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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10 and 14-19) in the reply filed on 04/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that overlapping nature of searches would not cause a serious burden on examiner. This is found to be persuasive and the examiner will therefore consider claims 11-13 and 20, drawn to the nonelected Group II.
A complete action on the merits of claims 1-20 follows below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8, “a building element” should read --the building element--.
Claim 10, lines 4-5, “the working position” should read --a working position--.
Claim 15 must end with a period (see MPEP 608.01(m)). Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 and 15 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 15 recites the limitation “the height adjuster of the at least one of the at least three independent driving points is of self-locking design”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “height adjuster” is not recited in previous claims and “self-locking design” is recited in previous claim 6. It is not clear if applicant intended to have claim 15 dependent on claim 5.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the lifting device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “lifting device” is not recited in previous claims. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be --a lifting device--.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.Claim 19 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim.Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Halvorsen (US 20180326507 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a construction robot (par. 0001: “robotic drilling apparatus”) for performing work on a building element (par. 0001: “drilling ceilings and walls”), comprising a mobile platform (moveable base 116/116’ and driven wheels 117/117’), a lifting device (lifting device comprises at least lifting platform 114/114’, telescopic lift 401, 402/scissor lift 112), which is arranged on the mobile platform, and a power tool (drilling device 122/122’), which is arranged on the lifting device and in which a tool (drill bit 104; par. 0038: “a drill bit extends from a chuck”) can be received, wherein the construction robot is configured to align the tool obliquely to a surface normal (N) of a building element upon which work is to be performed, at an angle of incidence (alpha) (this is intended use of the construction robot and robot of Halvorsen is capable of making a range of angles including alpha angle by change of angles A’, A’’, B and C; also see par. 0127: “it is desired to drill a hole at an angle rather than perpendicularly to the work surface” and par. 0149: “The BIM file may contain information describing not only the position of a hole in a ceiling 124 or wall 126, but also the depth and angle of the hole relative to a given reference point”; also see Figs. 9a and 9b).
PNG
media_image1.png
783
1142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the angle of incidence (alpha) is at most 5°/10° measured (by measurement unit) with respect to the surface normal (N) (as stated above, robot of Halvorsen is capable of making a range of angles including 10° alpha angle by change of angles A’, A’’, B and C).
Regarding claim 3, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the mobile platform is configured to pivot at least one of the elements of a group of elements comprising the lifting device, the power tool, and the tool relative to the surface normal (N) and/or to a vertical (V) (the power tool and the tool/drill bit are capable of being pivoted relative to N and V (see A, B, C, D and E movements of robotic arm 110)).
Regarding claim 4, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the mobile platform has at least three independent driving points (wheels 117/117’).
Regarding claim 7, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the lifting device has at most two degrees of freedom (upward/downward movement).
Regarding claim 16, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the lifting device has precisely one degree of freedom (upward/downward movement).
Regarding claim 9, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the construction robot is configured in such a way that the angle of incidence (alpha) can be set by manual guidance (by control unit described in par. 0015-0018).
Regarding claim 8, Halvorsen teaches the construction robot has a total weight of less than 50 kg (par. 0077: “the robotic arm 110 and support structure 130 collectively may have a weight of less than 46 kg. This allows the robotic arm 110 and support structure 130 to be lifted safely and assembled by two workmen fitting the robotic arm 110 and support structure 130 on to a lifting platform 114”), and/or in that the construction robot can be reversibly disassembled into individual parts, wherein each of the individual parts weighs less than 50 kg (par. 0077: “it is possible to keep the weight of the robotic arm 110 and support structure 130 individually less than 23 kg, this may allow just a single workman to assemble the apparatus 100. Additionally a control cabinet for the robot would usually weigh less than 23 kg” and par. 0078: “The parts can be mounted to the lifting platform when it is in a lowered position and at a suitable working height. Assembly of the robot generally only requires the control cabinet to be placed within the frame of the support structure, cables to power and the robotic arm connected, all of which could be completed in a matter of minutes and would not require specific training”).Halvorsen teaches lighter weight makes handling of the construction robot easier (par. 0044) and further in par. 0076 teaches “robotic arm 110 is made from lightweight material, for example, a stiff plastic, a fiber reinforced composite material or lightweight alloy”.
