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 . Claims 1-8 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
Priority
1. Acknowledgement is made that the present application is a national phase conversion of PCT/KR2022/007361 filed on 05/24/2022, which claims priority to KR10-2021-0067777 filed on 05/26/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 11/22/2023 and 06/10/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-8 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. Specification (citation to US pub. No. 20240269858) is utilized for the description citations below.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a collaborative robot is installed” is indefinite. It is unclear is this is a new collaborative robot or the same collaborative robot introduced earlier. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “a collaborative robot is installed” as “the collaborative robot is installed”.
Additionally, claim 1 defines “a moveable base for a collaborative robot for cooking”, thus, broadly interpreted, that the movable base is suitable for being used with a collaborative robot, which is itself suitable for cooking tasks. However, claim 1 further defines, as an element of the movable base, “a housing part on which a collaborative robot is installed.” It is unclear if applicant requires the movable base suitable to be used with a collaborative robot or a system comprising a movable base and a collaborative robot installed on the housing of the base. For examination purposes, the examiner will consider the object of the invention is a movable base suitable to be used with a collaborative robot.
Furthermore, the limitation “a display part selectively displaying a plurality of different colors” is unclear. It is unclear how the displayed color is specifically selected. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as any color display.
Moreover, the limitation “a discharge hole unit having one or more through holes to discharge liquid flowing into the housing part” is unclear. The limitation of “to discharge liquid” is intended use of the holes and does not imply any clear limitations conacring the design of the holes. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as any holes which is suitable to discharge air is also suitable to discharge liquid.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “a collaborative robot is installed” is indefinite. It is unclear is this is a new collaborative robot or the same collaborative robot introduced earlier. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “a collaborative robot is installed” as “the collaborative robot is installed”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the main body part” is indefinite. It is unclear what the main body part is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “the main body part” as “a main body part”.
Additionally, the first and second space are defined by reference to the collaborative robot, which is not part of the movable base. The first space is defined as a space in which the main body part of the collaborative robot is installed, whereas in claim 1 mentions that the collaborative robot is installed on the housing. It is unclear how the hand body part of the collaborative robot could enter the second space since it appears on the figures that the second space is an enclosed space.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the side surface” is indefinite. It is unclear what the side surface is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “the side surface” as “a side surface”.
Additionally, it is also unclear if the side is referring to the left, right, front, rear, top, or bottom side. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting side surface as any side surface.
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
8. 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.
9. 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 Wong (US 20130188279, hereinafter Wong).
Regarding claim 1, Zito teaches a movable base for 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 on which a collaborative robot is installed (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 selectively displaying a 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.”; 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 the 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 having one or more through holes to discharge liquid flowing into the housing part (see at least Fig 2: right and left side walls of the housing 30 shows a plurality of holes to allow various state of matter such as air or liquid to discharge from the housing 30).
Zito fails to explicitly teach a display part selectively displaying a plurality of different colors.
However, Wong teaches a system and method of creating visual display associated with a mobile robot that comprises a display part that selectively displays a plurality of different colors (see at least [0027]: “In another alternative or additional embodiment, the invention contemplates that one of more LEDs will create a selected, different colored light to indicate an associated different condition or status of the robot 100, such as green when the robot 100 is stationary and ready for a task, blue when the robot 100 is moving, orange when the robot 100 is picking a media from storage or from a drive, yellow when the robot 100 is placing media into storage or into a drive, and red when there is a problem such as when the robot 100 drops a media. Likewise, condition-indicating light colors may flash or blink or may pulse in intensity. Other conditions may also be selected to be associated with a particular color, for example, such as when the robot 100 is stationary and waiting to remove a media from a drive. In such an embodiment, a person outside the library 201 thus will know the condition or status of each robot 100 by viewing the colors hitting the ceiling 114.”).
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 Wong and provide a display part that selectively displays a plurality of different colors, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to show visual contrast on the display for the user to see.
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 a 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 a collaborative robot installed in 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 a plurality of different colors.
However, Wong teaches a system and method of creating visual display associated with a mobile robot that comprises a light source unit that selectively emits light in a plurality of different colors (see at least [0027]: “In another alternative or additional embodiment, the invention contemplates that one of more LEDs will create a selected, different colored light to indicate an associated different condition or status of the robot 100, such as green when the robot 100 is stationary and ready for a task, blue when the robot 100 is moving, orange when the robot 100 is picking a media from storage or from a drive, yellow when the robot 100 is placing media into storage or into a drive, and red when there is a problem such as when the robot 100 drops a media. Likewise, condition-indicating light colors may flash or blink or may pulse in intensity. Other conditions may also be selected to be associated with a particular color, for example, such as when the robot 100 is stationary and waiting to remove a media from a drive. In such an embodiment, a person outside the library 201 thus will know the condition or status of each robot 100 by viewing the colors hitting the ceiling 114.”).
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 Wong and provide a light source unit that selectively emits light in a plurality of different colors, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to show visual contrast on the display for the user to see.
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 the 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 housing a hand body part of the collaborative robot at the top of the second space and formed to cover the upper surface of the first 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.); and
a third space housing the wheel unit at the bottom of the third space and formed to separate the 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 wheels 34 at the bottom and form a separate lower surface of the first space from the ground.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zito et al. (US 20200121125, hereinafter Zito) and Wong (US 20130188279, hereinafter Wong) in 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 a 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, Wong teaches a system and method of creating visual display associated with a mobile robot that displays a plurality of colors including: a first color representing a first state in which the collaborative robot is performing a task (see at least [0027]: “In another alternative or additional embodiment, the invention contemplates that one of more LEDs will create a selected, different colored light to indicate an associated different condition or status of the robot 100, such as green when the robot 100 is stationary and ready for a task, blue when the robot 100 is moving, orange when the robot 100 is picking a media from storage or from a drive, yellow when the robot 100 is placing media into storage or into a drive, and red when there is a problem such as when the robot 100 drops a media. Likewise, condition-indicating light colors may flash or blink or may pulse in intensity. Other conditions may also be selected to be associated with a particular color, for example, such as when the robot 100 is stationary and waiting to remove a media from a drive. In such an embodiment, a person outside the library 201 thus will know the condition or status of each robot 100 by viewing the colors hitting the ceiling 114.”);
a second color representing a second state in which the collaborative robot is not performing a task (see at least [0027]: “In another alternative or additional embodiment, the invention contemplates that one of more LEDs will create a selected, different colored light to indicate an associated different condition or status of the robot 100, such as green when the robot 100 is stationary and ready for a task, blue when the robot 100 is moving, orange when the robot 100 is picking a media from storage or from a drive, yellow when the robot 100 is placing media into storage or into a drive, and red when there is a problem such as when the robot 100 drops a media. Likewise, condition-indicating light colors may flash or blink or may pulse in intensity. Other conditions may also be selected to be associated with a particular color, for example, such as when the robot 100 is stationary and waiting to remove a media from a drive. In such an embodiment, a person outside the library 201 thus will know the condition or status of each robot 100 by viewing the colors hitting the ceiling 114.”);
a third color representing a third state in which the collaborative robot is stationary and not operating (see at least [0027]: “In another alternative or additional embodiment, the invention contemplates that one of more LEDs will create a selected, different colored light to indicate an associated different condition or status of the robot 100, such as green when the robot 100 is stationary and ready for a task, blue when the robot 100 is moving, orange when the robot 100 is picking a media from storage or from a drive, yellow when the robot 100 is placing media into storage or into a drive, and red when there is a problem such as when the robot 100 drops a media. Likewise, condition-indicating light colors may flash or blink or may pulse in intensity. Other conditions may also be selected to be associated with a particular color, for example, such as when the robot 100 is stationary and waiting to remove a media from a drive. In such an embodiment, a person outside the library 201 thus will know the condition or status of each robot 100 by viewing the colors hitting the ceiling 114.”).
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 Wong and provide colored information 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, 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 Wong 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 Wong to incorporate the teachings of Wong 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, Wong teaches a system and method of creating visual display associated with a mobile robot wherein a controller controls a light source unit (see at least [0031]: “The switches, rheostats, servo-motors, and other devices that control the operation of the LEDs or other light sources may in turn be controlled by a microprocessor that receives and processes electrical signals regarding the condition or status of the robot 100.”) 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 [0026]: “In a basic embodiment, the invention contemplates that one or more LEDs will emit a single color of light that will hit the ceiling 114 and will indicate the position of the robot 100 below. The invention also contemplates that instead of the light being of a steady intensity, the light may flash or blink on and off or may pulse in intensity. An LED may emit a single color of light, but may present that single color in different temporal flashes or pulses of intensity, for example, such as steady for when the robot 100 is stationary and ready for a task, and flashing or pulsing when the robot 100 is moving. The flashes or pluses may be of a regular temporal length occurring at regular temporal intervals, or may be irregular. For example when there is a problem or malfunction related to the robot 100, then the LED may emit a visual display such as a red light in the form of the Morse code "SOS" signal: three short flashes or pulses, followed by three long pulses, followed by three short pulses--all occurring at even time intervals.”).
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 Wong and provide a means to control 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 grab the attention of the user using flashes.
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, Wong teaches a system and method of creating visual display associated with a mobile 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 [0026]: “In a basic embodiment, the invention contemplates that one or more LEDs will emit a single color of light that will hit the ceiling 114 and will indicate the position of the robot 100 below. The invention also contemplates that instead of the light being of a steady intensity, the light may flash or blink on and off or may pulse in intensity. An LED may emit a single color of light, but may present that single color in different temporal flashes or pulses of intensity, for example, such as steady for when the robot 100 is stationary and ready for a task, and flashing or pulsing when the robot 100 is moving. The flashes or pluses may be of a regular temporal length occurring at regular temporal intervals, or may be irregular. For example when there is a problem or malfunction related to the robot 100, then the LED may emit a visual display such as a red light in the form of the Morse code "SOS" signal: three short flashes or pulses, followed by three long pulses, followed by three short pulses--all occurring at even time intervals.”)
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 Wong and provide 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 grab the attention of the user using various flash modes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zito et al. (US 20200121125, hereinafter Zito) and Wong (US 20130188279, hereinafter Wong) in view of Neumann et al. (US 20160236343, hereinafter Neumann).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zito teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Zito further teaches wherein both the first space and the second space have discharge grooves that guide liquid flown to the inside to be discharged toward the side surface.
However, Neumann teaches an apparatus and system for an autonomous robot wherein both a first space and a second space have discharge grooves that guide liquid flown to an inside to be discharged toward a side surface (see at least Figs. 4-5 and [0036]: “In some examples, to lessen the likelihood that liquid spilled on the top surface of the robot will migrate to the internal components, the robot includes a contoured protective cover and one or more drainage channels that cooperate to cause liquid to safely egress from the robot (e.g., flow off the sides of the robot and onto the floor)...Accordingly, a top surface of the robot chassis (e.g., a chassis ceiling) to which the cover is attached includes one or more secondary drainage channels extending beneath the cover. The secondary drainage channels are designed to guide or “channel” the liquid across the chassis ceiling to a safe egress point while preventing the liquid from entering an internal compartment of the robot chassis where the electronics are housed. In some examples, the raised edges which define the secondary drainage channels are provided by one or more struts that support the protective cover atop the chassis ceiling. In some examples, the secondary drainage channels can lead from locations where the liquid is most likely to migrate past the robot's protective cover to a sloped egress region where the liquid is unlikely to cause significant damage…Further, in some examples, a secondary drainage channel can direct the liquid radially outward towards the edge of the cover and away from a central region of the chassis where there are openings in the robot chassis exposing the internal electronics (e.g., openings exposing mechanical buttons or sensors).”; [0054]: “In this example, the ceiling 154 includes a raised upper surface 156 and a recessed lower surface 160 that forms a flange-like ring surrounding the upper surface. The lower surface 160 of the ceiling 154 provides the base of a primary drainage channel 162 formed between a plateaued edge 161 of the chassis ceiling separating the upper surface from the lower surface and the robot's outer rim 105.”; [0059]: “However, similar to the primary drainage channel 162, the secondary drainage channel 178 may be sloped to guide liquid towards its outer edge formed by the crescent-shaped struts 177a″ and therefore away from the central area 163 when the robot is placed on a generally flat surface, such as when the robot 100 is in use. In some examples, the slope of the secondary drainage channel 178 as measured along a radial axis from the center of the robot is between about 5 degrees and about 10 degrees. In some other examples, the secondary drainage channel 178 is substantially flat.”).
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 Neumann and provide a first space and a second space having discharge grooves that guide liquid flown to an inside to be discharged toward a side surface, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to direct liquid away from internal compartment of the robot chassis where the electronics are housed and prevent damage [0036].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zito et al. (US 20200121125, hereinafter Zito) and Wong (US 20130188279, hereinafter Wong) and Neumann et al. (US 20160236343, hereinafter Neumann) in view of Brand et al. (US 20240009856, hereinafter Brand).
Regarding claim 8, modified Zito teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Zito fails to explicitly teach a fastening means for securing the position of the housing part by attaching the housing part to another structure, and the housing part includes a detachable fastened part coupled to the fastening means.
However, Brand teaches an apparatus and method for a collaborative robot system on a mobile cart that comprises a fastening means for securing a position of a housing part by attaching the housing part to another structure, and the housing part includes a detachable fastened part coupled to the fastening means (see at least Figs. 5-7 and [0086]: “The connection screws 156 are tightened, thereby docking the arm frame 114 of the robot system 100 to the docking slider plate 192 of the docking fixture 120. The docking position aligns the body of the cart frame 102 to the process module 182/tool 210 and lends stability to the robot arm, allowing very minimal amount of vibration to the robot system 100.”; [0088]: “FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate different views of a docking fixture 120 used in docking the robot system 100 to a process module 182 of interest in a semiconductor tool (e.g., cluster tool) or in a fabrication facility that includes a plurality of process modules.”; [0089]: “Connection screws 156 are also provided on the docking slider plate 192 to connect the docking fixture 120 to a fixture connect interface 122 disposed on the arm frame 114 of the robot system 100 when the robot system 100 is docked at the process module 182 or at the tool 210 that includes the process module 182. The connection screws 156 may be provided on the same side as the fixture lock 2 186 or on a different side that is easily accessible. The connection screws 156 align with the corresponding arm connecting points 176 defined on the fixture connect interface 122 so that the connection screws 156 can be used to tightly couple the docking fixture 120 to the robot system 100 at the fixture connect interface 122.”).
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 Brand and provide a fastening means for securing a position of a housing part by attaching the housing part to another structure, and the housing part includes a detachable fastened part coupled to the fastening means, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to dock and align the body of robot with the structure and lends stability to the robot arm, allowing very minimal amount of vibration to the robot system [0086].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishizu et al. (US 20220118605) teaches a system and method for controlling a cooking system that comprises grooves to direct waste away from the housing.
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