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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 4/22/2026 is acknowledged. However, the Applicant has not explained why the election with traverse; therefore, the election is being considered as without traverse.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Currently, claims 1-7 are pending and examined.
Claims 8-17 are drawn to non-elected claims are being withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim is required to have a claimed status identifier (i.e. original, previously presented, currently amended). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Re claim 1, line 4; a citation “each strut” is confusing and indefinite because it’s unclear whether the same as “each strut” cited in line 2? Clarification is required. Claims 2-7depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected.
Re claim 1, line 6; a citation “each node” is confusing and indefinite because it’s unclear whether the same as “each node” cited in line 2? Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 11,834,206 to Joyce et al. (‘Joyce’).
Re claim 1: Joyce discloses a chassis system comprising a plurality of interconnected nodes 110 and struts 120, wherein: each strut 120 is coupled to two nodes 110/110 (see Figs. 27A, 27B) and each node 110 is coupled to at least two struts 120/120, the nodes 110 and struts 120 coupled to form a polygon shaped chassis frame (see Fig. 27B); each strut 120 further comprises power and data wiring for transmitting data and electricity between nodes 110 (col. 4, lines 45-62); each node 110 further comprises power and data wiring for transmitting data and electricity (see col. 4, lines 45-62) between struts 120/120 and at least one connection point 115 for coupling a device (i.e. robotic manipulator 420) to the power and data wiring of the node 110 and thus connecting a power system and a data system of the device to the power and data wiring of the chassis system via the connection point of the node 110 (Fig. 2).
Re claims 2, 3: wherein the chassis system forms a polyhedron shape; wherein the polyhedron shape is a regular polyhedron (Fig. 27B).
Re claims 4, 5: wherein at least one or all of the nodes 110 further comprises an embedded microprocessor coupled with a control system (i.e. wherein 1820 points to, Fig. 18).
Re claims 6, 7: as an infrastructural framework module for inclusion in a modular vehicle; and wherein the chassis frame is manufactured as a unified piece (see col. 8, lines 44-56).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
323
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights