DETAILED ACTION 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 “the chassis comprises a u-channel ” (claim 9) “ a shaft is connected to the at least three drive members with a shaft coupler ” (claim 12) , 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. 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: drive members in claims 1 and 18; motor unit in claims 1 and 18; power unit in claims 13 and 20. 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 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 1-4, 7-8, 10-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts (US 5,453,931) in view of D r unk (US 5,377,106) and Ikushima (US 2020/0230983) . In regards to claim s 1 and 18 , Watts teaches a mobile robot (1) comprising: a plurality of emitters (95, 96, plotter) (fig. 1, 4 ; col. 7, lines 5-20 , col. 10, lines 25-50) , that are moved by a plurality of drive wheels (62) and tracks (61) (drive members) to provide movement to the emitters along the X-axis and Y-axis and a shaft-6 provides movement along the Z-axis (fig. 1, 4, 6; col. 5, lines 20-45); a chassis is provided by a framework and a plurality of decks ( 3, 4, 8 ) that are used to hold a plurality of components of the mobile robot (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 10-20) , the deck-4 (first circular sheet) comprises a center opening through which the shaft-6 is positioned (fig. 1, 3; col. 4, lines 25-30, 40-65 ) , and a deck-3 (second circular sheet) which is mounted above deck-4 (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 25-30); the plurality of drive wheels (62) and tracks (61) (drive members) move the mobile robot using at least two micro stepping motors (motor unit) (fig. 1, 4, 6; col. 5, lines 20-45) ; a controller the components of the mobile robot (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 45-67 , col. 6, lines 25-35 ) , where the control is provided to move the mobile robot and form markings on a surface based on information provided to the controller (col. 9, lines 35-55, col. 10, lines 2 0 -50). Watts teaches the deck-4 comprises center opening that is circular, not square. However, providing a square opening versus a circular opening is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed square opening is significant (MPEP2144.04-IV-B). Watts does not explicitly teach one or more ultrasonic sensors mounted on a periphery of the chassis and configured to detect obstacles during movement of the robotic system However, Drunk teaches an unmanning cleaning vehicle comprising a plurality of ultrasonic sensors (50-52, 60-62, 70-72, 80-82, 90-92, 150) that are provided around sidewalls of the vehicle. Drunk teaches the ultrasonic sensors are used to detect walls, cabinets, objects and obstacles by determining the distance (fig. 1, 3, 7; col. 1 0, lines 10-35, 45-55, col. 11, lines 25-35, col. 12, lines 5-35 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the ultrasonic sensors of Drunk onto the mobile robot of Watts because Drunk teaches it will allow for flexible traveling over a variable course (col. 2, lines 60-65). Watts and Drunk do not explicitly teach the emitters (plotter) moves along X, Y and Z axes , separately from the mobile robot. Please note, the separate movement of the plotter and the chassis is not explicitly recited, but is being addressed for purposes of compact prosecution. However, Ikushima teaches a discharge device (1) which is movable along X, Y and Z axes. Ikushima teaches an X direction drive device - 105, a Y direction drive device - 106, and a Z direction drive device - 107 provide the movement for the discharge device, where the moving devices is a n electric motor such as a servo motor or a stepping motor (fig. 1; para. 43 , 45-46 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the XYZ drive devices which move the discharge device of Ikushima onto the emitters of Watts and Drunk because Ikushima teaches it will improve productivity (para. 54). In regards to claim s 2 - 4 and 19 , Watts, Drunk and Ikushima as discussed, where Dunk teaches the XYZ drive devices are electric motors such as a servo motor or a stepping motor (para. 45) which provides for X direction drive device - 105 and a Y direction drive device - 106 being two stepper motors for moving in the X-axis and Y-axis and Z direction drive device - 10 7 is a servo motor for moving in the Z-axis. In regards to claim s 7 -8 , Watts, Drunk and Ikushima as discussed, where Watts teaches the deck-3 (second circular sheet) comprise a central circular opening and the deck-3 is mounted above the deck-4 (fig. 1-2; col. 3, lines 35-45 ). In regards to claim 10 , Watts, D r unk and Ikushima as discussed, where Drunk teaches positions for driven wheels with a triangular arrangement (fig. 3, 5). In regards to claim 11 , Watts, Drunk and Ikushima as discussed, where Watts teaches the plurality of drive wheels (62) and tracks (61) (drive members) are connected to the deck-4 (fig. 1, 4, 6; col. 5, lines 20-45). In regards to claim s 13-16 and 20 , Watts, Drunk and Ikushima as discussed, where Ikushima teaches a control device (112) provide s control and power to the motors and encoders and the control device communicates with an input/output device ( 113 ) (fig. 1, ; para. 43, 46, 66). In regards to claim 17 , Watts, Drunk and Ikushima as discussed, where Ikushima teaches the Z direction drive device - 107 provide s the movement in the Z-axis (fig. 1; para. 45). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts, Drunk and Ikushima as applied to claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11 and 13-20 above, and further in view of Gerber (US RE34294) . In regards to claim 5 , Watts, Drunk and Ikushima as discussed but do not explicitly teach the plotter further comprises an aluminum extrusion . However, Gerber teaches the use of aluminum extrusions for a X - carriage -26 and a Y - carriage -28, which are used to mo v e a plotter (16) (fig. ; col. 5, lines 5-20, col. 7, lines 5-40 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the aluminum extrusion for the carriage material of Gerber onto the discharge device/emitters of Watts, Drunk and Ikushima because it is a known material composition to be suitable and effective and Gerber teaches it would provide sufficient rigidity to inhibit vibrations and other deflections while nevertheless being kept light in weight (col. 3, lines 10-15). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts, Drunk and Ikushima as applied to claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11 and 13-20 above, and further in view of Patton (US 2004/0141784) . In regards to claim 6 , Watts, Drunk and Ikushima as discussed but do not explicitly teach the plotter is attached to the first circular sheet of the chassis using a pair of angle mounts . However, Patton teaches a pair of supports (470a, 470b, angle mounts) which are used to support a marking engine (10) (fig. 7; para. 47-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the supports of Patton onto the discharge device/emitters of Watts, Drunk and Ikushima because Patton teaches it will provide a mou n ting that allows for surface variations (abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Binu Thomas whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7684 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1295 . 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. /Binu Thomas/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717