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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on January 28, 2026 was received. Claims 6 and 7 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued October 31, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Herget et al. (US 2020/0338580) on claims 6-9 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 6: Herget et al. discloses a robot (104) including a mobile base body (204), a printing system (216) which can include a printhead with a series of nozzles in an array (217), a controller (295) including a print controller (296) which controls the printing system (216), the mobile base (204) having wheels and motors which are controlled by a navigation controller (294) which moves the robot (104) along a path where the printing system (216) deposits printing material along the path in swaths, where the robot (104) has a BIM module (222) to receive and access location information, a building information model (BIM) or a CAD model of the floor plan with which the robot generates a navigation and printing map (par. 24, 38-39, 43-45, 75, figures 1-2).
Herget et al. further discloses that the robot (104) is controlled so as to operate partially autonomously, where it can generate desired patterns based on specific sensed obstacles and dimensions, for instance cropping a line to be farther from a wall, combining two lines such that they can be painted in one swath, or modifying the location of an image to printed such that it can be printed in one swath instead of two, when both images can be made within one swath width of the robot (104), in order to complete a process more efficiently so as to reduce the time required (par. 138-149). This process of receiving an input file as a BIM or CAD model and modifying a number of features in the map on file in order to more efficiently complete the process, requires the controller to identify specific features and obstacles like walls or desired print shapes, take steps to change the location of the feature- such as where a line is relative to a wall- and then execute the new plan in order to print more expeditiously than if the feature hadn’t been changed. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this requires generating an alternative floor plan feature in order to reduce consumption of the resource of time.
Herget et al. further discloses a specific example where the robot has a print head with a 1-inch print width, and encounters an area of the plan which has two parallel 5/8-inch-wide lines, which together have a width exceeding the 1-inch print width (5/8+ 5/8 = 10/8 = 5/4 or 1.25 inches), where the robot then instead prints the two lines as one different line, thus changing the original floor plan feature to another one which fits in the print width for a single swath or pass of the robot (par. 148). Additionally, Herget et al. mentions a number of different ways in which the width of a feature cannot fit within the print width zone, such as when a line is too close to a boundary such that the entirety of the line cannot fit into the print head width and the print head must instead change the planned feature into a new feature that instead can fit into the print head width (pars. 186-189, figure 11).
Regardless- all of the limitations in the claim which describe how the controller operates- including the limitations about the floor plan feature and the alternative floor plan feature- are deemed to be statements with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case the controller of Herget et al. is capable of being programmed to perform the claimed instructions explicitly.
Regarding claims 7-8: Herget et al. discloses that the printing system (216) can change the size of various features such as the two parallel lines discussed above such that they can be printed together in one swath (par. 148) in order to save printing time (par. 132, 144).
Regarding claim 9: Herget et al. discloses that the above example of combining lines into one swath is a feature that corresponds to drywall (par. 148) and further discloses that many of the features which can be altered include walls and areas adjacent to walls (par. 141-148).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Herget et al. does not teach the specified function of being able to modify a feature that exceeds the swath width into one that fits into the swath width.
In response:
Applicant appears to argue that the cited portion of Herget et al. teaches that the parallel lines are 5/8 inches apart, not 5/8 inches wide, and as such do not exceed the 1 inch swath width. While this interpretation is understood, it is not entirely clear that this is what the teaching of Herget et al. actually says. The specific wording is “two parallel lines that are 5/8 inches wide” and not “apart” or “the spacing between two parallel lines is 5/8 inches wide”. The meaning of this phrase seemed to suggest that the two lines would be partially printed in a single swath despite them not fitting together entirely into the print width. So while it is possible that Applicant’s interpretation is the correct intention of this passage, it is still believed to be teaching to a reader of ordinary skill in the art that features that, together, exceed the print width can still be partially printed together in one swath, just in a modified pattern.
Regardless of the above, another portion of Herget et al. has been cited which more distinctly points out how features of the floor plan can be altered when they do not conform to the overall print width of the robot. Figure 11 specifically shows a situation where the zone between an outer boundary and a desired printed line can be changed such that no line is printed when the line does not fit into the robot’s possible print zone. Therefore, Herget et al. still reads on this limitation even if the above interpretation was incorrect.
Even further, as indicated in the previous rejection and repeated here, none of the limitations regarding the controller functions- including the floor plan and alternate floor plan- impart patentability to these claims because they are deemed to be statements with regard to the intended use of the apparatus and have nothing to do with the actual structure thereof. Applicant has not attempted to respond to this portion of the rejection, so even without the other portions of Herget et al. describing its similar functions and capabilities, the instant rejection would be maintained because the intended use limitations do not impart patentability to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
4/8/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights