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 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 1-27 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. The term “identical” in claims 1, 21 and 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “identical” 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. It is unclear from the claim language, read in light of the specification, whether a term “identical” requires robots of the same dimension, design and/or function.
Claim 6 recites a phrase “two other corners of the body” in line 5. The phrase in unclear whether “two other corners” refers to two corners not already referenced as “opposite corners” in line 3 or some other pair or corners.
Claim 4 recites a phrase “positions adjacent a pair of opposite faces of a body of the robot” and claim 6 recites a phrase “positions part-way along said opposite faces”. The terms “adjacent” and “part-way” are not defined in the claims and do not have any objective bound in the disclosure.
Claim 15 recites a term “vicinity” in line 3, which is a relative term with no defined boundary in the claim or in the disclosure.
Claim 20 discloses a phrase “a plurality of robots”, which is unclear if these are the same identical robots of claim 1.
Claim 21 cites a phrase “wherein the first and second robots each comprise a drive for moving itself and the first robot comprising a lift mechanism” is grammatically incorrect because the phrase switches verb forms from comprise to comprising which leaves it unclear whether the first robot having a lift mechanism is actually a part of the claim. Also, it’s unclear whether “another identical robot” in lines 6 and 7 is actually a second robot.
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, 2, 4, 5, 11, 15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chung et al. US 2023/0286344 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Chung et al. disclose
A robot (fig. 1, transporting robot) [0029] comprising. a drive (item 52) for moving the robot over a surface [0069, 0072, 0078].; and a lift mechanism (fig. 7, item 30) for elevating the robot above the surface such that another identical robot (item A) is able to move underneath the elevated robot [0097-0100].
Regarding claim 2, Chung et al. disclose
,wherein the lift mechanism comprises a plurality of legs (fig. 7, item 30) configured to be laterally displaced into and out of a footprint of the remainder of the robot and to extend lengthwise [0032, 0099] (see fig. 7 for details).
Regarding claim 4, Chung et al. disclose
, wherein the plurality of legs are configured to be displaced out of the footprint of the remainder of the robot to positions adjacent a pair of opposite faces of a body of the robot [0032, 0099] (see fig. 7 for details).
Regarding claim 5, Chung et al. disclose
wherein the positions are each at an edge of the opposite faces that defines a corner of the body of the robot [0032, 0099] (see fig. 7 for details).
Regarding claim 11, Chung et al. disclose
,wherein the drive is a holonomic drive [0072, 0093] (The drive is holonomic because of three axes).
Regarding claim 15, Chung et al. disclose one or more sensors (fig. 6A, item 13) for determining its location and/or movement and/or for detecting objects and/or other robots in its vicinity [0094].
Regarding claim 27, Chung et al. disclose
A non-transitory storage media comprising computer instructions executable by a processor [0042] of a robot that comprises a drive for moving itself and a lift mechanism for elevating itself above a surface such that another identical robot is able to move underneath (see claim 1 rejection for details), the computer instructions when executed by the processor causing the robot to elevate itself above a surface [0095].
(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.
Claim 1, 12-14 and 16-26 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goren et al. US 10,472,172 B2 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Goren et al. disclose
A robot (figs. 1, 2 and 4) comprising. a drive (item 54) for moving the robot over a surface; and a lift mechanism (item 70) for elevating the robot above the surface such that another identical robot is able to move underneath the elevated robot (see column 9, lines 13-50).
Regarding claim 12, Goren et al. disclose
,wherein the drive comprises a plurality of wheels configured to pivot about vertical axes (column 9, lines 38-50).
Regarding claim 13, Goren et al. disclose, wherein the drive is configured to move the robot across upper surfaces of one or more identical robots (column 9, lines 21-37).
Regarding claim 14, Goren et al. disclose one or more temporarily deployable bridging supports (fig. 4, item 68) for laterally extending at least part of an upper surface of the robot (column 9, lines 20-37).
Regarding claim 16, Goren et al. disclose, wherein the robot is a container for holding objects (column 9, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 17, Goren et al. disclose, wherein the robot is an enclosed container for holding objects (column 9, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 18, Goren et al. disclose, wherein the robot defines a structural frame for receiving objects (column 9, lines 20-37).
Regarding claim 19, Goren et al. disclose one or more stacking connectors (item 64) for connecting a base of the robot to an upper surface of another identical robot, and/or for connecting an upper surface of the robot to a base of an identical robot (column 9, lines 9-37).
Regarding claim 20, Goren et al. disclose
A system (fig. 1) comprising- a plurality of robots according to claim 1 (see fig. 1 for detail).
Regarding claim 21, Goren et al. disclose
A method of operating a multi-robot system (figs. 1, 2 and 4), the method comprising- a first robot (item 32) elevating itself relative to a surface and a second (item 36) such robot moving into a space beneath the first robot, wherein the first and second robots each comprise a drive (item 54) for moving itself and the first robot comprising a lift mechanism (item 72) for elevating itself above a surface such that another identical robot is able to move underneath it (see column 9, lines 13-50).
Regarding claim 22, Goren et al. disclose the second robot positioning itself beneath the first robot (see fig. 2 for detail, column 9, lines 20-37).
Regarding claim 23, Goren et al. disclose wherein the second robot moves from an initial location to a subsequent location on an opposite side of the first robot via the space beneath the first robot (see column 8, lines 65-67, column 9, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 24, Goren et al. disclose, wherein the first robot elevates itself relative to the surface in response to a received signal (current motion segment) (column 9, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 25, Goren et al. disclose, wherein after receiving the signal, the first robot evaluates whether elevating itself relative to the surface is feasible and elevates itself relative to the surface upon determining that doing so is feasible (column 6, lines 36-50).
Regarding claim 26, Goren et al. disclose wherein the first robot receives the signal from the second robot or from a control system (motors and actuators) (see column 9, lines 20-37).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. in a view of ZHAO CN 102897246 A.
Regarding claim 7, Chung does not disclose but ZHAO disclose wherein the plurality of legs (legs A and B) are configured to be displaced into and out of the footprint of the robot linearly and/or by rotating the legs about an axis parallel to their lengths [0014, 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to displace the legs as disclosed by ZHAO in Chung’s teachings to avoid the condition of the lock (ZHAO’s abstract section).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. in a view of Lim et al. US 9669553 B2.
Regarding claim 8, Chung does not disclose but Lim et al. disclose one or more connectors (coupling/decoupling apparatus) for connecting an end of at least one of the legs to an opposite end of a leg of another identical robot and/or to at least one connection point on the surface (column 3, lines 57-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add one or more connectors as disclosed by Lim in Chung’s teachings to ease coupling/decoupling the robot foot.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. in a view of LI et al. US 20090315501 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Chung does not disclose but LI et al. disclose an electrical connector (fig. 2, item 170) or inductive charger at at least one of a lower end of at least one of the legs, an upper end of at least one of the legs, a bottom surface of the robot, or a top surface of the robot [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an electrical connector as disclosed by LI in Chung’s teachings to charge a power source of the robot.
Regarding claim 10, Chung does not disclose but LI et al. disclose an electrical connector (fig. 2, item 170) or inductive charger on each of an upper surface and a lower surface of the robot, the electrical connector or inductive charger on the lower surface of the robot conductively connected to the electrical connector or inductive charger on the upper surface of the robot in a manner that facilitates through charging [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an electrical connector as disclosed by LI in Chung’s teachings to charge a power source of the robot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wiggerich (US 2019/0202563 A1) discloses a device for airlifting an object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights