DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This Non-Final action is in reply to the application 18/294,812 filed on 02/02/2024
Claims 1- 30 are cancelled
Claim 31 – 49 are rejected and elected
Claim 50 withdrawn
Claims 31 – 50 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on was filed after the mailing date of the 02/02/2024, 04/03/2025 fully considered by examiner The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 31 – 49 of group I is elected, Claim 50 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/17/2026. Examiner acknowledges the applicants notice about the examiner s interview and notice of April 15th with regarding clarity to the claim numbers of the restriction.
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 31 – 49 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 31 requires an interchangeable mission module for an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV), however the originally filed specification is silent regarding how the interchangeable mission module for an unmanned ground vehicle is carried out. It is unclear how the interchangeable mission module applies to the unmanned ground vehicle and how it functions or is applied to the unmanned ground vehicle. As the breadth of the claim fails to include any specific details regarding what steps would or would not be required for the interchangeable mission module, the initial disclose is deemed insufficient so as to properly enable one having ordinary skill to determine how to perform the interchangeable mission module.
The examiner states that the claims dependent on the independent claim are also further rejected based on dependency.
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 31 – 49 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 31 is indefinite because it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. The interchangeable mission module within claim 31 is unclear from understanding the scope of the claim. The examiner is interpreting the claim element of “interchangeable mission module” to be interpreted such as a modular vehicle component attachment that connects to the vehicle. See Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993), for a discussion of the history of omnibus claims and an explanation of why omnibus claims do not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims dependent on independent claim 31 are also further rejected under the same reasoning.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 31 – 33, 45 – 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being unpatentable by DE102018210348 – KNIESS et al. hereinafter as KNIESS
Regarding Claim 31
KNIESS discloses
31. (New) An interchangeable mission module (Fig. 3 – module 3 which is the a modular vehicle component attachment that connects to the vehicle) for an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV). ( Fig. 2 – vehicle 2)
Regarding Claim 32
KNIESS discloses
32. (New) The module ( Fig. 3 – module 3 ) of claim 31, further comprising attachment ( fig. 1 – attachment) means for releasable connection to a UGV. ( Fig. 2 – releasable connect on vehicle 2
Regarding Claim 33
KNIESS discloses
33. (New) The module of claim 32, wherein the attachment means comprise a twist lock. ( Fig. 1 – page 2 - para. 4 - A single-track roller device is provided for mounting on a vehicle, which is set up to accommodate an interchangeable load carrier. The interchangeable charge carrier can be designed as a swap body. The engagement roller device can have an engagement roller and a holding element that rotatably holds it. The holding element can have a mounting section and can be mounted on the vehicle in such a way that the axis of rotation of the engagement roller is oriented essentially vertically. A detection element can be provided on the holding element, which is set up to detect a force effect on the engagement roller in the assembled state.)
Regarding Claim 45
KNIESS discloses
45. (New) The module of claim 31, further comprising jacks for raising and lowering the module. (fig. 3 - module 3 and jacks 20)
Regarding Claim 46
KNIESS discloses
46. (New) The module of claim 31 in combination with a UGV. ( fig. 1 and fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 47
KNIESS discloses
47. (New) The combination of claim 46, configured for non-, semi-, or fully-autonomous docking and/or undocking. ( autonomous page 3 para. 3)
Regarding Claim 48
KNIESS discloses
48. (New) The combination of claim 46, configured for non-, semi-, or fully-autonomous operation. ( autonomous page 3 para. 3)
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(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by DE102018210348 – KNIESS et al. hereinafter as KNIESS in view of US PG Pub 20090252569 – Walker et al. hereinafter as WALKER
Regarding Claim 34
KNIESS discloses claim 31
KNIESS discloses:
wherein the module provides a female component of a
KNIESS discloses of a locking mechanism component, however WALKER also discloses of a module with a locking mechanism component that is a twist lock, WALKER further discloses:
wherein the module provides a male component of a twist lock configured for engagement with a female component of a twist lock. ( Fig. 3 a – c – where in the module from contain the male twist component and the female component would be on the receiving side)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for KNIESS with a module that provides a female component of a twist lock configured for engagement with a male component of a twist lock on a UGV to utilize a module that provides a male component of a twist lock configured for engagement with a female component of a twist lock on a UGV as taught by WALKER. Doing so merely constitutes the substitution of one known male female locking mechanism for another to produce the predictable result of a secure and convenient locking mechanism (MPEP 2143, subsection I, B).
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by DE10218210348 – KNIESS et al. hereinafter as KNIESS in view of US PG 20080093131 – Couture et al. hereinafter as COUTURE
Regarding Claim 35
KNIESS discloses claim 31
KNIESS discloses a UGV with a module, COUTURE disclose of a UGV with module further including the following:
further comprising one or more of: an onboard power pack( 092 – fig. 3 ); a sideways offset arm;(600) a load bed or cargo area(080); rear skids for preventing sub-surface work. ( Fig. 13 )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for KNIESS with a UGV that has a module to utilize a module that includes an onboard power pack, a sideways offset arm, cargo area as taught by WALKER. This would allow KNEISS to the ability to improve the utility and modularity of module payloads and functionality (para. 0005 - configured to support a functional, securely mounted and integrated payload (in some cases, modular payloads, unconnected payloads and/or functional payload), to the chassis)
Claim(s) 36 – 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by DE10218210348 – KNIESS et al. hereinafter as KNIESS in view of US PG Pubs 20170328021 – miller et al. hereinafter as MILLER
Regarding 36
KNIESS discloses of MODULE with UGV, MILLER discloses a vehicle with a blade, MILLER discloses:
36. (New) The module of claim 31, further comprising a blade. ( fig. 2 - 56)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for KNIESS with a UGV module to utilize a blade by MILLER. This would allow KNEISS to utilize a blade to move material from a surface ( MILLER – para. 0002 and 0010 )
Regarding Claim 37
KNIESS / MILLER discloses claim 36
MILLER discloses the combination of blade as taught in claim 36
37. (New) The module of claim 36, wherein the blade has a curved profile. ( fig. 2 – 22A – curved profile)
Regarding Claim 38
KNIESS / MILLER discloses claim 37
MILLER discloses the combination of blade as taught in claim 37
38. (New) The module of claim 37, wherein a top edge of the blade is generally vertically above a bottom edge. ( fig. 2 wherein the top edge 62 is vertically above the bottom edge 22C)
Regarding Claim 39
KNIESS / MILLER discloses claim 36
MILLER discloses the combination of blade as taught in claim 37
wherein the blade is formed as a V- blade. ( para. 3 v-blade)
Regarding Claim 40
KNIESS / MILLER discloses claim 36
MILLER discloses the combination of blade as taught in claim 36
40. (New) The module of claim 36, wherein the blade ( fig. 2 – 22) is connected so as to form a low side real hitch point. (fig. 2 – para. 0026 – attachment point 0036)
Regarding Claim 41
KNIESS / MILLER discloses claim 36
MILLER discloses the combination of blade as taught in claim 36
41. (New) The module of claim 36, wherein the blade ( fig. 2 – 22) is movable between a lowered, operating position and a raised, stowed position. ( para. 0013 – where in the plow blade can be raised or lowered states )
Regarding Claim 42
KNIESS / MILLER discloses claim 41
MILLER discloses the combination of blade as taught in claim 41
42. (New) The module of claim 41, wherein the blade is movable to an intermediate position. (para. 0013 – where in between a raised and lowered states there is an intermediate state)
Regarding Claim 43
KNIESS / MILLER discloses claim 42
MILLER discloses the combination of blade as taught in claim 42
43. (New) The module of claim 42, wherein when the blade is the stowed, operating or intermediate position the blade provides protection for the equipment. ( para. 0034 – where in the blade can be raised or lowered the skid shoes to adjust for surfaces characteristics)
Regarding Claim 44
KNIESS / MILLER discloses claim 36
MILLER discloses the combination of blade as taught in claim 36
44. (New) The module of claim 36, wherein the pitch of the blade is adjustable. (para. 0028 – where in the angle of blades can be adjusted)
Claim(s) 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by DE10218210348 – KNIESS et al. hereinafter as KNIESS in view of US PG 20100106344 – Edwards et al. hereinafter as EDWARDS
Regarding Claim 49
KNIESS / EDWARDS discloses claim 31
KNIESS discloses of module and UGV, EDWARDS discloses of obstacle clearance module mission pack for integration with UGV , EDWARDS further discloses:
49. (New) The module of claim 31 and configured as an obstacle clearance modular mission pack for integration with a UGV. (module pieces of equipment for integration with a UGV Para. 0010)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for KNIESS with a module on a UGV to utilize configured as an obstacle clearance modular mission pack for integration with a UGV by EDWARDS. This would allow KNEISS to utilize working attachments such as a blade to adapt to specific working operating conditions such as forestry , wildfire, military and power applications and land management ( EDWARDS – para. 0026 )
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-9511. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 5712720547. 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.
/A.H.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights