arrangement; one or more wheels 23/24 connected to the base; a lift assembly 10 comprising a lifting plate 35 carried by the second platform and an actuator 57/68 connected to the base configured to lift the lift plate above the second platform; wherein the lift assembly is configured to lift a mobile vehicle 80 located on the lifting plate to a raised position; and further wherein the transport trailer can be moved from one location to a different location with the lifting plate and the mobile vehicle in the raised position and the first and second platforms in the side-by-side-arrangement. Note that even though Grimaldo indicates that the lifting plate may be lowered during “travel conditions”, the trailer is nevertheless clearly configured such that it could be moved with the lifting plate in the raised position, as nothing would preclude this. Furthermore, it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “travel conditions” refers to high speed over the road travel. At the very least, the trailer could clearly be maneuvered/aligned to make minor positional adjustments thereof at low speeds, such as in a parking lot or garage environment.
Further note Grimaldo provides a control means 70 on the first platform, the control means comprising a motor 71 and control levers (user input device) 72 to operate the actuators.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Kaltenegger by configuring the base to include a first platform connected to the second platform in a side-by-side arrangement, and by moving the transport trailer from the one location to the different location with the lifting plate and the autonomous mobile robot dolly in the raised position and the first and second platforms in the side-by-side-arrangement, as suggested by Grimaldo, to provide a convenient place to mount the control/power equipment for the actuator(s).
Re claim 2, one of the problems that the robot may encounter is a malfunction that causes the robot to be immobile (Wolfe, par. [0006]). This is considered to be within the scope of “determining that an autonomous mobile robot is unresponsive”, as broadly recited.
Re claim 3 (as best understood in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above), when modified as above, the method would obviously further comprise moving the autonomous mobile robot dolly away from the autonomous mobile robot.
Re claim 4, the actuator of Kaltenegger comprises cylinders 23 and lift rods 22, but, as noted above, they are hydraulic rather than pneumatic.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the process of Kaltenegger by utilizing pneumatic instead of hydraulic pistons/cylinders, as the examiner takes Official Notice that these are art recognized alternate equivalent lifting devices, the selection of either of which would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 5, Kaltenegger shows in Figs. 11-12 that the hydraulic unit 33 can be provided on the vehicle (trailer) instead of using a fluid source via a conduit 15 from the (towing) vehicle, as in Fig. 5 (see col. 4:12-18). Although not separately identified, it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would logically conclude that this hydraulic unit comprises (from left to right in Figs. 11-12): a user input device (i.e., control levers), a motor/pump, and a hydraulic fluid tank. When modified as above to utilize pneumatic instead of hydraulic cylinders, the method would obviously further comprise using such a user input device to provide pressurized air to the pneumatic cylinder.
Re claim 6, the step of moving the transport trailer comprises moving a “tugger vehicle” (absent any particular limitations of the term) that is connected to the transport trailer.
Re claim 7, Kaltenegger, when modified by Wolfe and Grimaldo in the manner noted above with respect to claim 1, would show a system comprising:
an autonomous mobile robot dolly configured to mate with an autonomous mobile robot; and
a transport trailer comprising: a base comprising a first platform and a second platform connected to the first platform in a side-by-side arrangement; one or more wheels connected to the base (not shown but would be inherent in Kaltenegger’s disclosed trailer modification, especially in light of Grimaldo’s wheels 23/24); and a lift assembly comprising a lift plate carried by the second platform and an actuator connected to the second platform configured to lift the lift plate above the second platform, the second platform and the lift[ing] plate being sized and configured to fit beneath the autonomous mobile robot dolly;
wherein the lift assembly is configured to lift the autonomous mobile robot dolly located on the lift plate to a raised position and the transport trailer is configured to move the autonomous mobile robot dolly in the raised position with the first and second platforms in the side-by-side arrangement.
Re claims 9 and 10, when modified as above, Kaltenegger’s lift plate would be on the second platform, and the tank would be carried by the first platform, but the tank would be a hydraulic tank instead of an air tank, and the actuator would be a hydraulic cylinder rather than an air cylinder.
However, as noted above with respect to claims 4 and 5, it would have been obvious to utilize pneumatic instead of hydraulic cylinders and pressurized air rather than hydraulic fluid. Such a pneumatic system would obviously use an air tank instead of a hydraulic fluid tank, with the air tank connected to an air cylinder instead of a hydraulic cylinder.
Re claim 11, as noted above, Kaltenegger shows in Figs. 11-12 that unit 33 includes a user input device that is configured to control operation of the actuator.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Grimaldo fails to overcome the deficiencies of Kaltenegger and Wolfe. However, this is merely a conclusory statement, which fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Regardless, as noted above, Grimaldo is seen as teaching a second platform connected to a first platform in a side-by-side arrangement, wherein the second platform and the lifting plate are sized and configured to fit beneath a mobile vehicle, and wherein the lift assembly is configured to lift the mobile vehicle located on the lift plate to a raised position with the first and second platforms in the side-by-side arrangement, and as such the combination of the references is deemed to suggest the obviousness of the claimed invention.
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 James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
3/10/26