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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “each end portion having a forward extending collar portions”, does each end portion have plural collar portions or does each end portion have a singular collar portion; the claim mixes singular/plural and creates ambiguity as to the number of “collar portion(s)”.
Regarding claim 4, the claim states “each forward extending collar portions” which again mixes a singular portion to more than one collar portions; the claim mixes singular/plural and creates ambiguity as to the number of “collar portion(s)”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the axial distance" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the one or more forward facing sensors" in line 9 and “operations” in line 10. Is applicant referring to the operational components or is “operations” a new term that should be properly introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the circular recess" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,10,15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sellner (US 10046819). Sellner discloses a throwable robot having a pair of drive wheels (52) supported by a chassis (1) extending between the drive wheels (see figure 1), a rearwardly extending tail (see figures 1 and 3) attached to a rearward facing central portion of the chassis (see figure 3), the chassis comprising a main chassis component (center of the chassis) with a pair of axial end portions (ends of the chassis near the drive wheels, see figure 1) adjacent each drive wheel, each end portion having a forward extending collar portions (see end members with multiple orifices in figure 8) with an inward and forward facing chassis recess (the orifices in figure 8) defined between the forward extending collar portions, a forward chassis panel (see figure 4 as it display the forward clamshell part) attached to the main chassis component and extending continuously between the two collar portions in said inward and forward facing chassis recess (see figures 1,2 and 4), the main chassis component (center of the chassis) and the forward chassis panel (see figure 4) defining an interior compartment in the chassis (seen in figures 1,2 and 4 as the interior compartment can be seen as the space behind the forward panel/the forward clamshell part) where the forward clamshell is not present), the forward panel having a plurality of access portals (see openings for portals in figure 4) for a camera (22,119, see figure 4) and illumination components (19) positioned in the interior compartment.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the interior compartment is isolated (as the compartment is in front of the batteries 74) and sealed from one or more drive motors (49) that drive the drive wheels.
Regarding claim 10, Sellner discloses a throwable robot having an elongate body (shown in figure 1) positioned between two wheels (52), the body comprising a chassis (1,2) with a central axis extending therethrough that defines the exterior surface of the body (see figure 1), the chassis having an outermost surface with a radius that is at least 1.5 inches less than an undeflected maximum radius of each of the wheels (the wheels appear to be 1.5 inches smaller than the inner ring of the wheels, as the wheels have teeth like structures that extend the wheel into a bigger size, additionally the radius of the robot is 6 to 4 inches as mentioned in Col. 5 lines 41-43), the chassis having a unitary main chassis body component (1) with a pair of end portions (42,44) each with an outer periphery adjacent to and spaced from each wheel (see figures 1 and 2), each end portion defining the maximum radius of the chassis, the main chassis body having three circumferentially spaced axial extending recesses (see the recesses in figure 4 as there appears to be at least 4 recesses) that each extend continuously most of the axial distance between the wheels and each are at least .5 inches in radial depth (when compared to the diameter of the chassis which is in between 4 to 6 inches) from the periphery of the pair of end portions.
Regarding claim 15, wherein the main chassis component comprises a pair of circular axially extending recesses (for the end caps 44,42 to fit in) at each of the end portions of the main chassis component, and wherein the chassis further comprises a pair of chassis end caps (44,42) that are conformingly sized for and are received in or at each respective one of the pair of axially extending recesses, and wherein each of the drive wheels is attached to an axle (axle or output shaft coming out of the motors 49, see figure 2 or see Col. 4, line 44) extending out from central apertures of each of the respective ones of the pair of chassis end caps (see figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 16, wherein each of the chassis end caps attached to the circular axially extending recesses at each end portion contain a drive gear system (see gears in figure 6) and a clutch system (12).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the circular recess is defined by a closed wall that extends from the axle axis radially outward (or defined by the end cap 44,42).
Regarding claim 18, wherein at each end portion an inner end of the axle is seated in a closed recess (11, see figure 3) on a wall (wall of the end cap) defining the circular axially extending recess (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the robot comprises a pair of drive motors (49) that are each contained in a respective axially extending bore (81) in the main chassis component, each bore positioning an output shaft (which is attached to the motor) with a drive gear (seen in figure 2 as the motor, shaft and gear are attached to the extending bore) in the containment defined by each chassis end cap and the circular recess at each end portion (see figure 2).
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) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Sellner (US 10046819). Regarding claim 5, Sellner discloses a throwable robot that has an elongate body portion (see body portion in between the drive wheels) extending between just two drive wheels (52), each drive wheel having an inwardly facing circular recess (see figure 1 and 6), a rearward extending tail (see figures 1 and 3) positioned attached to the body portion and extending rearwardly, the body portion comprising a chassis (1), the chassis comprising a unitary main chassis component (see figure 1) extending the length of the outer surface of the body, the chassis further comprising a pair of chassis end caps (see figure 7) that define compartments at each end of the body at each of the two drive wheels, the end caps each projecting inwardly into the respective inward circular recesses of the drive wheels (as the end caps are not visible when the wheels are mounted onto the chassis, see figure 1). Sellner does not mention what type of material the unitary main chassis is made of. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify Sellner by making the unitary main chassis out of metal, as metal is a material which can be made to be stronger than most plastics and fiber materials, additionally, metal can be easily found and readily available for producing the chassis of the throwable robot.
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a pair of drive systems each comprising a plurality of drive gears (see figure 6 as gears are shown near the wheel and the end of the chassis) and a clutch mechanism (2), and wherein each of the end caps contain one of the pair of the drive systems (as the end caps are also at the ends of the chassis).
Regarding claim 7, further comprising a pair of drive motors (49), and wherein the main chassis component has a pair of bores (81) conformingly sized to the pair of drive motors and wherein the drive motors are secured in respective ones of the pair of bores (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the robot weighs less than 6 pounds (see Col. 5, lines 41-44), however Sellner does not mention an axial length of less than 14 inches. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sellner by making the axial length of the robot be small enough to easily throw, as a lager robot would be harder to throw, wherein, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to build the robot to be 14 inches or 10 inches or 8 inches long in the axial direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,4 and 11-14 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.
Regarding claim 3, the art of record did not include “a battery module providing an exterior surface of the robot at a bottom side of the robot and at a rearward side of the robot”.
Regarding claim 4, the art of record did not include “the forward chassis panel has a shape that at least partially conforms to and is flush with the arcuate cylindrical forward surfaces of the forward extending collar portions”.
Regarding claim 11, the art of record did not include “an exteriorly exposed battery module, and wherein one of the three axially extending recesses in the main chassis body component is a battery module recess conformingly shaped for a battery module.
Regarding claim 12, the art of record did not include “the forward chassis component configured as a panel with a plurality of portals such that the one or more forward facing sensors and operations are forwardly exposed with respect to the robot” in combination with what has been claimed in the rest of the body of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the art of record did not include “an electrical connector with a plurality of contact points positioned at the upwardly facing flat surface” in combination with what has been claimed in the rest of the body of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611