Detailed Office Action
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 10/20/2025. The applicant has amended claims 1-15 and 17. The applicant has cancelled claim 19. Claims 1-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Pro Se Application
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant has presented no arguments. Applicant’s amendments are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/20/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Regarding Claims 1-10, Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/20/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth regarding the use of “can be” as an indefinite term. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/20/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth regarding the use of “navigation algorithms” as an indefinite term. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/20/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth regarding the lack of antecedent basis for the term “intelligent control system”. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 14, Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/20/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth regarding the lack of antecedent basis for the term “cameras and sensors”. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/20/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth regarding the lack of antecedent basis for the term “the sensors”. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 17, Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/20/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth regarding the use of “comprehensive” as an indefinite term. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, Claim 17 remains objected to for Improper Multiple Dependency, see detailed objection below.
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/20/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections previously set forth regarding the failure to meet the written description requirement for the term “navigation algorithms”. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103:
Regarding Claims 1-14, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Regarding Claims 15, 16, and 18, Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/20/2025 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections previously set forth.
Please see detailed rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Sampling Unit” in Claim 15 is being interpreted as air intake ports and air filters.
“Safety Mechanism” in Claim 13 is being interpreted as obstacle sensors.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, Claim 17 has not been further treated on the merits.
Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), "Any dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim (which is referred to as a "multiple dependent claim") shall refer to such other claims in the alternative only”. For example, as currently amended, Claim 17 refers both to Claim 15 and Claim 1.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the exemplary language “such as” before listing various parameters to monitor, and thus renders the claims indefinite as it fails to distinctly point out exactly what the invention is claiming to do. Alternatively, a phrase like “…for monitoring environmental parameters including temperature, humidity, gas concentrations, and airborne virus content” may overcome such indefinite issues.
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.
(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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu et al (English Translation CN 115338884 A), hereafter referred to as Lu.
Regarding Claim 15, Lu teaches a method for sampling air in a live pet study (see at least Lu [English Translation , Abstract] The invention claims a sheep house inspection robot…The invention according to the preset navigation route, automatically walking, detecting the number of biological particles in the air)
comprising the steps of:
using a manual control or program to move a pet enclosure-interacting robot comprising a sampling unit within an enclosure containing animals while collecting air samples using the sampling unit (see at least Lu [pg.2 ¶ 4] A sheep house inspection robot, comprising a robot main body, an omni-directional wheel driving assembly…the robot main body is equipped with a gas environment detecting device, for detecting the surrounding gas…a navigation control device and an industrial control machine, the bottom of the robot main body is fixed with a driving assembly)
monitoring environmental parameters using biosensors and cameras (see at least Lu [pg.6 ¶ 6] sampling the air on the walking path of the vehicle body, at the same time measuring the content of harmful gas, measuring the temperature and humidity of the air, detecting the content of the magazine particles in the air, and wirelessly transmitting the detection data to the sheep health monitoring management platform, if there is abnormal parameter, the monitoring platform sends the alarm information…using the network camera to collect the video data, storing the video data to the industrial control computer, the video data can be derived from the industrial control computer, so as to observe the feeding state, the movable state, it can remotely observe the appearance feature of the sheep in the sheep) The air sampling device that collects biological particles is analogous to a biosensor.
avoiding collisions with obstacles or the pets using a combination of navigation techniques including route following and obstacle detection sensors (see at least Lu [pg.2 ¶ 4, pg.3 ¶ 3 and Abstract] a navigation control device and an industrial control machine, the bottom of the robot main body is fixed with a driving assembly...the navigation control device further comprises a one-dimensional laser sensor and a large sensor bracket, the one-dimensional laser sensor is fixed on the bottom plate through the large sensor bracket, for judging whether there is obstacle…the navigation control device is used for navigating the robot main body. The invention according to the preset navigation route, automatically walking).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (CN 115338884 A) in view of Hartung et al US 20190307106 A1. Hereafter referred to as Lu and Hartung respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Lu teaches a pet enclosure-interacting robot, operated in an enclosure with pets (see at least Lu [English Translation pg.2 ¶ 4, 8 and pg.3 ¶ 9] A sheep house inspection robot, comprising a robot main body, an omni-directional wheel driving assembly…the robot main body is equipped with a gas environment detecting device, for detecting the surrounding gas…the gas environment detecting device comprises an upper shell, an upper cover, a fan, detector air suction pipe…the gas environment detector with a ventilating fan, it can be used for sampling from the detector absorbing port…it can remotely observe the appearance feature of the sheep)
comprising:
a control system to:
control the movement of the robot to avoid collisions with obstacles or pets using a combination of manual directions, route following, and obstacle detection sensors (see at least Lu [pg.2 ¶ 4, pg.5 ¶ 9, pg.6 ¶ 1, pg.5 ¶ 7, and Abstract] a navigation control device and an industrial control machine, the bottom of the robot main body is fixed with a driving assembly…driver 3 for controlling the rotating speed and direction of the driving assembly driving wheel, so as to control the walking path of the robot (magnetic strip sensor 20 the vehicle body deviates from the buried magnetic strip data is transmitted to the PLC controller 37…and the advancing direction and the advancing speed of the robot are controlled by adjusting the rotating speed and the turning direction of the driving motor of each wheel... the navigation control device further comprises a one-dimensional laser sensor and a large sensor bracket, the one-dimensional laser sensor is fixed on the bottom plate through the large sensor bracket, for judging whether there is obstacle...the navigation control device is used for navigating the robot main body. The invention according to the preset navigation route, automatically walking) The magnetic strip and driver combination is analogous to manual directions as the path of the magnetic strip is predetermined and decided by a human operator, the one-dimensional laser for object detection is analogous to obstacle detection sensors, and the preset navigation route is analogous to route following.
However, while Lu teaches interacting with pets and being in close proximity to them while collecting samples, it does not explicitly teach interacting with pets through contact.
Hartung, in the same field as the endeavor teaches a control system to: interact with pets through contact (see at least Hartung [¶ 126-128] Robot 3 can be equipped with an articulated robot arm 16 provided with motors to give 6DoF movements…The robotic arm 16 can be equipped with a hand or claw on a remote end thereof and can be driven under the control of the processing engine 27 to take samples of food and/or of bodily wastes such as faeces or vomit or collect loose eggs. In certain embodiments, the robotic arm 16 is configured for picking up and collecting dead or sick birds…the robot 3 is preferably adapted to determine if certain broilers [chickens] are showing signs of sickness or other distress, are overweight and suffering from painful burns, or painful lameness or are dead or dying. Once such a broiler has been identified it can be marked with a paint gun 17) Picking up sick birds with a robotic arm and marking certain birds with paint are analogous to interacting with pets through contact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Lu to contain a system for interacting with pets through contact with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of interacting with the pets in ways that can provide useful data that cannot be done when interacting with pets from a distance.
Further, while Lu teaches collecting direct air samples from pets while traversing their enclosure, it does note explicitly teach collecting airborne virus samples.
Glasbrenner, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches a control system to: collect direct and airborne samples from the pets (see at least Glasbrenner [¶ 78, 30] The body 2102 of the mobile robot 2100 may include a sample collection system 2106. The sample collection system 2106 is configured such that air passes into the sample collection system 2106 while the mobile robot 2100 is traversing the environment. As air passes into the sample collection system 2106, the air is incident on (e.g., passes through) one or more collection mediums 2108 of the sample collection system 2106. The one or more collection mediums 2108 are configured to collect one or more pathogens that are suspended within the air. One example of a collection medium 2108 includes an air filter having a pore size and/or properties (e.g., electrostatic properties) that encourage collection of one or more pathogens...samples may include one or more pathogens (e.g., one or more of a virus, bacteria, fungus, archaea, and/or any other zoonotic organism)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Lu to contain a system for collecting direct and airborne virus samples from the pets with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the health and safety of the pets by collecting data that may indicate if they have a dangerous virus.
Regarding Claim 2, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lu further teaches the pet enclosure-interacting robot further comprising a stable and maneuverable robotic platform (see at least Lu [pg.2 ¶ 4] The bottom of the robot main body of the invention is fixed with a driving assembly).
Regarding Claim 4, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lu further teaches the pet enclosure-interacting robot further comprising a compact design that allows for precise positioning and movement within laboratory settings (see at least Lu [pg.3 ¶ 11] the whole machine occupies small space and compact structure).
Regarding Claim 7, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lu further teaches the pet enclosure-interacting robot further comprising cameras and biosensors to capture environmental measurements and establish correlations between environmental conditions and study objectives (see at least Lu [pg.2 ¶ 4 and pg.3 ¶ 9 and pg.6 ¶ 6 ] the robot main body is equipped with a camera rotating lifting device, the camera rotating lifting device controls the rotation and lifting of the camera system,...and using the network camera to collect the video data, storing the video data to the industrial control computer, the video data can be derived from the industrial control computer, so as to observe the feeding state, the movable state, it can remotely observe the appearance feature of the sheep in the sheep.... detecting the number of biological particles in the air.... sampling the air on the walking path of the vehicle body…and wirelessly transmitting the detection data to the sheep health monitoring management platform, if there is abnormal parameter, the monitoring platform sends the alarm information).
Regarding Claim 8, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lu further teaches the pet enclosure-interacting robot further comprising an intelligent control system programmed to control the movement, speed, and stability of the robot during air sampling (see at least Lu [pg.3 ¶ 5] the navigation control device further comprises a PLC controller, an expansion module and a driver, the PLC controller, the expansion module and the driver are used for controlling the rotating speed and direction of the driving wheel of the driving assembly, so as to control the walking path of the robot (magnetic strip sensor transmits the data of the vehicle body away from the buried magnetic strip to the PLC controller, the PLC controller corrects according to the deviation data by algorithm, the expansion module sends the pulse signal to the PLC controller, by adjusting the rotating speed and steering of each wheel driving motor to control the travel direction and travel speed of the robot....the sliding table driving motor drives the sliding table screw rod to rotate, the sliding table screw rod drives the sliding table sliding block to move up and down, so as to drive the camera system to move up and down, so as to control the lifting of the camera system).
Regarding Claim 9, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lu further teaches the pet enclosure-interacting robot further comprising movement algorithms that allow the robot to move in a pre-determined path, and obstacle detection sensors paired with safety protocols to avoid collisions with obstacles or animals (see at least Lu [pg.2 ¶ 4 and pg.3 ¶ 3, and Abstract] a navigation control device and an industrial control machine, the bottom of the robot main body is fixed with a driving assembly...the navigation control device further comprises a one-dimensional laser sensor and a large sensor bracket, the one-dimensional laser sensor is fixed on the bottom plate through the large sensor bracket, for judging whether there is obstacle… preset navigation route, automatically walking).
Regarding Claim 10, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lu further teaches the pet enclosure-interacting robot further comprising a power supply for providing energy to the robot during operation (see at least Lu [pg.3 ¶ 6] the navigation control device further comprises a battery, electric quantity display screen and emergency stop button, the electric quantity display screen, emergency stop button and battery for each electric device of the robot power supply or power off).
Regarding Claim 13, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lu further teaches the pet enclosure-interacting robot further comprising safety mechanisms to maintain stability and prevent harm to study subjects or objects within the enclosure (see at least Lu [pg.3 ¶ 3, 6] the navigation control device further comprises…and an emergency stop button…the one-dimensional laser sensor is fixed on the bottom plate through the large sensor bracket, for judging whether there is obstacle).
Regarding Claim 14, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lu further teaches the pet enclosure-interacting robot further comprising the sensors and cameras that provide real-time data on environmental parameters, enabling immediate analysis and adjustments during the live animal study (see at least Lu [pg.6 ¶ 6] at the same time, along the working route, the observed image stored to the industrial computer 32. after starting the robot, automatically starting the gas environment detector starting the fan 30, sampling the air on the walking path of the vehicle body, at the same time measuring the content of harmful gas, measuring the temperature and humidity of the air, detecting the content of the magazine particles in the air, and wirelessly transmitting the detection data to the sheepcot health monitoring management platform, if there is abnormal parameter, the monitoring platform sends the alarm information).
Claims 3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (CN 115338884 A) in view of Hartung et al (US 20190307106 A1), Glasbrenner (US 20220241984 A1), and Liu et al (English Translation CN 111238886 A). Hereafter referred to as Lu, Hartung, Glasbrenner, and Liu respectively.
Regarding Claim 3, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, while Lu teaches omni-directional wheels, Lu does not explicitly teach the pet enclosure-interacting robot further comprising wheels or tracks for leveling and adapting to different surfaces ensuring slow and smooth movement.
Liu, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches the pet enclosure-interacting robot further comprising wheels or tracks for leveling and adapting to different surfaces ensuring slow and smooth movement (see at least Liu [English Translation pg.2 ¶ 6 -8] all-terrain crawler sampling robot, the walking working vehicle is tracked).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Lu to contain a system for allowing the robot to use its wheels or tracks for adapting to different surfaces with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the function of the vehicle by allowing the vehicle to traverse difficult or inconvenient terrains as discussed in Liu (see at least Liu [pg.2 ¶ 4] the large-scale pig farm or farms and other farm personnel not easy entry, especially under the condition, personnel frequently enter affecting yield or infection period personnel cannot enter the epidemic disease research staff to be corresponding operating ground robot for indoor and outdoor environment for collecting and detecting the gas or other samples).
Regarding Claim 11, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, while Lu teaches the automatic traversal of the robot, it does not explicitly teach an intelligent control system capable of autonomous operation or remote control by an operator.
Liu, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches an intelligent control system capable of autonomous operation or remote control by an operator (see at least Liu [pg.2 ¶ 3] all-terrain crawler robot is a machine device for automatically performing the job, program, it not only can receive human command, but also operation beforehand, but also according to the principle guiding action to artificial intelligence technology).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Lu to contain a system for autonomously controlling the robot with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the functionality of the device by making its control autonomous, eliminating the need for a human operator saving both time and labor.
Regarding Claim 12, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teach all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, while Lu teaches wireless communication between the robot and the distal sheep monitoring station, it does not explicitly teach further comprising wireless communication capabilities for remote monitoring and control of the robot.
Liu, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches further comprising wireless communication capabilities for remote monitoring and control of the robot (see at least Liu [pg.4 ¶ 4 and pg.5 ¶ 5] the image transmission module 10 is wireless image transmission module 10...the transmission of the image signal through the image transmitting module 10, so as to realize the remote visual control...the operator by remote controlling the walking working vehicle 1 moves in the sampling area, moves to the appointed position by the remote controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Lu to contain a system for wirelessly monitoring and controlling the robot with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the functionality of the device by making its control both remote and wireless, eliminating the need for a human operator to be near the robot during its operation, saving both time and labor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (CN 115338884 A) in view of Hartung et al (US 20190307106 A1), Glasbrenner (US 20220241984 A1), and Zhang et al (English Translation CN 108614047 A). Hereafter referred to as Lu, Hartung, Glasbrenner, and Zhang respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, Lu does not explicitly teach a sampling mechanism with multiple air intake ports strategically placed to capture air samples at different heights and positions within the pet enclosure.
Zhang, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches a sampling mechanism with multiple air intake ports strategically placed to capture air samples at different heights and positions within the pet enclosure (see at least Zhang [English Translation pg.6 ¶ 6-11] the gas detection chamber 1 in samples comprising the following three conditions: (1) along the height direction sampling of the detection chamber 1, at this time, at least two gas sampler 4 set along the height direction of the detection chamber 1…(3) the layering sampler and uniformly sampling; at this time, at least two gas sampler 4, which are respectively located at different positions along the height direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Lu to contain a system for using air intakes at multiple heights to take air samples within the animal enclosure at different heights with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the accuracy of the taken samples as discussed in Zhang (see at least Zhang [pg.6 ¶ 6-11] sample gas can be avoided due to layering phenomenon or detection chamber 1 inner gas mixed unevenly affect the detection result of the gas concentration so as to improve the accuracy of the measuring result).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (CN 115338884 A) in view of Hartung et al (US 20190307106 A1), Glasbrenner (US 20220241984 A1), and Womble et al (US 20200178495 A1). Hereafter referred to as Lu, Hartung, Glasbrenner, and Womble respectively.
Regarding Claim 6, Lu in view of Hartung and Glasbrenner teach all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. While Lu teaches the biosensors for monitoring temperature and humidity, and gas concentrations, and Glasbrenner teaches monitoring airborne virus content, neither explicitly teach the use of monitoring all four in combination with each other.
However, Womble, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches biosensors for monitoring environmental parameters such as temperature, humidity, gas concentrations, and airborne virus content (see at least Womble [¶ 116 and Womble’s Claim 1] Further contemplated is the use of the aerial drone for detection and protection from harmful environmental substances such as nuclear radiation, and bio, viral, fungal, or chemical agents, to prevent exposure to these toxic agents…A smart bed for an animal, comprising: a microprocessor; and at least one sensor communicatively coupled with the microprocessor configured to measure at least one of ambient temperature, humidity, moisture, sound, animal temperature, animal weight, animal dimensions, and animal movement; and a robotic animal caregiver including a housing and a microprocessor in communication with the wireless data communication system of the smart bed) The disclosure in Womble discusses a robotic drone in communication with a smart bed for an animal, this robotic system as a whole has the capability to monitor temperature, humidity, gas concentrations, and viral agents in the air.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Lu to contain a system for biosensors for monitoring environmental parameters such as temperature, humidity, gas concentrations, and airborne virus content with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of constantly monitoring the ambient conditions of the room and the contents of airborne virus to improve the health and safety of the pets being monitored.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (CN 115338884 A) in view of Liu et al (English Translation CN 111238886 A). Hereafter referred to as Lu and Liu respectively.
Regarding Claim 16, Lu teaches all limitations of Claim 15 as set forth above. However, while Lu teaches wireless communication between the robot and the distal sheep monitoring station, it does not explicitly teach further comprising wireless communication capabilities for remote monitoring and control of the robot.
Liu, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches further comprising wireless communication capabilities for remote monitoring and control of the robot (see at least Liu [pg.4 ¶ 4 and pg.5 ¶ 5] the image transmission module 10 is wireless image transmission module 10...the transmission of the image signal through the image transmitting module 10, so as to realize the remote visual control...the operator by remote controlling the walking working vehicle 1 moves in the sampling area, moves to the appointed position by the remote controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Lu to contain a system for wirelessly monitoring and controlling the robot with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the functionality of the device by making its control both remote and wireless, eliminating the need for a human operator to be near the robot during its operation, saving both time and labor.
Regarding Claim 18, Lu teaches all limitations of Claim 15 as set forth above. However, Lu does not explicitly teach wherein the navigation techniques also include human manual remote-control.
Liu, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the navigation techniques also include human manual remote-control (see at least Liu [pg.5 ¶ 5 the operator by remote controlling the walking working vehicle 1 moves in the sampling area, moves to the appointed position by the remote controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Lu to contain a system for human controlled remote control with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the functionality of the device by allowing a human to control it remotely, eliminating the need for a human operator to be near the robot during its operation, saving both time and labor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH A YANOSKA whose telephone number is (703)756-5891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 5:00pm (Pacific Time).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/JOSEPH ANDERSON YANOSKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664