DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
The preliminary amendment filed on February 13, 2024 has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1-14, 26, 27, 32-34, 41-43, 49 and 50 of this application are subject to examination. Claims 15-25, 28-31, 35-40 and 44-48 have been canceled.
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The current claim limitations are construed under the BRI standard. No explicit claim construction is deemed to be necessary.
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.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-14, 26, 27, 32-34, 41-43, 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires “a motorized wheel” (l. 3) and “a foot” (l. 5). Thus, claim 1 encompasses a construction having only one wheel and one foot. However, the specification fails to describe any embodiment having only one wheel and one foot. Further, the specification fails to provide a description as to how the apparatus would be capable of operating in the intended manner if it had only one wheel and one foot. In addition, claim 1 does not require that the foot is motorized. However, the specification fails to provide a description as to how the apparatus would be capable of operating in the intended manner if the feet are not motorized. Since claim 1 fails to require plural motorized wheels and plural motorized feet, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements.
Dependent claims 2-13 are incomplete for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1. While claim 2 recites plural motorized feet, it does not require plural motorized wheels. While claim 9 recites plural motorized wheels, it does not require plural motorized feet.
Claims 12, 13, 32, 33, 49 and 50 require a tracking wheel configured to track a distance travelled by the robotic printer along the roll axis, with the tracking wheel configured to track the distance independently of the drive wheel via contact between the tracking wheel and the surface. According to the specification, a tracking wheel is used together with an encoder to track the distance travelled. Since claims 12, 13, 32, 33, 49 and 50 fail to require an encoder, these claims are incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements.
Claim 14 requires “a motorized wheel” (l. 5) and “a motorized foot” (l. 6). Thus, claim 14 encompasses a construction having only one wheel and one foot. However, the specification fails to describe any embodiment having only one wheel and one foot. Further, the specification fails to provide a description as to how the apparatus would be capable of operating in the intended manner if it had only one wheel and one foot. Since claim 14 fails to require plural motorized wheels and plural motorized feet, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements.
Dependent claims 26, 27, 32 and 33 are incomplete for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 14.
Claim 34 requires “a motorized wheel” (l. 4) and “a foot” (l. 7). Thus, claim 34 encompasses a construction having only one wheel and one foot. However, the specification fails to describe any embodiment having only one wheel and one foot. Further, the specification fails to provide a description as to how the apparatus would be capable of operating in the intended manner if it had only one wheel and one foot. In addition, claim 34 does not require that the foot is motorized. However, the specification fails to provide a description as to how the apparatus would be capable of operating in the intended manner if the feet are not motorized. Since claim 34 fails to require plural motorized wheels and plural motorized feet, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements.
Dependent claims 41-43, 48 and 49 are incomplete for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 34.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Hess et al.”
US Publication No. 2002/0158955 A1
“Takano”
JP Publication No. H04-355167 A (with translation)
“Wang et al.”
CN Publication No. 101513798 A (with translation)
“Zhan”
US Publication No. 2017/0136791 A1
“Zhan et al.”
CN Publication No. 104129180 A (with translation)
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.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-6, 9-11, 14, 34 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hess et al. in view of Wang et al.
With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 9-11, 14, 34 and 41, Hess et al. discloses a robotic printer comprising:
A print head 52 configured to print on a print surface. See Figs. 3a-3d; ¶¶ 0039-0041.
A housing 30 housing the print head 52. See Figs. 3a-3d; ¶¶ 0039-0040.
Tracks 34 looped about respective pairs of motorized drive wheels 32 that are coupled to the print head 52 (via the housing 30), with the drive wheels 32 and tracks 34 configured to roll the print head along a roll axis of the print surface while the print head 52 is held at a constant print height from the print surface. See Figs. 3a-3d; ¶¶ 0039, 0042, 0047, 0049-0050, 0052. There are four of the drive wheels 32 positioned laterally from the print head. While the embodiment of Figs. 3a-3d includes tracks 34, Hess et al. teaches other embodiments including drive wheels without tracks. See Figs. 4a-7d.
Additional motorized wheels 32 mounted on extensible/retractable supports and defining wheeled feet that are coupled to the print head 52 (via the housing 30), with the wheeled feet (i) extending to engage the print surface and lift the drive wheels 32 and tracks 34 from the print surface, (ii) advancing the print head 52 along a step axis orthogonal to the roll axis with the print head 52 at an elevated step-height from the print surface that is greater than the print height, and (iii) retracting to disengage from the print surface and return the drive wheels 32 and tracks 34 to the print surface. See Figs. 3a and 3c-3d; ¶¶ 0042, 0049-0050.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 34, 42 and 43, Hess et al. fails to teach motorized feet that are operable to walk/step the printer and its print head along the step axis, with cranks coupling the feet to the print head (via the housing) and configured to operate the feet by revolving the feet with respect to the print head.
Wang et al. teaches a robotic printer. In a first embodiment, the robotic printer comprises tracks 6 looped about respective pairs of motorized drive wheels 2, with the drive wheels 2 and tracks 6 being used to step the printer and its print head 7 along a step axis (moving the print head from one print line to the next print line). See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0024-0025.1 In a second embodiment, the robotic printer comprises motorized feet 9 that are operable to walk/step the printer and its print head 7 along the step axis (moving the print head from one print line to the next print line), with cranks (see Fig. 2) coupling the feet 9 to the print head 7 (via frame/housing 1) and configured to operate the feet 9 by revolving the feet with respect to the print head. See Fig. 2; ¶ 0028. In a further embodiment, the robotic printer comprises triangular wheeled feet 2 that are operable to walk/step the printer and its print head 7 along the step axis (moving the print head from one print line to the next print line) with absolute consistency of the step distance. See Fig. 4; ¶ 0032.
The skilled artisan would appreciate that the motorized feet 9 taught by Wang et al. could be substituted for the additional motorized wheels 32 of Hess et al. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hess et al. by using motorized feet, as taught by Wang et al., to walk/step the printer and its print head along the step axis. Such a modification involving only the substitution of one well-known alternative for another is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art when, as here, the substitution yields only a predictable result. Further, the skilled artisan would appreciate from the teachings of Wang et al. that using motorized feet provides desirable consistency of the step distance.
GROUND 3: Claims 12, 13, 32, 33, 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hess et al. in view of Wang et al. (GROUND 2) and further in view of Zhan.
See the detailed discussion of Hess et al. in view of Wang et al. in GROUND 2. Hess et al. further discloses the use of optical wheel encoders (not shown) mounted on the drive axes of the motorized wheels 32 to track the position of the robotic printer. See ¶ 0084.
The Hess et al. and Wang et al. combination fails to teach a tracking wheel configured to track a distance travelled by the robotic printer along the roll axis, with the tracking wheel configured to track the distance independently of the drive wheel via contact between the tracking wheel and the surface.
Zhan teaches a robotic printer comprising: motorized drive wheels 2 coupled to a print head 6 (via frame/housing 1) and configured to roll the print head 6 along a roll axis of a print surface. See Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0056-0057, 0062-0064. In the embodiment of Fig. 4, the robotic printer comprises tracking wheels 13 coupled to rotary encoders 11 for tracking a distance travelled by the robotic printer along the roll axis, with the tracking wheels 13 and rotary encoders 11 configured to track the distance independently of the drive wheels 2 via contact between the tracking wheels 13 and the print surface. See Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0056, 0078.
From the teachings of Zhan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Hess et al. by providing a tracking wheel configured to track a distance travelled by the robotic printer along the roll axis, with the tracking wheel configured to track the distance independently of the drive wheel via contact between the tracking wheel and the surface. The skilled artisan would appreciate, from the teachings of Zhan, that using such a tracking wheel is beneficial because it allows for accurate tracking of the position of the printer and its print head on the print surface.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Zhan et al. teaches a self-propelled printer having a first set of drive wheels for propelling the printer in a first direction and a second set of drive wheels for propelling the printer in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. Each of the drive wheels carries auxiliary wheels around its circumference to facilitate propulsion in a direction perpendicular thereto.
Takano teaches a self-propelled printer having a first set of drive wheels for propelling the printer in a first direction and a second set of drive wheels for propelling the printer in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Specification Objections
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. The examiner suggests “ROBOTIC PRINTER WITH PRECISION MOTION”.
The specification is objected to because the brief descriptions of the drawing figures (¶¶ 0059-0060) are not descriptive. Numerous figures showing distinct views and perspectives should not be lumped together under a single brief description.
The specification is objected to because:
In ¶ 0069, at l. 4, “The left-side of” should read “The right-side frame of”.
In ¶ 0083, at l. 1, “Frame (a)” should read “Frame (A)”.
In ¶ 0084, at l. 1, “Frame (b)” should read “Frame (B)”.
In ¶ 0084, at l. 3, “housing 110” should read “housing 110a”.
In ¶ 0084, at l. 4, “housing 110” should read “housing 110a”.
In ¶ 0085, at l. 1, “Frame (c)” should read “Frame (C)”.
In ¶ 0085, at l. 2, “housing 110” should read “housing 110a”.
In ¶ 0085, at l. 4, “housing 110” should read “housing 110a”.
In ¶ 0087, at l. 3, “frame (b)” should read “frame (B)”.
In ¶ 0089, at l. 1, “Frame (d)” should read “Frame (D)”.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Wheels that are “motorized” (claims 1, 9, 14 and 34) and, thus, are “drive” wheels (claims 12, 32 and 49).
Feet that are “motorized” (claims 2 and 14).
A foot “retracting into the housing” (claims 7 and 26) and that “does not protrude from the base face” (claims 8 and 27).
The drawings are also objected to because:
In Fig. 7, the illustration of axis a120a appears to be inaccurate. The axis shown in Fig. 7 appears to be a vertical axis, not the roll axis (see ¶¶ 0078 and 0082).
In Fig. 8, the lead line for reference number 170a is not directed to a mount (see Fig. 9; ¶ 0081) for the foot 140a.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 26 and 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a) would also need to be overcome.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center2: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail3 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 All citations are to the English translation.
2 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).
3 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.