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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 03/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
In addition, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive in respect to the distinction between the amended claim 1 regarding the discharge hole unit and the prior art. Regarding amended claim 1, the Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks that Zito does not mention any holes discharging liquid from the housing 30 at all and Zito fails to disclose “a discharge hole unit including one or more through holes formed in a lower portion of the housing part, the one or more through holes being configured to allow liquid entering the housing part to flow out of the housing part”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim is to the apparatus and is structurally the same as Zito’s disclosure. Zito teaches a discharge hole unit including one or more through holes formed in a lower portion of the housing part, the one or more through holes being configured to allow liquid entering the housing part to flow out of the housing part as shown in Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
868
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Broadly interpreted any hole opening can allow liquid to enter and escape. As shown in Fig. 2, Zito teaches a discharge hole unit located in the lower portion of walls 32 that makes up the housing 30 that allows liquid to enter and flow out of the housing 30. Applicant fails to show any structural distinction between the claimed invention and Zito’s disclosure. Therefore, the prior art meets the claim limitations, and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, the claim is amended but portions were removed to refer back to independent claim 1. Examiner is interpreting “wherein the display part comprises” as “The movable base of claim 1, wherein the display part comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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:
“display part” in claims 1 and 2.
“discharge hole unit” in claim 1.
“light source unit” in claims 2, 3, and 4.
“fastening means” in claim 8.
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.
A review of the specification (citation to US pub. No. 20240269858) shows the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
“display part” in claims 1 and 2 corresponds to “display part 20” [0041] and Fig. 1.
“discharge hole unit” in claim 1 corresponds to “discharge hole unit 40” [0033] and Fig. 1.
“light source unit” in claims 2, 3, and 4 corresponds to “light source unit 21” [0041] and Fig. 4.
“fastening means” in claim 8 corresponds to “fastening means 50” [0083] and Fig. 5.
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 § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 9 is/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. Specification (citation to US pub. No. 20240269858) is utilized for the description citations below.
Regarding claim 9, the term “proximate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In the art rejections above, the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 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.
10. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zito et al. (US 20200121125, hereinafter Zito) in view of Yamamoto (US 20200130194, hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Zito teaches a movable base, wherein the movable base is configured to support a collaborative robot for cooking (see at least Figs. 1-2 and abstract: “A flexible robotic kitchen assistant automates the preparation of food items.”), the movable base comprising:
a housing part configured to support the collaborative robot (see at least Fig. 1 and [0052]: “The robotic kitchen assistant includes a robotic arm 20 extending from a housing 30. The robotic arm 20, as discussed further herein, operates to perform one or more of the food preparing steps in completing a customer order.”);
a display part configured to display a plurality of different information corresponding to an operating of the collaborative robot (see at least Fig. 1 and [0062]: “FIG. 1 also shows display 50 to interface with a human kitchen worker. Examples of a display 50 include, without limitation, a monitor or touchscreen display. The kitchen worker may input information to the robotic kitchen assistant via the touchscreen display. Also, instructions may be shown to the kitchen worker on the display 50. In embodiments, the screen displays upcoming motions to be performed by the robot arm to enhance collaboration with human kitchen workers. In embodiments, instructions for the human kitchen worker are projected onto the work area or food item either directly via a laser projection system or similar system or virtually via augmented reality glasses.”; Fig. 9 and [0133]: “FIG. 9 illustrates a graphical user interface (GUI) 300 of a display for communicating instructions and status of food items with human kitchen workers in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.”);
a wheel unit having at least one pair of wheels and provided on a bottom surface of the housing part (see at least Fig. 1 and [0064]: “With reference to FIG. 1, robotic kitchen assistant 10 is shown including a support frame or housing 30 which distributes loads from the robotic arm to mounting mechanisms to minimize any motion of the system. In the exploded view shown in FIG. 2, it can be seen that the housing includes walls 32, wheels 34, stand 37, base 38, and frame element 42.”); and
a discharge hole unit including one or more through holes formed in a lower portion of the housing part, the one or more through holes being configured to allow liquid entering the housing part to flow out of the housing (see at least Fig 2: right and left side walls of the housing 30 shows a plurality of holes formed in a lower portion of the housing configured to allow various state of matter such liquid that enters the housing to flow out. Broadly interpreted any hole opening can allow liquid to enter and escape.).
Zito fails to explicitly teach a display part configured to display a plurality of different colors each corresponding to an operating state of the robot.
However, Yamamoto teaches an apparatus and system for a communication robot that comprises a display part configured to display a plurality of different colors each corresponding to an operating state of the robot (see at least Figs. 2-5 and [0063]: “The display color is a luminescent color of the LED bar 143. Green is selected in the robot mode and blue is selected in the avatar mode. The LED bar 143 functions as, besides an operation part of the mobile robot 108, a notification part that notifies which one of the robot mode and the avatar mode is exhibited. The service user can recognize that the mode is the robot mode when the LED bar 143 glows green and that the mode is the avatar mode when the LED bar 143 glows blue. The service user is able to distinguish the two virtual personalities more clearly if it can be recognized whether the mode is the robot mode or the avatar mode both from the display on the display panel 141 and the luminescent color of the LED bar 143.”).
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 Zito to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto and provide display part configured to display a plurality of different colors each corresponding to an operating state of the robot, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to distinguish between different robot operating modes [0063].
Regarding claim 2, modified Zito teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zito further teaches wherein the display part comprises:
a light source unit selectively emitting light in the plurality of different information (see at least Fig. 1 and [0062]: “FIG. 1 also shows display 50 to interface with a human kitchen worker. Examples of a display 50 include, without limitation, a monitor or touchscreen display. The kitchen worker may input information to the robotic kitchen assistant via the touchscreen display. Also, instructions may be shown to the kitchen worker on the display 50. In embodiments, the screen displays upcoming motions to be performed by the robot arm to enhance collaboration with human kitchen workers. In embodiments, instructions for the human kitchen worker are projected onto the work area or food item either directly via a laser projection system or similar system or virtually via augmented reality glasses.”); and
a controller sharing an interface with the collaborative robot supported by the housing part and controlling the light emission from the light source unit (see at least Fig. 3 and [0070]: “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a robotic kitchen assistant 100 in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The system 100 is shown including a housing 110 for holding various electronics, pneumatics, computer hardware and software such as storage 112, a programmed processor 114, controller 116, motion driver 118, and communication interface 160. As described herein the storage 112 may be preloaded with various information relating to recipe data, kitchen equipment parameters, and computer instructions for the processor to read and perform.”; [0093]: “FIG. 3 also shows human interface 142 which may be in the form of a keyboard, monitor, touchscreen display or another device capable of communicating information to human kitchen workers and/or receiving input.”).
Zito fails to explicitly teach a light source unit selectively emitting light in the plurality of different colors.
However, Yamamoto teaches an apparatus and system for a communication robot that comprises a light source unit selectively emitting light in a plurality of different colors (see at least Figs. 2-5 and [0063]: “The display color is a luminescent color of the LED bar 143. Green is selected in the robot mode and blue is selected in the avatar mode. The LED bar 143 functions as, besides an operation part of the mobile robot 108, a notification part that notifies which one of the robot mode and the avatar mode is exhibited. The service user can recognize that the mode is the robot mode when the LED bar 143 glows green and that the mode is the avatar mode when the LED bar 143 glows blue. The service user is able to distinguish the two virtual personalities more clearly if it can be recognized whether the mode is the robot mode or the avatar mode both from the display on the display panel 141 and the luminescent color of the LED bar 143.”).
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 Zito to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto and provide display part configured to display a plurality of different colors each corresponding to an operating state of the robot, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to distinguish between different robot operating modes [0063].
Regarding claim 6, modified Zito teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zito further teaches wherein the housing part has a hollow space (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0064]: “With reference to FIG. 1, robotic kitchen assistant 10 is shown including a support frame or housing 30 which distributes loads from the robotic arm to mounting mechanisms to minimize any motion of the system. In the exploded view shown in FIG. 2, it can be seen that the housing includes walls 32, wheels 34, stand 37, base 38, and frame element 42.” Four housing walls 32 form housing 30 with a hollow space.) comprising:
a first space in which a main body part of the collaborative robot is installed (see at least Fig. 2 and [0052]: “The robotic kitchen assistant includes a robotic arm 20 extending from a housing 30.”; [0064]: “With reference to FIG. 1, robotic kitchen assistant 10 is shown including a support frame or housing 30 which distributes loads from the robotic arm to mounting mechanisms to minimize any motion of the system. In the exploded view shown in FIG. 2, it can be seen that the housing includes walls 32, wheels 34, stand 37, base 38, and frame element 42.” Robot 20 extends from housing 30.);
a second space formed to cover the first space, and including an installation hole configured to receive a portion of a hand body part of the collaborative robot at a top of the second space (see at least Fig. 2 and [0052]: “The robotic kitchen assistant includes a robotic arm 20 extending from a housing 30.”; [0064]: “In the exploded view shown in FIG. 2, it can be seen that the housing includes walls 32, wheels 34, stand 37, base 38, and frame element 42.” The hand body portion of robotic arm 20 is mounted on a top of a cover that forms an upper surface of the housing 30 that includes installation holes to receive a portion of the hand body portion of the robotic arm.); and
a third space having a bottom surface on which the wheel unit is provided and formed to separate a lower surface of the first space from the ground (see at least Fig. 2 and [0064]: “In the exploded view shown in FIG. 2, it can be seen that the housing includes walls 32, wheels 34, stand 37, base 38, and frame element 42.”; [0066]: “FIG. 2 also illustrates a foot pedal 36 secured to the base 38.” The base 38 forms a third housing having a bottom surface for wheels 34 to separate a lower surface of the first space from the ground.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zito et al. (US 20200121125, hereinafter Zito) and Yamamoto (US 20200130194, hereinafter Yamamoto) in view of Gagne et al. (US 20200356094, hereinafter Gagne) and in further view of Meglan et al. (US 20220160445, hereinafter Meglan).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zito teaches the limitations of claim 2. Zito further teaches wherein the controller controls the light source unit to selectively display the plurality of information (see at least Fig. 3 and [0070]: “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a robotic kitchen assistant 100 in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The system 100 is shown including a housing 110 for holding various electronics, pneumatics, computer hardware and software such as storage 112, a programmed processor 114, controller 116, motion driver 118, and communication interface 160. As described herein the storage 112 may be preloaded with various information relating to recipe data, kitchen equipment parameters, and computer instructions for the processor to read and perform.”; [0093]: “FIG. 3 also shows human interface 142 which may be in the form of a keyboard, monitor, touchscreen display or another device capable of communicating information to human kitchen workers and/or receiving input.”) including:
information representing various different states in which the collaborative robot is performing a cooking task and/or not performing a cooking task (see at least [0062]: “FIG. 1 also shows display 50 to interface with a human kitchen worker. Examples of a display 50 include, without limitation, a monitor or touchscreen display. The kitchen worker may input information to the robotic kitchen assistant via the touchscreen display. Also, instructions may be shown to the kitchen worker on the display 50. In embodiments, the screen displays upcoming motions to be performed by the robot arm to enhance collaboration with human kitchen workers. In embodiments, instructions for the human kitchen worker are projected onto the work area or food item either directly via a laser projection system or similar system or virtually via augmented reality glasses.”).
Zito fails to explicitly teach that the information is colored and displaying a plurality of colors including: a first color representing a first state in which the collaborative robot is performing a task; a second color representing a second state in which the collaborative robot is not performing a task; a third color representing a third state in which the collaborative robot is stationary and not operating.
However, Gagne teaches a method and system for identifying machine states of a robotic device that displays a plurality of colors including: a first color representing a first state in which the robot is performing a task (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0050]: “In an embodiment, a visual pattern may convey information to using one or more colors of light such as monochromatic lights or lights that can be adjusted to produce two, three, or more than three colors.”; [0059]: “In another example, a blue color may be used to indicate a navigation state and a light pattern in the form of a left arrow (and/or a square on the left side light emitting modules) may indicate an impending left turn.”);
a second color representing a second state in which the robot is not performing the task (see at least [0047]: “When the red LED is activated and the green LED is turned off, red light will be emitted. Green light will be emitted when the red LED is off and the green LED is on.; [0059]: “In an embodiment, one or more of the above such as color patterns, intensity variations, illumination patterns, illumination shapes, illumination sizes, and/or light emitting device locations may be combined in a visual pattern to convey information about a machine state(s), and its corresponding status, of a robotic device…Similarly, a green color may be used to indicate a machine state corresponding to a sensor function state, and the location of the light emitting module emitting the green color may be used to indicate the identity of the sensor that is operating.”);
a third color representing a third state in which the robot is stationary and not operating (see at least [0050]: “In an embodiment, a visual pattern may convey information to using one or more colors of light such as monochromatic lights or lights that can be adjusted to produce two, three, or more than three colors. For example, a red color may be used to indicate machine states in the error state, an amber color may be used to indicate machine states in the collision alert state, a green color may be used to indicate machine states in the sensor function state, and a blue color may be used to indicate machine states in the navigation state.”).
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 Zito to incorporate the teachings of Gagne and provide colored information and displaying a plurality of colors including: a first color representing a first state in which the robot is performing a task, a second color representing a second state in which the robot is not performing a task, a third color representing a third state in which the robot is stationary and not operating, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to show visual contrast on the display for the user to see associated with different states of the robot.
The combination of Zito and Gagne fails to explicitly teach a fourth color representing a fourth state in which the collaborative robot detects the occurrence of a collision.
However, Meglan teaches a system and method for robotic collision detection that displays a color representing a state in which a collaborative robot detects an occurrence of a collision (see at least [0058]: “In response to identifying potential collisions, image data may be transmitted from the controller 200 to the console 300 to cause the display 306 to display an indication that a collision may occur. Displaying the indication may include changing a color of one or more objects (either moving or stationary) likely to collide with another object, outlining the objects, etc. Indication of potential collisions could also be displayed by darkening the non-colliding entities in the display and highlighting the potential colliding objects exclusively. This highlighting could also be done with changing brightness or colors. The time to collision could be indicated by showing not just the objects involved but also the swept volumes in space of the objects potentially to be in contact in the future, coloring the time dependence of the shown swept volumes with differing light intensity or color maps that make it clear what is close and what is further out in time. Spatialized audio could be used as well to either direct attention to where, on the display, the collisions may occur in the not too distant future or to direct attention to the actual location on the robot itself where the possible collision could occur.”).
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 Zito and Gagne to incorporate the teachings of Meglan and provide means to display a color representing a state in which a collaborative robot detects an occurrence of a collision, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to show to the user a visual warning of an impact.
Regarding claim 4, modified Zito teaches the limitations of claim 3. Zito further teaches wherein the controller controls the light source unit (see at least Fig. 3 and [0070]: “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a robotic kitchen assistant 100 in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The system 100 is shown including a housing 110 for holding various electronics, pneumatics, computer hardware and software such as storage 112, a programmed processor 114, controller 116, motion driver 118, and communication interface 160. As described herein the storage 112 may be preloaded with various information relating to recipe data, kitchen equipment parameters, and computer instructions for the processor to read and perform.”; [0093]: “FIG. 3 also shows human interface 142 which may be in the form of a keyboard, monitor, touchscreen display or another device capable of communicating information to human kitchen workers and/or receiving input.”).
Zito fails to explicitly teach controlling the light source unit in a flashing mode in which light is emitted with blinking or a non-flashing mode in which light is emitted without blinking.
However, Yamamoto teaches an apparatus and system for a communication robot that controls a light source unit in a flashing mode in which light is emitted with blinking or a non-flashing mode in which light is emitted without blinking (see at least [0032]: “The LED bar 143, which is a light emitting device including a plurality of LEDs and a light guide material, is placed in an outer peripheral part having an annular shape in the upper part of the trunk part 121 in such a way that each of the LEDs emits light in a radiation direction with respect to the vertical axis. The LED bar 143 is able to change the luminescent color and the blinking cycle. By determining the luminescent color in advance, for example, it is possible to notify the service user of information regarding whether the mobile robot 100 at the present time is in the robot mode or the avatar mode.”).
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 Zito to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto and provide a means to controls a light source unit in a flashing mode in which light is emitted with blinking or a non-flashing mode in which light is emitted without blinking, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to notify the user of the different operating mode [0032].
Regarding claim 5, modified Zito teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Zito fails to explicitly teach wherein the flashing mode includes a first flashing mode in which light is emitted with blinking at a predetermined period and a second flashing mode in which light is emitted with blinking at a different period from the first flashing mode.
However, Yamamoto teaches an apparatus and system for a communication robot wherein a flashing mode includes a first flashing mode in which light is emitted with blinking at a predetermined period and a second flashing mode in which light is emitted with blinking at a different period from the first flashing mode (see at least [0032]: “The LED bar 143, which is a light emitting device including a plurality of LEDs and a light guide material, is placed in an outer peripheral part having an annular shape in the upper part of the trunk part 121 in such a way that each of the LEDs emits light in a radiation direction with respect to the vertical axis. The LED bar 143 is able to change the luminescent color and the blinking cycle. By determining the luminescent color in advance, for example, it is possible to notify the service user of information regarding whether the mobile robot 100 at the present time is in the robot mode or the avatar mode.”).
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 Zito to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto and provide a flashing mode includes a first flashing mode in which light is emitted with blinking at a predetermined period and a second flashing mode in which light is emitted with blinking at a different period from the first flashing mode, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to notify the user of the different operating mode [0032].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zito et al. (US 20200121125, hereinafter Zito) and Yamamoto (US 20200130194, hereinafter Yamamoto) in view of Salijeski (US 20180089925, hereinafter Salijeski).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zito teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zito further teaches wherein the light source unit includes a light source disposed on an outer surface of a part (see at least Fig. 1 and [0062]: “FIG. 1 also shows display 50 to interface with a human kitchen worker. Examples of a display 50 include, without limitation, a monitor or touchscreen display. The kitchen worker may input information to the robotic kitchen assistant via the touchscreen display.”; Fig. 9 and [0133]: “FIG. 9 illustrates a graphical user interface (GUI) 300 of a display for communicating instructions and status of food items with human kitchen workers in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.”).
Zito fails to explicitly teach wherein the light source unit includes an LED light source disposed on an outer surface of a door part that is formed on a front side of the housing part.
However, Salijeski teaches an apparatus and system for a portable snack vending machine that comprises a light source unit that includes an LED light source disposed on an outer surface of a door part that is formed on a front side of a housing part (see at least Figs. 1-3 and [0018]: “For example, an LED light indicator 130, exemplarily illustrated in FIG. 1. If the selection is incorrect, the selection process will be showing error wherein it is corrected by the user. The user could select via touch screen display for any one of the displayed snack 106. For example, if cashews are selected, so the microcontroller in the control module 112 sets the LED light indicator 130 in front of the cashews ON. This helps the user to visually confirm the ordered snack 106. The user could also select any, several, or all of the fruits or candies to mix with the nuts. In preferred embodiments, the cylindrical container 104 is made from a clear acrylic material to visualize the stored predefined snack easily.”; [0025]: “Then the LED lenses are pressed into place and the front panel is screwed to the front of the front door 132.”).
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 Zito to incorporate the teachings of Salijeski and provide a light source unit that includes an LED light source disposed on an outer surface of a door part that is formed on a front side of a housing part, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the user to see and visually confirm operations of the robot that is built into the housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it appears they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it appears it would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in this this Office action.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 TIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3903. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:30am-5:30pm eastern time).
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on (571)272-6919. 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights