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 .
Preliminary claim amendments filed 1/8/2024 are acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 2016/0271803).
With regards to claim 1, Stewart (paragraphs [0030] - [0059]; figures 1-11) discloses a method of inactivating pathogens in an environment by means of a robot system (figure 1), the robot system comprising: a mobile robot comprising a base, a traction arrangement configured to move the base on a base surface of the environment (paragraphs 30, 31), and a manipulator connected to the base and movable relative to the base (paragraph 36); a pathogen detector (paragraph 45); and an inactivation device carried by the manipulator (paragraph 36), the inactivation device being configured to inactivate pathogens; the method comprising: moving the base on the base surface; moving the pathogen detector by means of the manipulator; obtaining pathogen data by means of the pathogen detector, the pathogen data being indicative of a presence of pathogens; moving the base on the base surface based on the pathogen data; moving the inactivation device based on the pathogen data by means of the manipulator; and controlling the inactivation device to inactivate the pathogens (paragraphs 30-48).
It is additionally presented that a person having ordinary skill int eh art would have found it obvious to have moved the device as needed to position it to successfully disinfect the areas where pathogens are detected.
Stewart further only differs in the location of the pathogen detector being on the manipulator arm. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have located the pathogen detector sensor on the manipulator arm with the UV light in order to allow the detector and light to aim at various surfaces/areas independent of moving the whole robot as desired.
With regards to claim 2, the robot operates autonomously (para [0005]).
With regards to claim 3, the robot can have a premade map for the environment (para [0047]) given to it or can generate its own 3D map with on board scanners (para [0045]). The robot also uses sensors to measure pathogens and then apply the sterilization treatment accordingly (para [0045]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to note the pathogen data on the map in order to track where sterilization is needed/has occurred and the route of the robot.
With regards to claim 4, movement and control of the inactivation device is done based on the map (para [0045]).
With regards to claim 5, the combination uses the detector and moves it to detect pathogens. The robot uses a map to control the sterilization and moving based on the map (para [0045]). Thus, some detection strategy is provided and it is moved in accordance with that strategy based on the map.
With regards to claim 6, the robot uses a map to control the sterilization and moving based on the map (para [0045]). Thus, some inactivation strategy is provided as claimed.
With regards to claim 7, Stewart teaches using a topographical 3D map (para [0045]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a 3D map for more accurate control.
With regards to claim 9, the manipulator is taken to have an end effector (it has an end that can be moved to push things around if desired). Further, Stewart teaches that the robot can take any form and can include an articulated hand for grasping and moving objects (para [0045]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made one of the at least one manipulator include an articulated hand for grasping and moving objects.
With regards to claim 11, the pathogen detector and the inactivation device are taken to be non-invasive (air spectrometry and UV light).
With regards to claim 12, the modification above results in the detector and inactivation device on the same manipulator arm.
With regards to claim 13, Stewart (paragraphs [0030] - [0059]; figures 1-11) discloses a control system for controlling inactivating pathogens in an environment by means of a robot system (figure 1), the robot system comprising: a mobile robot comprising a base, a traction arrangement configured to move the base on a base surface of the environment (paragraphs 30, 31), and a manipulator connected to the base and movable relative to the base (paragraph 36); a pathogen detector (paragraph 45); and an inactivation device carried by the manipulator (paragraph 36), the inactivation device being configured to inactivate pathogens; the control method comprising: moving the base on the base surface; moving the pathogen detector by means of the manipulator; obtaining pathogen data by means of the pathogen detector, the pathogen data being indicative of a presence of pathogens; moving the base on the base surface based on the pathogen data; moving the inactivation device based on the pathogen data by means of the manipulator; and controlling the inactivation device to inactivate the pathogens (paragraphs 30-48).
It is additionally presented that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have moved the device as needed to position it to successfully disinfect the areas where pathogens are detected.
Stewart teaches generally the use of an autonomous robot (para [0005]; [0030]). Stewart also teaches the use of microcontrollers and programmed operation (see whole document). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a microcontroller (processor with memory) including programmed control instructions (a program with code stored in memory) in order to automate the taught control processes and operation of the robot system.
Stewart further only differs in the location of the pathogen detector being on the manipulator arm. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have located the pathogen detector sensor on the manipulator arm with the UV light in order to allow the detector and light to aim at various surfaces/areas independent of moving the whole robot as desired.
With regards to claim 14, “any of claims 2 to 12” is taken to be in the alternative as that is required to be a proper independent claim and “any of the proceeding claims” is listed as an example of proper multiple dependency in MPEP 608.01(n). It is discussed above how may of the method of claims 2-12 are taught by Stewart above.
With regards to claim 15, Stewart (paragraphs [0030] - [0059]; figures 1-11) discloses a robot system with a control system for controlling inactivating pathogens in an environment by means of a robot system (figure 1), the robot system comprising: a mobile robot comprising a base, a traction arrangement configured to move the base on a base surface of the environment (paragraphs 30, 31), and a manipulator connected to the base and movable relative to the base (paragraph 36); a pathogen detector (paragraph 45); and an inactivation device carried by the manipulator (paragraph 36), the inactivation device being configured to inactivate pathogens; the control method comprising: moving the base on the base surface; moving the pathogen detector by means of the manipulator; obtaining pathogen data by means of the pathogen detector, the pathogen data being indicative of a presence of pathogens; moving the base on the base surface based on the pathogen data; moving the inactivation device based on the pathogen data by means of the manipulator; and controlling the inactivation device to inactivate the pathogens (paragraphs 30-48).
It is additionally presented that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have moved the device as needed to position it to successfully disinfect the areas where pathogens are detected.
Stewart teaches generally the use of an autonomous robot (para [0005]; [0030]). Stewart also teaches the use of microcontrollers and programmed operation (see whole document). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a microcontroller (processor with memory) including programmed control instructions (a program with code stored in memory) in order to automate the taught control processes and operation of the robot system.
Stewart further only differs in the location of the pathogen detector being on the manipulator arm. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have located the pathogen detector sensor on the manipulator arm with the UV light in order to allow the detector and light to aim at various surfaces/areas independent of moving the whole robot as desired.
With regards to claim 16, the robot can have a premade map for the environment (para [0047]) given to it or can generate its own 3D map with on board scanners (para [0045]). The robot also uses sensors to measure pathogens and then apply the sterilization treatment accordingly (para [0045]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to note the pathogen data on the map in order to track where sterilization is needed/has occurred and the route of the robot.
With regards to claim 18, the combination uses the detector and moves it to detect pathogens. The robot uses a map to control the sterilization and moving based on the map (para [0045]). Thus, some detection strategy is provided and it is moved in accordance with that strategy based on the map.
With regards to claim 19, the robot uses a map to control the sterilization and moving based on the map (para [0045]). Thus, some inactivation strategy is provided as claimed.
With regards to claim 20, Stewart teaches using a topographical 3D map (para [0045]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a 3D map for more accurate control.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 2016/0271803) in view of Urban et al. (US 2021/0338864).
With regards to claims 8 and 17, Urban et al. teaches a UV sterilization system with pathogen detection (abstract; para [0167]). Urban et al. teaches alerting staff when detecting pathogens (para [0167]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have alerted staff/operators (an alarm) when pathogens are detected (above the detection threshold) in order to alert operators of the status of the room/area being treated.
Claim(s)10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 2016/0271803) in view of Trapani (US 2020/0345875).
With regards to claim 10, Trapani teaches a room UV sterilization system (abstract and fig 13). Multiple emitter platforms can be networked together to work cooperatively to disinfect the space (para [0067]-[0068]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made multiple robots work together in order to collaboratively treat larger areas simultaneously.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights