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 (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 07/20/2026 after final rejection of 05/07/2026 and advisory action of 07/09/2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim redundantly recites the limitation “tapered portion” with an article “a”, since said “tapered portion” has been introduced in the amended parent independent claim 1 (see l. 10). Appropriate correction is required.
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 removably coupled to the first coupling feature (inherently, since the apparatus may be disassembled); and 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, wherein at least one of the first and second coupling features defining a tapered portion that extends along a length of a body of a respective one of the first and second coupling features; 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; at least one of the first and second coupling features defining a tapered portion (31, 71, 74) that extends along a length of a body of a respective one of the first and second coupling features; 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 and latch it in place (col. 5, ll. 13-15, 41-45), 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; at least one of the first and second coupling features defining a tapered portion that extends along a length of a body of a respective one of the first and second coupling features; 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 predictably achieve securement (latching) of the casing to the housing, high level of modularity, plug-in functionality, and simplified removal and installation of the computer processor casing (Kikinis, col. 2, ll. 17-26; col. 5, ll. 13-15, 41-45)). 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).
See next page →
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 and 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, as explained earlier during prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claim 1 continues to read on Filipov as modified by Kikinis. Applicant contends that, allegedly, “As expressly described and illustrated above, the element 74 of Kikinis is a detent lever. However, Kikinis fails to disclose any coupling portion defining a tapered body portion that extends along a full length of a body of the coupling portion, as recited in the amended claim. (emphasis in the original).
In response the Office would like to point out that whether said element (74) is called the “detent lever” or something else is irrelevant to the fact that said element (74) is defined by the coupling features (63, 65) as can be clearly seen on the annotated Fig. 4 above, and therefore said element (74) reads on claimed “at least one of the first and second coupling features defining a tapered portion that extends along a length of a body of a respective one of the first and second coupling features” (emphasis added).
Furter, the Office would like to point out that the amended claim 1 recites that said tapered portion “extends along a length of a body of the coupling portion”, whereas Applicant argues that it “extends along a full length of a body of the coupling portion” (emphasis added). Accordingly, claim 1 is broader than argued.
Furthermore, Applicant contends that “the other cited reference, Filipov, fails to rectify the deficiencies of Kikinis”.
It appears that Applicant misinterprets the combination of Filippov and Kikinis. In the rejection the Filipov reference is a primary reference, deficiencies of which have been rectified by the teachings of the Kikinis (a secondary reference), i.e., not vice versa as alleged by the Applicant.
Furthermore, it is noted that claim 1 has been amended to essentially incorporate previously rejected subject matter of the dependent claim 11, thus resulting in the rejection of the amended independent claim 1 as presented above.
In view of the above the rejection is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
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.
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, 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