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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 204623601) in view of Kaindl (US 20200334961) and Bakkar (US 20200352801).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches an unmanned, non-autonomous response robot (Abstract) comprising:
two track assemblies operatively associated with the frame (Paragraph 12, Fig. 3 of Wu);
a video capture device 3 (Paragraph 49) capturing video input that is disseminated in real-time through the wireless router (Paragraph 52); and
a remote control 6 operatively associated with the two track assemblies (Paragraphs 12 and 51; Fig. 3).
Wu teaches a frame 101 defining an explosion-proof compartment storing a wireless router 5 having antennas protruding outside of the frame (Paragraph 54, Fig. 3).
Wu does not teach the frame defining a bullet-proof compartment.
However, Kaindl teaches an unmanned, non-autonomous response device 200 comprising: a frame defining a bullet-proof compartment ([0059] of Kaindl) storing a wireless router having antennas protruding outside of the frame ([0006] and [0044] of Kaindl).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-autonomous response robot of Wu to have a bullet-proof frame as Kaindl teaches in order to advantageously protect the robot from an active shooter or other threat ([0059] of Kaindl).
Wu as modified does not expressly teach the video capture device enabled with 360-degree visibility.
However, Bakkar teaches a portable ambulance for multi-casualty incidents (Abstract of Bakkar) wherein the portable ambulance includes a video capture device 156 enabled with 360-degrees visibility ([0136], Figs. 27A-27C of Bakkar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified non-autonomous response device of Wu/Kaindl to have the video capture device enabled for 360-degree visibility as Bakkar teaches in order to advantageously provide full surveillance at the site ([0133] of Bakkar).
Regarding claim 2, Kaindl does not teach the robot further comprising an audio transducer.
However, Kaindl teaches the robot further comprising an audio transducer and speaker disposed in the bullet-proof compartment ([0099] of Kaindl), wherein the audio transducer and speaker enable negotiations through the remote control 214 ([0099] of Kaindl).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified non-autonomous response device of Wu/et.al. to have the audio transducer of Kaindl in order to advantageously identify a target to the user ([0099] of Kaindl).
Regarding claim 3, Kaindl as modified teaches the robot further comprising an audio system ([0099] of Kaindl; See claim 2 rejection above), a video-data communication system 3 (Paragraph 49), a motor speed controller 106 (Paragraphs 20-21, Fig. 3 of Wu), a power source 4 (Paragraphs 50 and 54) and a motor (Paragraphs 50 and 53) disposed in the bullet-proof compartment (Figs. 3-4; See claim 1 rejection above; the explosion proof compartment 101 of Wu is modified to be bulletproof and contains the listed components).
Regarding claim 4, Kaindl as modified teaches the robot further comprising a top plate 102 of the frame 1 providing a mounting grid (Paragraph 47, Figs 3-4; the various components are shown mounted on the top plate).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Kaindl and Bakkar, and further in view of Lin (US 10129937).
Regarding claim 5, Wu does not teach a lighting system.
However, Kaindl teaches a non-autonomous response device 200 further comprising a lighting system ([0140] of Kaindl) disposed in the bullet-proof compartment ([0099] of Kaindl), wherein the lighting system provides a strobe light element and a blinding light element ([0064] of Kaindl).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified non-autonomous response robot of Wu/et.al. to have the strove and blinding light elements of Kaindl in order to advantageously illuminate a threat location of disrupt a threat perpetrator ([0064]).
Kaindl as modified does not expressly teach the lighting system providing a blinding light element with a luminous flux up to 200 lumens.
However, Lin teaches a lighting system wherein a light element provides a unit of luminous flux up to 200 lumens (Col. 19, lines 31-33 of Lin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified lighting system of Wu/et.al. to provide a luminous flux up to 200 lumens as Lin teaches in order to advantageously provide a bright illuminating light which is in compliance with governmental building codes and industry standard lighting (Col. 19, lines 28-33 of Lin).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Kaindl and Bakkar, and further in view of Ragula (US 20180222059).
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches a method for negotiating with an active shooter, the method comprising:
providing an unmanned, non-autonomous response robot (Abstract);
providing an operator with the remote control 6 (Paragraph 45); and
moving, by way of the remote control 6, the unmanned, non-autonomous response robot to intercept the active shooter (Paragraphs 12 and 51; Fig. 3).
Wu as modified teaches an audio transducer (See claim 2 rejection above) but does not teach conducting a negotiation by way of the communication system.
However, Ragula teaches a mobile law enforcement communications system with a wirelessly controlled deployable robot ([0051] of Ragula) conducting a negotiation between a negotiator and the active shooter by way of the audio transducer, the audio speaker 160 ([0035] of Ragula), and the communication system ([0008]-[0009] of Ragula).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified non-autonomous response device of Wu/et.al. to enable two-way communication between the user and a perpetrator such as an active shooter as Ragula teaches in order to advantageously provide an on-site interaction interface for communication in an on-site law enforcement interaction ([0010] of Ragula).
Regarding the limitations of “for negotiating with an active shooter”, “to intercept the active shooter”, and “conducting a negotiation between a negotiator and the active shooter by way of the audio transducer, the audio speaker, and the communication system” is functional language. “[Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.). Wu/et.al. discloses the structural limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090120273 teaches a non-autonomous bullet-proof robot.
US 20230243615 teaches a remotely-controlled non-autonomous weaponized robot.
CN 110509291 teaches a tracked response robot with video capturing capabilities.
CN 111678384 teaches a non-autonomous remotely-controlled tracked robot with a bullet-proof panel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611