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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they considered moot because the arguments are directed toward subject matter that has not been previously considered and has necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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:
“enabling assembly” in claim 1. Applicant’s disclosure recites “enabling assembly 102” in paragraph [0039] and Fig. 3.
“operating assembly” in claim 1. Applicant’s disclosure recites “operating assembly 103” in paragraph [0039] and Fig. 2.
“emergency component” in claim 2. Applicant’s disclosure recites “emergency component 104” in paragraph [0054] and Fig. 2.
“auxiliary components” in claim 9. Applicant’s disclosure recites “auxiliary components 106” in paragraph [0057] and Fig. 2.
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.
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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braut (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0255704 A1) in view of Norman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,810,378 B1; hereinafter Norman), Eggert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0213535 A1; hereinafter Eggert), and Capello (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0035073 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Braut discloses:
An electronic device (robot controller, see at least abstract) comprising: a portable body (portable robot controller, see at least [0002]) comprising a housing (see at least Figs 1-2) and a cable extending outward from the housing (see at least Fig. 3),;
an enabling assembly comprising an enabling component at least partially arranged outside the housing, the enabling assembly adapted to provide an enabling signal to the unmanned ground vehicle via the cable in response to the enabling component being operated (safety switch operating means to be used to be held in a run position and robot movement stops if safety switch operating means is not held in the run position, see at least [0013] and [0051]; and Fig. 5); and
an operating assembly at least partially arranged outside the housing and adapted to, in response to reception of the enabling signal, provide an operation signal to the unmanned ground vehicle to control an operation of the unmanned ground vehicle (control means 2 and 3 are joysticks, see at least [0046], velocity and robot movement is determined by deflection of joystick from its neutral position, see at least [0052]; and Figs 1-2 and 4).
wherein the operating assembly is arranged on a first side of the housing (see front side of Fig. 4 with joystick) and enabling component is arranged on a second side of the housing opposite to the first side (see opposite side or back of controller in Fig. 5 with safety switch)
wherein the housing comprises a handheld part arranged on the second side to facilitate holding of the electronic device (safety switch and grips to be held, see Fig. 5), and wherein the enabling component is arranged adjacent to the handheld part to allow the user to press the enabling component while holding the electronic device with one hand (operator is permitted to operate robot controller using one hand only [0023])
Braut does not explicitly disclose:
unmanned ground vehicle
wherein the end cable is coupled to an interface of a printed circuit board at a first end and has a second end configured to be plugged into a corresponding socket of the unmanned ground vehicle
wherein the enabling assembly is adapted to provide the enabling signal comprising a pair of check signals for dual-channel transmission
wherein the pair of check signals are verified against each other by the unmanned ground vehicle
the handheld part comprising a band
However, Norman teaches:
the cable adapted to electrically connect the electronic device to an unmanned ground vehicle (tether cable 330, see at least Fig. 3B)
wherein the end cable is coupled to an interface of a printed circuit board at a first end and has a second end configured to be plugged into a corresponding socket of the unmanned ground vehicle (user may control robot using a wired connection, transmitter 106 communicates control signals between tether port 308 and the OVPC tether port 324 through tether cable 330, see at least col. 7 lines 9-15 and Fig. 3B)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut by adding the tether cable taught by Norman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a hard wire connection (see col. 7 lines 3-4) and “to plug the transmitter directly into the OVPC and specifically bypass the receiver for diagnostic purposes” (see col. 7 lines 21-23).
Additionally, Eggert teaches:
wherein the enabling assembly is adapted to provide the enabling signal comprising a pair of check signals for dual-channel transmission (transmitted signals are checked for dual-channel transmission, see abstract and [0005])
wherein the pair of check signals are verified against each other by the unmanned ground vehicle (generated signals transmitted via two transmission channels to a common evaluation unit to be checked within the evaluation unit using calculation specifications that correspond to one another, see at least [0008])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut and the tether cable taught by Norman by adding the dual-channel transmission taught by Eggert with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect errors between signals (see [0011]).
Furthermore, Capello teaches:
the handheld part comprising a band (additional component part of robot 600 provides communication for instruction relating to operation of robot, may comprise one or more attachment means such as straps to attach making the robot hand-held, see at least [0061])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut, the tether cable taught by Norman, and the dual-channel transmission taught by Eggert by adding the strap taught by Capello with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to actively attach a controller to a user’s arm (see [0061]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
an emergency component (emergency stop button 4, see at least [0048]) at least partially arranged outside the housing (see at least reference number 4 in figures 4 and 5) and adapted to, in response to being pressed, provide an emergency signal to the unmanned ground vehicle to stop the operation of the unmanned ground vehicle (emergency stop 4 is arranged as a push button on the panel, see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
a display arranged on the housing (display 5, see at least [0033] and Fig. 1) and adapted to at least present parameters and/or status of the unmanned ground vehicle (displays what measures are permitted at each moment such as current position and orientation, see at least [0033]-[0035])
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above but Braut does not disclose:
the cable comprises: an Ethernet cable to allow the operation signal to be transmitted
However, Phillips teaches:
the cable comprises: an Ethernet cable to allow the operation signal to be transmitted (communication between remote vehicle 10 and operator control unit 20 is accomplished via a communication link that includes an ethernet cable, see at least [0327])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Barut by adding the ethernet cable taught by Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “low EMC footprint, noise/bounce tolerant, modularity, can uniformly read/control each endpoint” and because “an Ethernet network can handle far node-to-far node communication” (see [0178]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
the operating assembly comprises: a joystick adapted to generate the operation signal (control means such as joysticks, see at least [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
the joystick and the display are arranged on a first side of the housing, and the enabling component is arranged on a second side of the housing opposite to the first side (display and joysticks on the top and live handle switch on the bottom, see at least fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
the housing comprises: a handheld part arranged on the second side to facilitate holding of the electronic device (left and right handgrips 32L and 32R, see at least [0048] and Fig. 5), and wherein the enabling component is arranged adjacent to the handheld part to allow the user to press the enabling component while holding the electronic device with one hand (see grips 32L and 32R adjacent to live handle switches 11L and 11R in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
auxiliary components at least partially arranged outside the housing and adapted to generate an adjustment signal to adjust the parameters of the unmanned ground vehicle and/or to adjust a presentation present on the display (switch means 6 and 7 arranged as pushbuttons and may activate fixed functions or programmable functions and when activated, displays to the operator information about what measures are permitted at each moment, see at least [0033] and Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
the electronic device is a standardized teach pendant (teach pendant unit TPU, see at least [0002])
Regarding claim 11, Braut discloses:
obtaining an enabling signal from an enabling assembly of an electronic device (safety switch operating means to be used to be held in a run position and robot movement stops if safety switch operating means is not held in the run position, see at least [0013] and [0051]; and Fig. 5);
obtaining an operation signal from an operating assembly of the electronic device (control means 2 and 3 are joysticks, see at least [0046], velocity and robot movement is determined by deflection of joystick from its neutral position, see at least [0052]; and Figs 1-2 and 4); and
controlling an operation of the unmanned ground vehicle according to the operation signal in response to reception of the enabling signal (press live handle operating switch to enable TPU and move the joystick for robot to move in indicated direction, see at least steps 60-62 in Fig. 6).
wherein the operating assembly is arranged on a first side of the housing (see front side of Fig. 4 with joystick) and enabling component is arranged on a second side of the housing opposite to the first side (see opposite side or back of controller in Fig. 5 with safety switch)
wherein the housing comprises a handheld part arranged on the second side to facilitate holding of the electronic device (safety switch and grips to be held, see Fig. 5), and wherein the enabling component is arranged adjacent to the handheld part to allow the user to press the enabling component while holding the electronic device with one hand (operator is permitted to operate robot controller using one hand only [0023])
Braut does not explicitly disclose:
unmanned ground vehicle
wherein the enabling signal is received via cable that is coupled to an interface of a printed circuit board at a first end and has a second end configured to be plugged into a corresponding socket of the unmanned ground vehicle
obtaining a pair of check signals of the enabling signal from the enabling assembly of the electronic device
comparing the pair of the check signals to verify a validity of the enabling signal
the handheld part comprising a band
However, Norman teaches:
the cable adapted to electrically connect the electronic device to an unmanned ground vehicle (tether cable 330, see at least Fig. 3B)
wherein the enabling signal is received via cable that is coupled to an interface of a printed circuit board at a first end and has a second end configured to be plugged into a corresponding socket of the unmanned ground vehicle (user may control robot using a wired connection, transmitter 106 communicates control signals between tether port 308 and the OVPC tether port 324 through tether cable 330, see at least col. 7 lines 9-15 and Fig. 3B)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut by adding the tether cable taught by Norman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a hard wire connection (see col. 7 lines 3-4) and “to plug the transmitter directly into the OVPC and specifically bypass the receiver for diagnostic purposes” (see col. 7 lines 21-23).
Additionally, Eggert teaches:
obtaining a pair of check signals of the enabling signal from the enabling assembly of the electronic device (transmitted signals are checked for dual-channel transmission, see abstract and [0005])
comparing the pair of the check signals to verify a validity of the enabling signal (generated signals transmitted via two transmission channels to a common evaluation unit to be checked within the evaluation unit using calculation specifications that correspond to one another, see at least [0008])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut and the tether cable taught by Norman by adding the dual-channel transmission taught by Eggert with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect errors between signals (see [0011]).
Furthermore, Capello teaches:
the handheld part comprising a band (additional component part of robot 600 provides communication for instruction relating to operation of robot, may comprise one or more attachment means such as straps to attach making the robot hand-held, see at least [0061])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut, the tether cable taught by Norman, and the dual-channel transmission taught by Eggert by adding the strap taught by Capello with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to actively attach a controller to a user’s arm (see [0061]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
obtaining an emergency signal from the emergency component of the electronic device (emergency stop button 4, see at least [0048]); and stopping the operation of the unmanned ground vehicle in response to reception of the emergency signal (emergency stop 4 is arranged as a push button on the panel, see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
obtaining an adjustment signal; and adjusting corresponding one or more of parameters according to the adjustment signal (switch means 6 and 7 arranged as pushbuttons and may activate fixed functions or programmable functions and when activated, displays to the operator information about what measures are permitted at each moment, see at least [0033] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
transmitting information involving parameters and/or status of the unmanned ground vehicle to the electronic device (displays what measures are permitted at each moment such as current position, orientation, and status, see at least [0033]-[0040]; cable for transfer of data communication, see at least [0047])
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
A computer readable storage medium having computer readable program instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a control module, cause the control module to perform the method of claim 11 (program stored on computer readable medium that make the computer perform the method, see at least [0079])
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
obtaining an emergency signal from the emergency component of the electronic device (emergency stop button 4, see at least [0048]); and stopping the operation of the unmanned ground vehicle in response to reception of the emergency signal (emergency stop 4 is arranged as a push button on the panel, see at least [0033])
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
obtaining an adjustment signal; and adjusting corresponding one or more of parameters according to the adjustment signal (switch means 6 and 7 arranged as pushbuttons and may activate fixed functions or programmable functions and when activated, displays to the operator information about what measures are permitted at each moment, see at least [0033] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Braut, Norman, Eggert, and Capello teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
transmitting information involving parameters and/or status of the unmanned ground vehicle to the electronic device (displays what measures are permitted at each moment such as current position, orientation, and status, see at least [0033]-[0040]; cable for transfer of data communication, see at least [0047])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0013239 A1) teaches a multi-channel signal check to determine whether a signal is normal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights