The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 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, penultimate line, the recitation “is electrically connected” is unclear in that it seems to positively require the performance of an action, as would typically be set forth in a method claim. However, an apparatus is defined by what it is, not by what it does or how it operates. Functional recitations in an apparatus claim should be set forth using terminology such as “capable of”, “configured to”, etc., as used elsewhere throughout the claims (e.g., claims 14 and 20).
Claim 14, line 16, and claim 20, penultimate line, the recitation “an upper surface of the transport robot” (emphasis added) is unclear in that the mobile robot has previously been recited as having an upper surface. It will be assumed that --the upper surface ...-- was intended, as in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101323705) in view of Ruth et al (US 10,809,745), both previously cited.
Kim shows a mobile transport device comprising: a pedestal 30 (Fig. 3) having an upper surface on which one load 10 among a plurality of types of loads is selectively provided, and a lower surface including a docking groove 31; a docking table 20 (Fig. 3) having a support upper surface for supporting the pedestal on which the plurality of types of loads are provided; and a mobile transport robot 100 (Figs. 1-3) configured to transport the pedestal on which the plurality of types of loads are provided, by connecting the docking groove to a docking block 142 (includes 143, 144) provided on an upper surface of the mobile transport robot, wherein the docking groove in the lower surface of the pedestal is configured to complementarily connect to the docking block provided on the upper surface of the mobile transport robot.
Kim does not disclose that the load requires power for operation, or that the load is configured to be (as recited in claims 14 and 20) electrically connected to the mobile transport robot.
Ruth shows a mobile transport robot 106 for transporting a load 110 to or from a docking station 108, wherein the load may require power (col. 15:26-28 and 34-37), and wherein the robot and load have complementarily-shaped interfaces 119/164 (Fig. 8) for transmission of electrical power and/or data therebetween (col. 17:24-54).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Kim to provide power to the load by transmitting electrical power thereto via the complementary shapes of the docking block on the robot and the docking groove on the pedestal, as suggested by Ruth, so that loads requiring power could be handled by the apparatus, thereby enhancing the usefulness and flexibility thereof.
Re claim 2, the docking block of Kim is configured to be raised or lowered.
Claims 3-7, 9-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ruth et al, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Hansen et al (US 2020/0254607, previously cited).
Although Kim shows that a central portion of the support upper surface of the docking table is hollow (Fig. 11), as can best be determined, Kim does not show that one side of the support upper surface is open.
Hansen shows a similar system wherein a mobile robot 110 transports a load 1210 supported on a pedestal 200 to/from a docking station/table 1100, wherein one side of a support upper surface 1110 of the docking table is open (at least to some extent, as broadly recited; Figs. 12a-c).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Kim by configuring the docking table such that one side of the support upper surface was open, as suggested by Hansen, to make docking easier by allowing the robot to approach the docking table from one side thereof instead of having to maneuver into a space underneath the table.
Re claim 4, a planar shape of the pedestal of Kim has a rectangular shape with four corners.
Re claim 5, Kim shows that, in order for the mobile transport robot to transport the pedestal on which the load is provided, the docking block is raised and the docking block is connected to the docking groove in the pedestal so that the mobile transport robot is connected to the pedestal, and the docking block is further raised to lift the pedestal on which the load is provided, from the support upper surface so that the docking table is spaced apart from the pedestal (Figs. 3-4).
Re claim 6, Kim discloses that the docking table is spaced apart from the pedestal when the mobile transport robot is moved.
Re claim 7, modified Kim shows that a terminal at least partially protrudes from an upper surface of the docking block, and the terminal is a communication terminal or a power terminal (again noting that Ruth teaches the interfaces can be used for transmission of electrical power and/or data).
Re claim 9, Ruth further discloses that one or more communication terminals are provided on the docking block, and one or more power terminals are provided on the docking block (col. 17:24-54). These features would obviously be included in the apparatus of Kim when modified as above.
Re claims 10-13, even though Kim as modified does not explicitly disclose four spaced apart docking blocks and four complementary spaced apart docking grooves, that the docking blocks and grooves are L-shaped or rectangular shaped, or that two of the four docking blocks have two power terminals and one communication terminal, insofar as Ruth discloses that the number and shape of the complementary docking interfaces of the robot and load (pedestal) may vary, and that the interfaces may include both power and communication terminals, as noted in the passages indicated above, it would have been obvious to have included such features in the apparatus of Kim as modified, to better accommodate different types, sizes and/or shapes of the load(s), since it has been held that a mere duplication of parts involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8, and In re Harza, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400), and that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47).
Re claim 14, insofar as the claim is essentially an amalgamation of claims 1-3 with an additional functional recitation pertaining to configuring the mobile transport device to be connected to and transport a target load, which is clearly the point of having such a mobile transport robot in the first place, no further analysis is deemed necessary.
Re claim 15, given Kim’s extensive disclosure of the mobile robot’s navigation and obstacle avoidance capabilities, it is considered to inherently be configured to be selectively moved to one of a plurality of docking tables, connected to the target load placed on that docking table, selectively moved to a different docking table on which a load is not provided, and to load the target load on that different docking table.
Claims 18 and 19 are treated in the same manner as analogous claims 10, 11 and 13 above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ruth et al and Hansen et al, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ramamurthy et al (US 2024/0166116 or corresponding WO 2022/191040, previously cited).
Kim as modified discloses that the mobile transport device is configured to transport the transport target load to a specific location where the transport target load is required, but does not disclose that the transport target load loaded on the mobile transport robot is configured to operate to perform a specific task.
Ramamurthy discloses a mobile robot 100 that transports a load 118, 120 or 122 that may require electrical power, and includes an electrical connector 510, 512 and/or 514 to electrically connect to and power the load to perform a task, wherein the electrical connector(s) may comprise a latching member of a locking mechanism having a configuration corresponding to receiving members in the load to facilitate the receiving members receiving the latching member to lock the mobile robot to the load (pars. [0040], [0043], [0044], [0096], [0129] – [0136]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have yet further modified the apparatus of Kim by using the mobile robot to electrically connect to and power the load to perform a task, as taught by Ramamurthy, to further increase the usefulness and flexibility of the apparatus.
Claims 8 and 17 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.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kim’s docking structures are purely mechanical and lack any electrical power transmission components, and that Ruth fails to suggest using mechanical docking structures for electrical transmission functionality. Applicant further asserts that the claims require the complementary docking structures themselves to provide electrical connection between the load and robot, and merely providing an electrical connection elsewhere does not meet the claim limitations. This is not persuasive. First, while some of the dependent claims may require the complementary docking structures to provide the electrical connection between the load and robot, independent claims 1 and 14 (the only claims applicant argues) certainly do not. These claims merely recite that the docking groove and docking block are configured to complementarily connect to each so that the load is electrically connected to the robot. Contrary to applicant’s assertion, this language does not preclude a separate electrical connection elsewhere that is made as a result of the mechanical connection. More importantly, this a moot point anyway, as Ruth teaches complementary-shaped electromechanical connectors that not only provide electrical power and data transmission but also provide a mechanical latching/locking connection (e.g., col. 17:24-54), and as such is seen as fairly teaching using complementarily shaped mechanical docking structures that also provide an electrical connection between a mobile robot and a load carried thereon (this feature is also taught by Ramamurthy, as noted above in par. 8). Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further still, the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims (i.e., at least independent claims 1 and 14). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
7/22/26
Prosecution Insights