The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “130” has been used to designate both “wheels” and “terminals”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 140. 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. 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.
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, “a portion of … one corner (of the pedestal that) is supported by the support upper surface” (claim 4) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 4 recites “only a portion of the remaining one corner is supported by the support upper surface”. As noted above in par. 4, the feature is not shown in the drawings, and the written specification fails to provide sufficient explanation of the feature. While nominal support for the feature is found in par. [0010] of the specification, no further details are given that would apprise one of ordinary skill in the art as to how the feature would actually be implemented in the disclosed invention.
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, last subparagraph, the recitations “is … connected” are unclear in that they seemingly 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. While functional recitations in an apparatus claim are not prohibited, they should be set forth using appropriate terminology such as “capable of”, “configured to”, etc.
Similar issues exist throughout the remaining claims, including but not necessarily limited to:
“removing a portion” (claims 3, 14 and 20);
“is raised”, “is connected”, “is further raised”, “is spaced” (claim 5);
“is spaced”, “is moved” (claim 6);
“is inserted into” (claims 8, 17 and 20);
“are engaged with and … connected to” (claims 10-12 and 18);
“is … connected to … and transports” (claim 14);
“is … moved”, “is connected to”, “loads” (claim 15);
“transports”, “is operated to perform” (claim 16).
Also, in claim 1, line 11, “an” should be --the--.
Further, in claims 3, 14 and 20, the recitation “removing a portion of the … surface” is not understood. Is applicant attempting to claim the actual procedure of removing a portion of the surface or simply indicating that such a portion of the surface is lacking? The latter is assumed.
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, cited by applicant) in view of Ruth et al (US 10,809,745).
An English language machine translation of the Kim reference is included with this Office action.
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 complementarily connect[ed]able to the docking block (as broadly and indefinitely claimed) provided on [an] the upper surface of the mobile transport robot.
Kim does not disclose that the load requires power for operation, or that the load is electrically connect[ed]able 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 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 (as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above) 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, cited by applicant).
Although Kim shows that the inside of the support upper surface of the docking table is hollow (Fig. 11), as can best be determined, Kim does not appear to show that a portion of the support upper surface from one side of a circumference of the support upper surface toward the inside of the support upper surface is removed.
Hansen shows a similar system wherein a mobile robot 110 transports a load 1210 supported on a pedestal 200 to/from a docking station 1100, wherein a portion of a support upper surface 1110 of the docking table from one side of a circumference of the support upper surface toward the inside of the support upper surface is removed (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 a portion of the support upper surface from one side of a circumference of the support upper surface toward the inside of the support upper surface was removed, 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 accurately maneuver into a space underneath the table.
Re claim 4 (to whatever if any extent the limitation may be given patentable weight in light of the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection set forth above), insofar as the pedestal of Kim has a rectangular shape with four corners, and three of the corners are supported by the support upper surface, the fourth corner could clearly be supported such that “only a portion” thereof was supported, as broadly recited. As applicant is not claiming a method, the limitation is considered an “intended use”.
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 and 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, along with an indefinite functional recitation pertaining to using the mobile transport device to connect to and transport a 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 navigation’s and obstacle avoidance capabilities, it is considered to be clearly capable of performing the intended use recitations of moving to one of a plurality of docking tables, connecting to a target load placed on that docking table, and moving to and loading the target load on a 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).
The examiner notes the effective filing date of the US document is the foreign priority date of 3/12/21, while the publication date of the WO document is 9/15/22.
Kim as modified discloses that the mobile transport device transports 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 operated 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 (pars. [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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Martin and Crawford show mobile robots for transporting loads.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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
1/27/26