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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 1, the first service providing means has holder grooves having a diameter and depth that somehow “exclusively provide” drinks and utensils to the customers. The grooves, however, are not described in the specification in a manner that shows how these features “exclusively” provide any one particular item over any other items. That is, how does the groove exclude their use to hold or carry substantially any item that is not categorized as a drink or utensil? There is no description of how the recited exclusive limitation is achieved. Claims 2-4 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 4 is further rejected as it contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this claim, “tableware return function activation bowls” are recited. There is no description of how the bowls “activate” a tableware return function other than being capable of receiving dirty/used dishes and tableware. There is recitation of how such a function would be activated by the bowl.
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 1-4 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 1 recites the limitation "a serving service tray base frame housing (H) formed of a rectangular base frame and passed through a center of the base frame.” This claim is indefinite as it is unclear what the term “passed through a center of the base frame” means. Is the base frame’s center configured to allow items to pass through; or does the frame itself pass through another structure? For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to mean that the base frame is configured to allow items, such as the tray (TR), to pass through from one side to the opposite side.
Claim 1 is further indefinite as it is unclear how third service providing means is to interpreted. The use of the means-plus-function claiming language causes confusion as to the scope of this clause for several reasons. First, the claim recites that this third means “provides various services … in the same way” as the second means. The second means, however, specifically recites that trays as used as a part of that element. Does this language incorporate these trays structures into the third means? Further, the term “various” is indefinite as to the scope of what functions are being claimed.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as dependent on claim 1.
Claim 2 is further indefinite because of the inclusion of the term “arbitrary” (two places). The term “arbitrary” is indefinite as is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “arbitrary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha (12,208,509; hereinafter “Ha ’509”).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Ha ‘509 discloses a square-shaped service serving robot (see Fig. 3) with an excellent service provision space utilization (e.g., the square configuration of Fig. 3 provides a larger provision space when compared to a comparably sized round configuration, which reads upon the recited space utilization) comprising:
a service serving tray housing means (310) formed in a rectangular shape (see Fig. 3 showing the square configuration) and providing a tableware return functions to customers (see e.g., Col. 5, lines 43-53 describing the serving and bussing usage); and
a serving robot driving means (320a) that is located and formed at a lower end of the service serving tray housing means (310), and moves, waits, and stops along a destination or a path input and transmitted from an outside to provide various services and the tableware return function to customers through the service serving tray housing means (310, see e.g., Col. 1, line 51 to Col. 2, line 7 describing the robot operating to serve and bus restaurant tables),
wherein the service serving tray housing means (310) and serving robot driving means (320a) are formed in a layered structure (see Fig. 3 showing the stacked/layered arrangement) to provide various services and the tableware return function to the customers,
wherein the service serving tray housing means (310) includes:
a service serving tray base frame housing formed of a rectangular base frame and passed through a center of the base frame (see e.g., the vertical supports of housing 310 that support the trays which are arranged to define a rectangular base);
a first service providing means (320d) that is located at an upper end of the service serving tray base frame housing (vertical portion of housing 310, hereinafter “310”) and has one or more service providing holder grooves (see Fig. 4 showing an embodiment having its top tray 440 with drink-specific grooves) formed with a certain diameter and a certain depth so as to exclusively provide drinks and utensils to the customers (see Col. 5, lines 59-65 describing the cup-specific sizing; such a cup holder and a cup therein reads upon a groove sized to provide utensils);
a second service providing means (320c) that is located at a lower portion of the first service providing means (310) and having one or more service providing trays (e.g., trays 440 in Fig. 4) formed in a layered structure (see Fig. 3) so as to provide various services to the customers (e.g., delivery of drinks in the upper tray and food in the lower tray); and
a third service providing means (320b) that is located at a lower portion of the second service providing means (320c), provides various services to the customers in the same way as the second service providing means (320b, e.g., carrying objects to and from customers), and outputs real-time status information of the service serving tray housing means (310, see Col. 7, lines 43-63 describing the system providing real-time status updates of the unit’s workflow vias its communication unit 240 and Col. 11, line 48 to Col. 12, line 3 describing the use of lights to signal a user), so that the store manager can intuitively recognize the real-time status information on the service serving tray housing means (310), and
wherein, through the square-shaped service serving tray housing means (310) and the service providing tray (440), a utilization of the service providing space is maximized (e.g., the square configuration of Fig. 3 provides a larger provision space when compared to a comparably sized round configuration, which reads upon the recited maximized space utilization), so that various services can be easily provided to the customers (i.e., more space allowing for more/faster delivery which reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “easily provided.”
Regarding claim 3, Ha ‘509 discloses that depending on the situation, the service providing tray (320d) for providing various services to the customers is placed on the upper portion (320d; see e.g., Fig. 4) of the first service providing means (310), so that it can be utilized as the same function as the second service providing means (320c) and the third service providing means (320b) that provide the services to the customers (see e.g,. Fig. 4 showing all three levels 430/420/450 used to deliver food), so that it promotes easy structural change of the serving robot service, thereby maximizing utilization and effectiveness of the service serving robot.
Regarding claim 4, Ha ‘509 discloses that the first service providing means (320d), the second service providing means (320c), and the third service providing means (320b) are provided with the service providing trays (e.g., trays 440 in Fig. 4 or trays such as those shown on the right embodiment in Fig. 3) for providing various services to the customers and the tableware return function activation bowls (450, see Fig. 4) capable of collecting the remaining tableware after the service is completed by the customers respectively, depending on circumstances, so that it promotes easy structural change of the serving robot service providing means (310) according to the situation, thereby providing various services as well as activating the tableware return function (e.g., the robot 300 is capable of both delivering food via trays and carrying away dishes/bussing via bowls 450).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha ‘509 in view of Ha et al. (11,279,042; hereinafter “Ha ‘042”).
Regarding claim 2, while Ha ‘509 discloses that the robot includes sensors (see e.g., Col. 4, lines 47-49) used by the control unit (250) to navigate, it does not specifically provide for an upper and lower sensor.
Ha ‘042 teaches another tiered shelf (see Fig. 7) serving robot (100) having on one side of an upper portion (114) of the service serving tray housing means (110), a first sensor element (210 in Fig. 7; 122 in Figs. 2 and 4) is configured, so that real-time obstacles located within a certain range in upper and lower directions based on an arbitrary upper side of the service serving robot can be recognized and avoided (see Fig. 4 showing the detection zone 420-424 offered by the upper sensor), when the service serving robot is driving; and
on one side of the upper portion (see Fig. 2) of the service serving robot driving means (102; see e.g. Fig. 4), a second sensor element (120) is configured, so that real-time obstacles located within a certain range in upper and lower directions and driving floor status information thereof based on an arbitrary lower side of the service serving robot can be recognized and avoided (see Fig. 4 showing the lower sensor cooperating to define the detection zone 420-424 along with detecting an upper zone of table 400), when driving the service serving robot, so that it maximizes the driving safety and stability of the service serving robot by securing the field of view necessary for driving and obstacle avoidance of the service serving robot.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the robot of Ha ‘509 with the multiple vertically-separated navigation sensors taught by Ha ‘402 to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using multiple sensors to form a more accurate detection/scan for vehicle navigation) to known devices (e.g., robots having navigation sensors) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a robot that receives more sensor inputs to determine its navigation path and/or more readily avoid obstacles).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights