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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on February 19th, 2024 and the amendments and remarks filed 12/15/2025 and resubmitted 2/21/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 8 are presently amended.
No claims have been previously amended.
Claims 21-27 have been added.
Claims 5-7 and 9-20 been cancelled.
Newly submitted claims 21-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed 2/19/2024 and are subject to election by original presentation as described in detail below. Therefore, claims 21-27 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 02/19/2024 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Abstract and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 7/14/2025.
The objections to the drawings regarding the towel dispenser (Claim 9, 20), means for smoothing the court surface (Claims 5, 13), and retractable brushes (Claim 6, 7, 14, 15) have been rendered moot due to the cancellation of the listed claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, filed 2/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended independent claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been updated to reflect the new claim language as necessitated by amendment but have been substantially maintained in content.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/21/2026 regarding the objection to the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the preamble has been amended in an attempt to shift the focus of the method claim away from the dispensation of a towel that is otherwise the inventive concept as indicated by the title of the invention, the towel holder remains as a claimed structure, per the text of claim 1 in lines 12 and 20, which as noted in Pg 67 line 24 of the specification is not illustrated. The towel, while no longer explicitly claimed, is a critical element of the original presentation, is also still not illustrated, and is addressed further in a new 112(b) rejection.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The invention as originally presented is “a method of providing a tennis player on a tennis court playing surface with a towel during play,” (Robotic towel delivery, Invention A) and describes a method of a robot moving from a standby location on to a tennis court to deliver a towel to a player, making no mention of ball delivery in the original claim set. Claim 8 as originally presented adds a generically described “docking station for docking the robot at the standby position,” to the method.
The invention of claim 21 further adds a turntable to the docking station as part of the method, and Claims 22-26 present the invention as an addition to the original invention in independent form and include further limitations regarding the rotation of the turntable in the docking station and the use of the turntable and further transmission of homing signals as a means for guiding the robot into position during docking maneuvers (Turntable docking station, invention B). Claim 27 depends from Claim 22 and adds new elements of the ball delivery robot of Claim 22.
Inventions A and B are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the method of delivering a towel to a tennis player using a robot does not rely on any particular docking station, or even a docking station at all, in order to successfully deliver a towel to a tennis player, and the alignment of the robot during the docking method does not materially affect the ability of the robot to perform towel delivery. This is further evidences by the lack of these features in Independent Claim 1. The subcombination has separate utility such as the use of the turntable docking station to aid in docking alignment by any of a variety of other types of autonomous robots that may approach a docking station from different vectors, such as a vacuum, lawnmowing, or telepresence robot as non-exhaustive examples.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
Due to the claim amendments, the title of the invention is not descriptive as no towel is currently claimed. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the towel holder (Claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The term “means responsive to the controller for driving and maneuvering the robot” in Claim 1 meet the criteria of the three-pronged test.
The claim limitation uses the term “means”
The term “means” is modified by functional language, here “for driving and maneuvering the robot.”
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Here, while “responsive to the controller” modifies the “means” term with regard to controlling the means, it does not modify the structure, material, or acts for performing the “driving and maneuvering the robot”
Therefore, the term “means responsive to the controller for driving and maneuvering the robot” in Claim 1 is interpreted in this action according to 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification describes several means for driving and maneuvering the robot which will be used for examination purposes to interpret Claims 1 on Pg 40 line 17 – Pg 41 line 3, “Steering means 20 may comprise differential drive/differential wheel: the velocity difference between two motors drive the robot in any required path and direction is “differential drive”; “differential wheel” can employ two independently driven wheels fixed on a common horizontal axis. Another option is a “tricycle drive, employing three wheels with a fore steering wheel controlled by a motor and the two rear wheels attached to a common axle driven by a single motor with two degrees of freedom (either forwards or reverse). Steering means 20 may also be an “Ackermann” design that mechanically coordinates the angle of the two front wheels fixed on a common pivotable steering axle with the two rear wheels on a second, fixed driving axle. Retriever 12 may also comprise continuous track (also called tank tread or caterpillar track) treads in lieu of wheels 18 to facilitate movement on loose tennis court surfaces, for which a robot tread-drive (“tank drive”) system may be utilized. Means for steering 20 then employs differential steering (movement is based on two separately driven wheels), applying more or less drive torque to one side of retriever 12 than the other to turn; this adds complexity and increases cost, requiring one or more additional motors and additional drive train components compared to non-track drive systems.”
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 1-4 and 8 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the towel that, per the title of the invention, is to be delivered to a sports participant. In an attempt to avoid submitting updating drawings and to change the scope of the originally claimed invention, the applicant has amended the independent claim to remove the towel from the claimed robot and merely provide a player with a towel holder. The element being provided by the towel holder to the player is now missing. Therefore, the inventive concept of the towel being provided to a sports participant has been omitted from the claim and the claim is rejected, as necessitated by amendment.
Claims 2-4 and 8 are rejected for relying upon the previously rejected Claim 1.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simón Vilar et al (WO 2011086480, hereinafter “Simón”) in view of Peng (CN 107953344, hereinafter “Peng,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Simón teaches:
A method for retrieving a tennis ball on a tennis court having a playing surface and for controllably releasing the tennis ball during a match between at least two players, (Simón Pg 2 line 6-8 “The present invention relates to a method for the automatic collection and delivery of spherical game elements to a player, such as a ball and in particular a tennis ball, in a field for the practice of said sport,”)
comprising: providing a ball retriever robot, (Simón Pg 3 line 24-27 “In this way the collector apparatus of spherical elements will start and go towards the collection area brief instants after the launch of the spherical element, and the collection and the subsequent delivery to the player will be carried out in the least possible time,” shown in Figure 2 and as item 14 in Figure 1 on Tennis Court 12, the “collector apparatus of spherical elements” describing an autonomous device or robot, synonymous with the collection apparatus, which delivers items (spherical elements) to the player during play,)
PNG
media_image1.png
233
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
338
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
said robot including: a processor-controller; (Simón Pg 6 line 8-10 “control means, in connection with said acquisition and image processing means in communication with said spherical game element collection apparatus,” describing a control means for the collection apparatus,)
and means responsive to the controller for driving and maneuvering the robot; […] (Simón Pg 8 line 7-9 “Fig. 2 shows a possible ball collection apparatus 14, in a very basic version, which in the present invention includes a device provided with some driving wheels 17 and steering wheels 17a,” shown in Figure 2 to be similar to the “Ackerman” style as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f))
[…] positioning the robot at a first location off the tennis court playing surface at a standby location; (Simón Pg 4 line 11-12 “According to the proposed method the collection apparatus, which is at least one is situated at a game area, close to a game area,” Pg 9 line 29-32 “At this point the player 13 can decide if he wants the apparatus 14 to pass him the ball 1 1 and to return to a determined point or base or if he wants it to go to said base and wait for a request for a ball 1 1, from the player 13,” describing the collection apparatus waiting at the base location until it receives a request for a ball from the player, and Figure 1 showing and describing a determined point close to the game area where the collection apparatus is situated when not active,)
directing the robot via control commands (Simón Pg 14 line 23-27 “wherein said control means are provided […] to send a control command to said spherical game element collection apparatus so that it moves to the location,” describing movement directed via control commands,)
to move from the standby location (Simón Pg 9 line 31-32 “he wants it to go to said base and wait for a request for a ball 1 1 , from the player 13,” describing the collection apparatus waiting at the base location until it receives a request for a ball from the player, and Pg 9 line 16-17 “to perform a controlled delivery of the collected spherical object to a player,”)
to a first location on the tennis court playing surface (Simón Pg 1 line 18-23 “For clarity of the following explanation, in the present application the game area will be intended to be that zone of the game surface or game field where the impact or fall of the ball is considered as being valid, according to the rules of the game. Likewise the game surface will be intended to be the game field as a whole including a zone surrounding the cited game area, where mainly ball collection apparatuses will operate,”)
to retrieve a ball; (Simón Pg 9 line 27-29 “the apparatus 14 goes towards the ball 1 1 as quickly as possible, once it has reached the ball it proceeds with its collection and it places it in a delivery or throwing position.,”)
directing the robot via control commands to release the ball toward a player at a second location on the tennis court […] to the player at the second location; (Simón Pg 9 line 14-17 “The apparatus 14 includes means to interact with a player (luminous, acoustic signals, etc. and to receive commands: acoustic sensors, camera 16, etc.) to perform a controlled delivery of the collected spherical object to a player,”)
and directing the robot via control commands to return to the standby location. (Simón Pg 9 line 29-31 “At this point the player 13 can decide if he wants the apparatus 14 to pass him the ball 1 1 and to return to a determined point or base,” describing the collection apparatus returning to the base location,)
Simón does not teach:
[…] placing a towel holder on the robot; […]
[…] and to thereby provide the towel holder […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Peng teaches:
[…] placing a towel holder on the robot; […] and to thereby provide the towel holder […]
(Peng Pg 3 ¶ 2 line 1-5 “As shown in Figure 1, the invention claims a restaurant service robot intelligent dish, comprising […] the paper towel placing box 5,” teaching a robot delivering towels from a towel placing box (towel holder))
Simón and Peng are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery of a ball to player on a field of practice for tennis using a collector apparatus of spherical elements of Simón with the simple substitution of the ball for the towel from a towel holder of Peng. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing the utility of the robot by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón and Peng. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón is the inclusion of Peng’s towel holder in a single reference. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Peng, perform the same functions of ball collection and delivery, whereas the elements of Peng would perform their same functions of towel delivery when combined by physically adding the towel placing box of Peng to Simón’s collector apparatus of spherical elements. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Simón and Peng teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
wherein the robot further includes at least one proximity sensor for sensing the proximity of an object to the robot and outputting a proximity signal to an input of the processor-controller, (Simón Pg 2 line 6-8 “The apparatus 14 is equipped with at least a camera 1 6 provided for inspection of the game field or surface, of the player and his gestures or other people and their means of interaction, or others objects which are present at a given time in the game surface, and able to provide additional information to a control unit 15 about the location of the balls 1 1 to be collected,” teaching relative location sensing (proximity sensing) to an object (a ball) by the camera and providing location information to a control unit)
said processor-controller including programmed instructions that upon execution control movement of the robot based on the proximity signal output. (Simón Pg 6 line 8-14 “control means, in connection with said acquisition and image processing means in communication with said spherical game element 10 collection apparatus, wherein said control means are provided to process at least part of said images to detect the presence of at least one spherical game element in said surveillance area, and to send a control command to said spherical game element collection apparatus so that it moves to the location of said detected spherical game element,”)
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simón in view of Peng and further in view of Tanaka (JP 2017068439, hereinafter “Tanaka,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Simón and Peng teaches the limitations of Claim 2 as shown above. Simón does not teach:
wherein the programmed instructions include controlling the speed of the robot based on the proximity signal input to the processor-controller.
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Tanaka teaches:
wherein the programmed instructions include controlling the speed of the robot based on the proximity signal input to the processor-controller. (Tanaka Pg 19 ¶ 8 “That is, by acquiring the current travel speed V of the vehicle body and the detected distance L to the obstacle, the deceleration process may be started before the distance L becomes shorter than the minimum distance Lb,”)
Simón and Tanaka are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collection apparatus controlled based on relative sensed object location data of Simón with the addition of Tanaka’s deceleration process based on detected distance to an obstacle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by enabling safe stopping before colliding with obstacles (Tanaka Pg 19 ¶ 2).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Simón, Peng, and Tanaka teaches the limitations of Claim 3 as shown above. Simón does not teach:
wherein the processor-controller decreases the velocity of the robot based on the signal received from the proximity sensor.
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Tanaka teaches:
wherein the processor-controller decreases the velocity of the robot based on the signal received from the proximity sensor. (Tanaka Pg 19 ¶ 8 “That is, by acquiring the current travel speed V of the vehicle body and the detected distance L to the obstacle, the deceleration process may be started before the distance L becomes shorter than the minimum distance Lb,”)
Simón and Tanaka are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collection apparatus controlled based on relative sensed object location data of Simón with the addition of Tanaka’s deceleration process based on detected distance to an obstacle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by enabling safe stopping before colliding with obstacles (Tanaka Pg 19 ¶ 2).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simón in view of Peng and further in view of Macedo Ribeiro et al (US 20100250024, hereinafter “Macedo”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Simón and Peng teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Simón further teaches:
[…] at the standby position. (Simón Pg 4 line 11-12 “According to the proposed method the collection apparatus, which is at least one is situated at a game area, close to a game area,” Pg 9 line 29-32 “At this point the player 13 can decide if he wants the apparatus 14 to pass him the ball 1 1 and to return to a determined point or base or if he wants it to go to said base and wait for a request for a ball 1 1, from the player 13,” describing the collection apparatus waiting at the base location, “base” conceivably being a base station but not elaborated upon within Simón,)
Simón does not explicitly teach:
further including a docking station for docking the robot […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Simón, Macedo teaches:
further including a docking station for docking the robot […] (Macedo ¶ 0059 “In case the system exceeds the ball limits collected or it is necessary to recharge the batteries, it should be able to guide itself to the unloading dock,” teaching a dock location for the ball-collecting robot)
Simón and Macedo are considered analogous because they both relate to autonomous robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collection apparatus base location near a tennis field of Simón with the addition of Macedo’s dock. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by providing a recharging location to improve the operating life of the robot, by recharging the batteries (Macedo ¶ 0059) which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)). The prior art teaches each claimed element, as shown between Simón, Peng, and Macedo. The only difference between the claimed invention and the invention of Simón and Peng is the inclusion of Macedo’s unloading dock. The individual elements of Simón would, in combination with Macedo, perform the same functions of ball collection and delivery, whereas the elements of Mecedo would perform their same functions of battery recharging when the methods are combined. This simple combination of elements would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as would be the recognition that the results of the combination would be predictable.
[…] at the standby position. (Simón Pg 4 line 11-12 “According to the proposed method the collection apparatus, which is at least one is situated at a game area, close to a game area,” Pg 9 line 29-32 “At this point the player 13 can decide if he wants the apparatus 14 to pass him the ball 1 1 and to return to a determined point or base or if he wants it to go to said base and wait for a request for a ball 1 1, from the player 13,” describing the collection apparatus waiting at the base location, “base” conceivably being a base station but not elaborated upon within Simón,)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170072282, US 6176230, and WO 8802644 teach elements of the withdrawn Claim 27.
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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights