The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the finger ... configured to transition between a load position and an unload position, wherein in the load position the finger extends ... non-parallel to the extension member” (claims 17 and 20) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Note: although a finger per se is shown, it is not shown as transitioning between a load position and an unload position, nor is it apparent how or in what manner it could do so. Applicant argues that pars. [0052] and [0053] in conjunction with Figs. 2A-C and 3A-4B adequately disclose how the fingers move. In particular, applicant alleges that par. [0052] discloses that Figs. 2A-C depict the fingers in the load position and that par. [0053] explains that in the unload position, the fingers extend at non-parallel angles from the extension members. Additionally, applicant submits an annotated version of Fig. 4A which allegedly shows the point at which the finger moves between the two positions. This is not persuasive. Contrary to applicant’s assertion, par. [0052] discloses that Figs. 2A-C show the fingers in the unload position, and par. [0053] discloses that in the load position, the fingers extend at non-parallel angles. Further, applicant’s annotated version of Fig. 4A is not supported by the original disclosure. Fig. 4A (and all other figures which show the fingers) as originally filed merely shows the fingers attached to the distal ends of the extension members. There is nothing in the figures which gives any indication as to the manner or orientation of any movement of the fingers relative to the extension members. The fingers are never shown in the load position, nor are they ever shown interacting in any manner with a load.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goncalves et al (US 2020/0206909, previously cited).
Goncalves shows an assistive robot 100, which is considered to be “collaborative”, absent any structural or functional limitations associated with the term, comprising: an extension member 112/113 configured to selectively interface with a load 1005/1010/1015; a mobility body 106; a first wheel 125 operatively coupled to a first side of the mobility body; a second wheel (not separately identified but readily apparent) operatively coupled to a second side of the mobility body, the first wheel and the second wheel configured to facilitate movement of the collaborative robot within an environment; and a support mast 101 operatively coupled to the extension member, fixedly coupled to the mobility body at a proximal end of the support mast, and configured to adjust a height of the extension member to facilitate the selective interface of the extension member with the load (see at least Figs. 10-11), the support mast comprising an “indicating portion” (as broadly claimed, see note below) indicating a direction that the collaborative robot is facing.
Note: applicant discloses that “indication portion 255 may indicate the direction that the cobot 102 is facing in an analog manner to permit a user to visually determine the direction that the cobot 102 is facing.” Goncalves shows the mast to comprise several features, such as at least sensor 124 (pars. [0064] - [0066]) and/or handle 130 (par. [0063]), which, in an analog manner, would enable a user to visually determine the direction the robot was facing. Thus, even though Goncalves does not explicitly use the term “indicating portion”, the above-noted structure(s) on the mast of Goncalves could be utilized in the same manner to perform the claimed function. A recitation of an intended use of the claimed invention 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Re claim 2, the extension member comprises a retention mechanism 122 that defines an opening (not shown but note in par. [0060] that a gripping portion of retention mechanism 122 may be a hook, clasp or the like and/or may be U- or hook-shaped) configured to selectively receive a handle 1011/1019 of the load to selectively interface the extension member with the load.
Re claim 3, at least handle 130 “forms a curved L-shape”, as broadly claimed.
Re claim 4, the retention mechanism 122 is configured to grab the load and position the load on the robot (par. [0060] and Figs. 11A-D).
Re claim 6, a sensor portion 124 is coupled to the support mast, the sensor portion configured to identify obstacles proximate to the collaborative robot within the environment to permit the collaborative robot to dynamically operate within a dynamic environment (note pars. [0006], [0064], [0066], [0121] and claim 12).
Re claim 7, Goncalves shows a first ankle joint operatively coupled to the first side of the mobility body and to the first wheel, the first ankle joint configured to pivot around a first axis to change an orientation of the first wheel; and a second ankle joint operatively coupled to the second side of the mobility body and to the second wheel, the second ankle joint configured to pivot around a second axis to change an orientation of the second wheel (not separately identified but note par. [0061] and see Figs. 2 and 11A-D in which two of the four wheels are steerable caster-type wheels).
Re claim 8, the robot includes an interface device 135 configured to show a visual representation (display 140) corresponding to actions of the collaborative robot (par. [0088]).
Re claim 9, the mobility body defines an opening configured to receive a battery so as to position the battery proximate a geometric center of the mobility body (par. [0061], Fig. 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goncalves et al.
Goncalves does not show that the support mast comprises a brake device configured to prevent the extension member from moving relative to the support mast while the collaborative robot moves within the environment.
However, the examiner notes it is generally well known in the art of mast-type lift vehicles to provide a brake device to prevent movement of a fork carriage or other load handling device relative to the mast while the vehicle is moving in an environment.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Goncalves by providing the support mast with a brake device to prevent the extension member from moving relative to the support mast while the collaborative robot moved within the environment, as the examiner takes Official Notice that the use of such a brake device would simply have been a well-known and art recognized feature of masted lift trucks to prevent unwanted vertical movement of the load handling device relative to the mast while the vehicle was moving with a load.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goncalves et al in view of Keivan et al (WO 2018/039337, previously cited).
Goncalves does not show that the first and second wheels operate as a swerve drive.
Keivan discloses an autonomous cart in which (at least first and second) wheels 330a/b operate as a swerve drive to provide increased maneuverability.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Goncalves by configuring the first and second wheels to operate as a swerve drive, as taught by Keivan, to increase maneuverability of the mobile robot.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goncalves et al in view of Lee (KR 102614295, previously cited).
Re claim 11, Goncalves discloses in par. [0061] that the wheels may be adapted to traverse varied or uneven terrain and to negotiate obstacles such as curbs or steps, and incorporates by reference the disclosure of US Patent application 16/560252 (now US Patent 11,148,696 to Malghan et al) as an example of such a wheeled robot.
Malghan shows the robot to include a mobility body 110, a first leg 125A coupled to the mobility body with a first wheel 122A operatively coupled to a distal end of the first leg; a second leg 125B (could also be 137A/B) coupled to the mobility body with a second wheel 122B (could also be 132A/B) operatively coupled to a distal end of the second leg, the first leg and the second leg configured to: facilitate movement of the collaborative robot within an environment; and adjust a center of gravity of the collaborative robot, the load, or both while moving within the environment to compensate for the load, an environmental factor, a feature of a ground surface, or some combination thereof (see col. 4:6-28, col. 14:53 to col. 15:49, and col. 16:39-59); and a support mast 110 [operatively coupled to the cargo body,] fixedly coupled to the mobility body at a proximal end of the support mast, and configured to adjust a height of the [cargo body] extension member within a range of heights relative to the ground surface to permit the extension member to position the load [on and off the platform] at different heights within the range of heights.
As such, Goncalves, by incorporating the disclosure of Malghan, discloses a collaborative robot comprising: a cargo body comprising: a platform (upper surface of 106); and an extension member 112/113 configured to position a load on and off the platform (note par. [0054]: the robot may be used to move a load from a first position such as a floor or shelf to a second position which may be a storage location on the robot; it is apparent from at least Figs. 2 and 11 that the load could be placed on the top surface of 106); a mobility body 106; a first leg 125A coupled to the mobility body with a first wheel 122A operatively coupled to a distal end of the first leg; a second leg 125B or 137A/B coupled to the mobility body with a second wheel 122B or 132 A/B operatively coupled to a distal end of the second leg, the first leg and the second leg configured to: facilitate movement of the collaborative robot within an environment; and adjust a center of gravity of the collaborative robot, the load, or both while moving within the environment to compensate for the load, an environmental factor, a feature of a ground surface, or some combination thereof; and a support mast 101 operatively coupled to the cargo body, fixedly coupled to the mobility body at a proximal end of the support mast, and configured to adjust a height of the [cargo body] extension member within a range of heights relative to the ground surface to permit the extension member to position the load [on and off the platform] at different heights within the range of heights, the support mast comprising an “indicating portion” (treated in the same manner noted in par. 4 above with respect to claim 1) indicating a direction that the collaborative robot is facing.
.
Thus, Goncalves, by incorporating the disclosure of Malghan, shows all limitations of claim 11 except that the cargo body/platform is fixed in position and does not move within the range of heights with the extension member to permit the extension member to position the load on and off the platform at different heights within the range of heights.
However, Lee shows a similar load handling robot having a mobility body 100, support mast 110, and extension member 230 configured to selectively interface with a load, wherein the extension member comprises a retention mechanism 232 and/or 234 configured to facilitate the selective interface of the extension member with the load.
Lee further discloses a base member 210 (platform) that supports the bottom of the cargo and moves vertically along the mast within the range of heights with the extension member to enable the extension member to position the load on and off the platform at different heights within the range of heights.
As such, 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 apparatus of Goncalves (when incorporating the disclosure of Malghan) by providing a platform movable vertically along the mast within the range of heights with the extension member to enable the extension member to position the load on and off the platform at different heights within the range of heights, as shown by Lee, so that the weight of the load could be spread out over a greater area rather than being concentrated at the ends of the extension members.
Re claim 12, Goncalves with reference to Malghan, when modified by Lee as above, discloses that the range of heights comprises a first range of heights; the first leg and the second leg are configured to adjust a height of the mobility body and the support mast relative to the ground surface to facilitate the support mast adjusting the height of the cargo body within a second range of heights relative to the ground surface to permit the extension member to position the load on and off the platform at different heights within the second range of heights; and the second range of heights is at least partially different than the first range of heights (e.g., see Figs. 6-7 of Malghan).
Re claim 14, when modified as above, Goncalves with reference to Malghan shows the first leg and the second leg configured to position the support mast based on a slope of an external surface from which the load is being positioned on or positioned off to reduce a difference in slope between the external surface and a surface of the platform (e.g., Figs 6-7 of Malghan).
Similarly, re claim 15, the first leg and the second leg are configured to position the support mast based on a feature (e.g., the curb) of the ground surface on which the collaborative robot is positioned.
Re claim 17, the extension member of Goncalves as modified by Lee would comprises a finger 232 (from Lee) coupled to a distal end of the extension member, wherein the finger was configured to transition between a load position and an unload position, wherein: in the load position, the finger extends away from the extension member at an angle that is generally non-parallel to the extension member to grab the load and permit the extension member to position the load on the platform; and in the unload position, the finger extends away from the extension member to cause the finger to permit the extension member to position the load off the platform.
Re claim 18, the extension member of Goncalves defines an opening configured to receive the load, the opening comprising an adjustable width (via 113a) to permit the extension member to receive the load and to avoid obstacles proximate to the load (Fig. 2 and pars. [0059], [0129]).
Re claim 19, in substantially the same manner noted above with respect to claims 11-12, the collaborative robot of Goncalves as modified would comprise: a cargo body comprising: a platform 210 (from Lee); and an extension member 212/213 configured to position a load on and off the platform; a mobility body 106 including a body opening that is sized and shaped to receive the cargo body; a first leg 125A coupled to the mobility body with a first wheel operatively 122A coupled to a distal end of the first leg; a second leg 125B or 137A/B coupled to the mobility body with a second wheel 122B or 132A/B operatively coupled to a distal end of the second leg, the first leg and the second leg configured to: facilitate movement of the collaborative robot within an environment; and maintain a level position of the cargo body while moving within the environment; move the collaborative robot within the environment using the first wheel and the second wheel when no obstacle is in a path of the collaborative robot, and by “taking steps” (as broadly claimed) with the first leg and the second leg to avoid an obstacle or barrier in the path of the collaborative robot (Figs. 6-7); and a support mast 101 operatively coupled to the cargo body, fixedly coupled to the mobility body at a proximal end of the support mast, and configured to adjust a height of the cargo body within a first range of heights relative to a ground surface to permit the extension member to position the load on and off the platform at different heights within the first range of heights, wherein: the first leg and the second leg are configured to adjust a height of the mobility body and the support mast relative to the ground surface to facilitate the support mast adjusting the height of the cargo body within a second range of heights relative to the ground surface to permit the extension member to position the load on and off the platform at different heights within the second range of heights; and the second range of heights is at least partially different than the first range of heights.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goncalves et al in view of Lee, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chernyak (US 2021/0331333, previously cited).
Goncalves as modified does not show that the first leg comprises: an upper leg portion; a lower leg portion; a hip joint operatively coupled to both a proximal end of the upper leg portion and the mobility body, the hip joint configured to pivot around a first axis to facilitate movement of the upper leg portion along an arc around the first axis; a knee joint operatively coupled to both a proximal end of the lower leg portion and a distal end of the upper leg portion, the knee joint configured to pivot around a second axis to facilitate movement of the lower leg portion along an arc around the second axis; and an ankle joint operatively coupled to both a distal end of the lower leg portion and the first wheel, the ankle joint configured to facilitate rotation of the first wheel relative to the lower leg portion.
Chernyak shows a wheeled robot having at least a first leg 400a comprising an upper leg portion 500a; a lower leg portion 550a; a hip joint 412 operatively coupled to both a proximal end 410a of the upper leg portion and a mobility body 200, the hip joint configured to pivot around a first axis R1 to facilitate movement of the upper leg portion along an arc around the first axis; a knee joint 414 operatively coupled to both a proximal end of the lower leg portion and a distal end of the upper leg portion, the knee joint configured to pivot around a second axis R2 to facilitate movement of the lower leg portion along an arc around the second axis; and an ankle joint 422a operatively coupled to both a distal end 420a of the lower leg portion and a first wheel 700a, the ankle joint configured to facilitate rotation of the first wheel relative to the lower leg portion (pars. [0044] – [0047]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Goncalves by configuring at least the first leg to include an upper leg portion, a lower leg portion, a hip joint operatively coupled to both a proximal end of the upper leg portion and the mobility body, the hip joint configured to pivot around a first axis to facilitate movement of the upper leg portion along an arc around the first axis, a knee joint operatively coupled to both a proximal end of the lower leg portion and a distal end of the upper leg portion, the knee joint configured to pivot around a second axis to facilitate movement of the lower leg portion along an arc around the second axis, and an ankle joint operatively coupled to both a distal end of the lower leg portion and the first wheel, the ankle joint configured to facilitate rotation of the first wheel relative to the lower leg portion, as shown by Chernyak, for improved maneuverability of the robot.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goncalves et al (with reference to Malghan et al) in view of Lee, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Palan et al (US 10,908,612, previously cited).
Note: although claim 19 is deemed obvious over the Goncalves/Malghan and Lee combination, as set forth above in par. 9, the following alternative rejection is proposed in the event applicant’s arguments are ultimately found to be persuasive, and/or the claim is further amended to clearly overcome the rejection.
Palan teaches a robot movable within an environment using first and second wheels 318 when no obstacle is in a path of the robot (Figs. 4, 7 and 8), and by taking steps with first and second legs 315 to avoid an obstacle or barrier in the path of the robot (Figs. 6A-D).
As such, to any extent Goncalves as modified is deemed to not show or suggest that the robot takes steps with the first and second legs to avoid an obstacle or barrier in its path, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Goncalves by taking steps with the first leg and the second leg to avoid an obstacle or barrier in the path of the collaborative robot, as taught by Palan et al, to avoid the need for a separate mechanism to assist in avoiding obstacles.
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each newly cited reference shows a robotic or autonomous vehicle with means, such as lights or directional signals, to indicate the direction the vehicle is facing.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues regarding claims 1 and 11 that Goncalves does not show the claimed indicating means on the support mast. However, as noted above in par. 4, there is nothing in the claim language which defines “indicating portion” in such a manner as to define over what is shown by Goncalves.
Applicant argues regarding claim 19 that Malghan utilizes conveyors and/or toes to avoid obstacles, and thus allegedly does not show taking steps with first and second legs of the robot to avoid such obstacles. However, the broad recitation “taking steps” does not preclude such other components from assisting the robot in avoiding the obstacle. The first and second legs still take steps to avoid the obstacle, as shown in Figs. 6-7. Applicant appears to be reading limitations from the specification into the claim. However, the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim with sufficient specificity as to preclude the examiner’s interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, even if applicant’s arguments were deemed persuasive, and/or the claim was further amended to clearly overcome the rejection, the alternative rejection utilizing the Palan reference suggests the obviousness of a robot taking steps with legs to avoid obstacles, thereby mooting such arguments.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
10/09/26