Regarding claim 17, Halvorsen teaches the construction robot has a total weight of (par. 0077: “the robotic arm 110 and support structure 130 collectively may have a weight of less than 46 kg. This allows the robotic arm 110 and support structure 130 to be lifted safely and assembled by two workmen fitting the robotic arm 110 and support structure 130 on to a lifting platform 114”), and/or in that the construction robot can be reversibly disassembled into individual parts, wherein each of the individual parts weighs less than 25 kg (par. 0077: “it is possible to keep the weight of the robotic arm 110 and support structure 130 individually less than 23 kg, this may allow just a single workman to assemble the apparatus 100. Additionally a control cabinet for the robot would usually weigh less than 23 kg” and par. 0078: “The parts can be mounted to the lifting platform when it is in a lowered position and at a suitable working height. Assembly of the robot generally only requires the control cabinet to be placed within the frame of the support structure, cables to power and the robotic arm connected, all of which could be completed in a matter of minutes and would not require specific training”).Halvorsen teaches lighter weight makes handling of the construction robot easier (par. 0044) and further in par. 0076 teaches “robotic arm 110 is made from lightweight material, for example, a stiff plastic, a fiber reinforced composite material or lightweight alloy”.
Regarding claim 11, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a method of performing work on a building element (par. 0001: “drilling ceilings and walls”) with a construction robot (par. 0001: “robotic drilling apparatus”) which comprises a power tool (drilling device 122/122’) wherein a tool (drill bit 104; par. 0038: “a drill bit extends from a chuck”), by which work is performed on the building element, is received in the power tool, the method comprising aligning the tool obliquely to a surface normal (N) of the building element and/or to a vertical (V), at an angle of incidence (alpha), by the construction robot (robot of Halvorsen is capable of making a range of angles including alpha angle by change of angles A’, A’’, B and C; also see par. 0127: “it is desired to drill a hole at an angle rather than perpendicularly to the work surface” and par. 0149: “The BIM file may contain information describing not only the position of a hole in a ceiling 124 or wall 126, but also the depth and angle of the hole relative to a given reference point”; also see Figs. 9a and 9b).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) measuring (by measurement unit) the angle of incidence (alpha) of at most 5°/10°, with respect to the surface normal (N) (as stated above, robot of Halvorsen is capable of making a range of angles including 10° alpha angle by change of angles A’, A’’, B and C).
Regarding claim 13, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a mobile platform of the construction robot pivots at least one of the elements of a group of elements comprising the lifting device (lifting device comprises at least lifting platform 114/114’, telescopic lift 401, 402/scissor lift 112), the power tool (drilling device 122/122’), and the tool (drill bit 104; par. 0038: “a drill bit extends from a chuck”) relative to the surface normal (N) (as stated above, robot of Halvorsen is capable of making a range of angles including 10° alpha angle by change of angles A’, A’’, B and C).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halvorsen in view of Chun (CN 114470581 B).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 15, Halvorsen does not teach height adjustment and self-locking design for the wheels.
Chun teaches a robot with height adjustable and self-locking wheels based on the ground the robot moves on.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add height adjustability and self-locking design to the wheels of Halvorsen based on ground surface on the robot is moving on.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halvorsen in view of Dario (EP 4101602 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Halvorsen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the construction robot has a camera for recording images (see entire par. 0204: “robot's vision system cameras” and par. 0156: “a tablet or smartphone as an overlay on a camera image of the room”),
Dario teaches a construction robot has a camera for recording images, wherein the camera is designed, in such a way that it records one or more images of a region containing the tool and/or the working position.
PNG
media_image2.png
128
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add image recording camera of robot of Dario in robot of Halvorsen. Doing so would make it capable of determining type of the tool to be used and also degree of wear of the tool.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halvorsen in view of Hallock (US 20210122053 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Halvorsen teaches the construction robot can be reversibly disassembled into individual parts (par. 0077: “it is possible to keep the weight of the robotic arm 110 and support structure 130 individually less than 23 kg, this may allow just a single workman to assemble the apparatus 100. Additionally a control cabinet for the robot would usually weigh less than 23 kg” and par. 0078: “The parts can be mounted to the lifting platform when it is in a lowered position and at a suitable working height. Assembly of the robot generally only requires the control cabinet to be placed within the frame of the support structure, cables to power and the robotic arm connected, all of which could be completed in a matter of minutes and would not require specific training”).
Hallock in par. 0057 teaches a robot in witch robot part connected to the robot by “ quick connect, push-to-pull, push-to-connect, push-in, push-fit, or instant fittings” and “being easily attached and/or removed with or without the use of tools”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate no-tool quick connect mechanism of Hallock robot to robot of Halvorsen. Doing so would make attachment and removal faster and easier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights