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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 04/06/2026 to the non-final Office action of 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently pending.
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 1-4, 9-12, and 14-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,043,016 to Filippov et al. (hereafter “Filippov”) in view of US 5, 640, 302 to Kikinis.
Regarding claims 1-4, Filippov discloses (Figs. 4-8, 10-11D) a robotic vehicle (300) for delivering items comprising: a computer processor (see the processor (512) within the control module (500)); a casing (502, 504) for housing the computer processor (512); a first coupling feature (504) disposed on the casing; a housing (the compartment (302)) disposed in a body of the robotic vehicle and configured to receive the casing (see the control module (238), that is analogous to the control module (500), and received in (302), Fig. 8)); and a second coupling feature complimentary to the first coupling feature disposed on the housing (inherently present portion of the hosing to which the control module (237) or (500) is attached to with its portion (504), Figs. 8, 10-11C), the second coupling feature configured to removably couple to the first coupling feature (inherently, since the apparatus may be disassembled), wherein the casing (502, 504) comprises a cooling pathway that surrounds the computer processor (512) and extends a length of the casing (502, 504) for cooling the computer processor (512) (a volume between members (502) and (504) with inherently present air between said members (502) and (504) is a cooling pathway that will inherently cool the microprocessor (512)). Furter, Filippov discloses an outer pathway of the body of the robotic vehicle for supplying the coolant (i.e., the inherently present ambient air in the compartment (302)).
Filippov does not disclose: that interaction between the first coupling feature and the second coupling feature guides insertion of the casing into the housing; and the guided insertion positions the casing relative to the housing such that the cooling pathway of the casing is placed in fluid communication with the outlet of the housing, wherein the first coupling feature comprises a pathway outlet fluidly communicating with the cooling pathway for providing a coolant to the cooling pathway, wherein the housing comprises an outlet, the outlet fluidly communicating with the pathway outlet for supplying the coolant to the cooling pathway.
Kikinis discloses (Figs. 1A, 3, 4) a computer processor (within (61), col. 6, ll. 5-18); a casing (i.e., the enclosure of the module (61)) for housing the computer processor; a first coupling feature (63, 65) disposed on the casing; a housing (13) configured to receive the casing; and a second coupling feature (67, 69) complimentary to the first coupling feature disposed on the housing, the second coupling feature configured to removably couple to the first coupling feature, thus achieving high level of modularity, plug-in functionality, and simplified removal and installation of the module (col. 2, ll. 17-26),
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Filippov according to the teachings of Kikinis, so interaction between the first coupling feature and the second coupling feature guides insertion of the casing into the housing; and the guided insertion positions the casing relative to the housing such that the cooling pathway of the casing is placed in fluid communication with the outlet of the housing, in order to achieve high level of modularity, plug-in functionality, and simplified removal and installation of the computer processor casing (Kikinis, col. 2, ll. 17-26). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, since vent openings (vents, inlets, outlets, etc.) have been notoriously known in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention1, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first coupling feature of Filippov with a pathway outlet fluidly communicating with the cooling pathway for providing a coolant to the cooling pathway, wherein the housing comprises an outlet, the outlet fluidly communicating with the pathway outlet for supplying the coolant to the cooling pathway, in order to predictably provide inflow of the coolant (i.e., of the ambient cooling air), thus enhancing heat dissipation from the processor and other electronic components within the casing. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Kikinis discloses that the first coupling feature (63, 65) comprises a groove; and the second coupling feature (67, 69) comprises a track being geometrically complimentary to the groove such that the track guides the insertion of the casing (61) into the housing (13) by interfacing with the groove of the first coupling member, wherein the first coupling feature (63, 65) is slidably inserted into the second coupling feature wherein (Figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 10, Kikinis discloses that the first coupling feature (63, 65) comprises a first body portion and a second body portion with an intermediate body portion therebetween; and the groove extends from an outer surface of the first body portion to an inner surface of the second body portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kikinis discloses that the groove comprises a tapered portion (74) defining an outer wall of the intermediate body portion (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 12, Kikinis discloses that the first body portion, the second body portion, and the intermediate body portion are formed as a single, unitary piece (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claims 15-18, Kikinis discloses that the casing (61) comprises two first coupling features (63, 65), and each of the two first coupling features are disposed on an outer surface of opposing side walls of the casing (Figs. 3, 4), wherein the housing (13) comprises two second coupling features (67, 69), each of the two second coupling features disposed on the inner surface of opposing side walls of the housing (Figs. 1A, 1B, 3, 4).
Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the housing at any suitable location in the Filippov-Kikinis combination, including in a front panel of the body of the robotic vehicle as claimed, in order to predictably achieve the optimal layout, optimal special placement of the components, and optimal space utilization, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 20, Kikinis discloses that the first coupling feature (63, 65) and the second coupling feature (67, 69) removably couple to one another for quick connect of the casing (61) and the housing (13), (Figs. 3, 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claims 5-8 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of the claim (“wherein the outlet of the housing and the pathway outlet of the first coupling feature are aligned upon coupling of the first coupling feature and the second coupling feature”) in combination with all of the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 4, are believed to render the combined subject matter allowable over the prior art of record taken alone or in combination.
Regarding claims 6-8, the limitations of claim 6 (“ the first coupling feature comprises a first body portion and a second body portion with an intermediate body portion therebetween; the first body portion having the pathway outlet disposed therein; the intermediate body portion defining a chamber fluidly communicating with the pathway outlet; and the second body portion having an opening disposed therein, the opening fluidly communicating with the chamber of the intermediate body portion and the cooling pathway of the casing”) in combination with all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, are believed to render the combined subject matter, and claims 7-8 dependent therefrom, allowable over the prior art of record taken alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of the claim (“the outlet of the housing and the pathway outlet of the first coupling feature are aligned upon coupling of the first coupling feature and the second coupling feature”) in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the claim, are believed to render the claim allowable over the prior art of record taken alone or in combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It appears that Applicant misinterprets the combination of Filippov and Kikinis. Regarding claim 1, Applicant states: “Kikinis fails to disclose the guided insertion and positioning establishing fluid communication for cooling between the electronic module and the housing. In contrast, any thermal management disclosed in Kikinis, such as heat sinks and/or thermal contact surfaces, operates independently and is not established due to positioning the module via the grooves and tracks.”
However, the Office would like to direct the Applicant’s attention to the fact that Kikinis was used only for the teachings of the complimentary coupling features (i.e., “a first coupling feature (63, 65) disposed on the casing; a housing (13) configured to receive the casing; and a second coupling feature (67, 69) complimentary to the first coupling feature disposed on the housing, the second coupling feature configured to removably couple to the first coupling feature, thus achieving high level of modularity, plug-in functionality, and simplified removal and installation of the module (col. 2, 11. 17-26).” (see pp. 4-5 of the non-final Office action).
Furthermore, it is noted that claim 1 has been amended to essentially incorporate previously rejected subject matter of the dependent claims 2 and 4, thus resulting in the rejection of the amended independent claim 1 as presented above. Also, Applicant did not present any specific arguments pertained to the rejection of the dependent claims 2-4.
Furthermore, it appears that Applicant’s arguments are essentially directed to Filippov and Kikinis references individually, rather than to their combination. The Office would like to remind Applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In view of the above the rejection is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
1 Examiner’s Note: Since Applicant has failed to seasonably traverse the aforementioned well-known statement, the object of said well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943), ("If Applicant does not seasonably traverse the well-known statement during examination, then the object of the well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art"). MPEP 2144.03 (C).
Prosecution Insights