DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 22 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “-the” in line 1 should be “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollerback (US Patent No. 8,393,362) in view of Meng (US Pub. No. 2019/0050697).
As per Claim 1, Hollerback discloses an energy transfer system (Figs. 2-3, 7-8), comprising:
a housing (70) (Figs. 2-3, 7; 3:41-4:51);
a robotic system (10) movable (through plenum 94) between an interior (as per within walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) of the housing (70) and an external environment (as per location of vehicle 192), the robotic system (10) including an end effector (40) for coupling (via grasped discharge valve 150) with receptacles (88/228) for energy transfer (Figs. 1-3, 7, 11; 2:47-3:6, 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32);
a camera system (200, 202) configured on an exterior of the housing (70) (Fig. 7; 5:46-60); and
one or more controllers (60) (Fig. 7; 3:13-40, 5:44-6:32) configured to:
detect (as per “The signal provides information concerning the fuel needed, the location of the vehicle fuel port 88, the number of fuel tanks 154 and the type of fuel cap 240” in 5:41-44) that an energy transfer operation (via discharge valve 150) for a work machine (192) is to be initiated (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32);
obtain, via the camera system (200, 202) and based on detecting (as per “The signal provides information concerning the fuel needed, the location of the vehicle fuel port 88, the number of fuel tanks 154 and the type of fuel cap 240” in 5:41-44) that the energy transfer operation (via discharge valve 150) is to be initiated, first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14) depicting the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32);
determine, based on the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14), a location and an orientation (as per “At least one camera 200 needs to have a clear view of a fuel cap 240 or a cap less fuel entry port 228” in 5:49-51; as per “At least one of the cameras needs to be able to record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) of a receptacle access point (88, 228, 230, 240) of the work machine (192) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32); and
selectively cause the robotic system (10) to move (through plenum 94) from the interior (as per within walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) of the housing (70) to the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) to initiate (as per “The robot is activated to open the door 230 … The robot removes a fuel cap 240 … The robot 10 grasps the correct discharge valve 150 …” in 6:16-32) the energy transfer operation (via discharge valve 150) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
Hollerback does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more controllers is configured to:
calibrate or configure, based on the location and the orientation of the receptacle access point, operation of the robotic system for the energy transfer operation; and
wherein the robotic system is moved after calibrating or configurating operation of the robotic system.
Meng discloses a fueling system (104) for deploying an appropriate fueling nozzle (126) to automatically fuel a vehicle (102) in accordance with a process (800) performed by a controller (124) (Figs. 1, 8; ¶36, 38-40, 56). The process (800) involves collecting video frames (822) of the vehicle (102) pulled into the fueling system (104), aligning (806) the coordinate system (C) of the vehicle (102) with the coordinate system (S) of the fueling system (104), calculating coordinates (808, 810) of the vehicle port and fueling nozzle; and guiding (812) the fueling nozzle to fuel the vehicle based on determination of the calculated coordinates (808, 810) (Fig. 8; ¶56-69). In this way, the system (104) compensates for any misalignment of the fueling nozzle (126) (Fig. 7; ¶55, 66, 59). Like Hollerback, Meng is concerned with vehicle energy systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback and Meng, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Meng to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by compensating for any misalignment of the fueling system. Applying the teachings of Meng to the system of Hollerback would result in a system wherein the one or more controllers is configured to:
“calibrate or configure, based on the location and the orientation of the receptacle access point, operation of the robotic system for the energy transfer operation” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to perform processing as per Meng; and
“wherein the robotic system is moved after calibrating or configurating operation of the robotic system” in that in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to control the robot (10) of Hollerback in view of the processing as per Meng.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Hollerback further discloses wherein the one or more controllers (60), to selectively cause the robotic system (10) to move (through plenum 94) from the interior (as per within walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) of the housing (70) to the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192), are configured to:
analyze (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32);
determine, based on analyzing (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) of the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14), that the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) is in a clear state (as per “confirms information received” in 6:15) and that the work machine (192) is in an energy transfer position (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32); and
cause the robotic system (10) to move (through plenum 94) from the interior (as per within walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) of the housing (70) to the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) based on determining that the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) is in the clear state (as per “confirms information received” in 6:15) and that the work machine (192) is in the energy transfer position (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Hollerback further discloses wherein the one or more controllers (60) are further configured to:
identify, based on the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14), a location of a receptacle access point (as per “location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) on the work machine (192) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 3. Hollerback further discloses wherein the one or more controllers (60), to selectively cause the robotic system (10) to move (through plenum 94) from the interior (as per within walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) of the housing (70) to the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192), are configured to:
cause the robotic system (10) to move to the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) via a slide system (as per through plenum 94 as advanced and retracted by motors 118) (Figs. 1-3, 7, 9, 11; 2:47-3:6, 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32); and
cause the end effector (40) to move to a ready position (as per “The robot is activated to open a door 230 … The robot removes a fuel cap 240…” in 6:16-32) relative to the receptacle access point (as per “location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56), wherein the ready position (as per “The robot is activated to open a door 230 … The robot removes a fuel cap 240…” in 6:16-32) is based on the location of the receptacle access point (as per “location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) (Figs. 1-3, 7, 9, 11; 2:47-3:6, 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Hollerback further discloses wherein the one or more controllers (60), to obtain the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14), are configured to:
obtain the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14) while (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56 and “advance the rectangular plenum tube 94” in 6:9-13) the robotic system (10) is located within the housing (70) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
As per Claim 9, Hollerback discloses a method (as per actions in 5:38-6:32), comprising:
detecting (as per “The signal provides information concerning the fuel needed, the location of the vehicle fuel port 88, the number of fuel tanks 154 and the type of fuel cap 240” in 5:41-44), by a system (10, 200, 202, 60), that an energy transfer operation (via discharge valve 150) for a work machine (192) is to be initiated (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32);
obtaining, by the system (10, 200, 202, 60) and via a camera system (200, 202), first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14) depicting an external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) based on detecting (as per “The signal provides information concerning the fuel needed, the location of the vehicle fuel port 88, the number of fuel tanks 154 and the type of fuel cap 240” in 5:41-44) that the energy transfer operation (via discharge valve 150) is to be initiated (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32),
wherein the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) is external (as per outside walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) to a housing (70) of a robotic system (10) that is associated with the system (10, 200, 202, 60) (Figs. 1-3, 7, 11; 2:47-3:6, 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32);
determining, based on the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14), a location and an orientation (as per “At least one camera 200 needs to have a clear view of a fuel cap 240 or a cap less fuel entry port 228” in 5:49-51; as per “At least one of the cameras needs to be able to record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) of a receptacle access point (88, 228, 230, 240) of the work machine (192) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32); and
selectively causing the robotic system (10) to move (through plenum 94) from an interior (as per within walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) of the housing (70) to the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) to initiate (as per “The robot is activated to open the door 230 … The robot removes a fuel cap 240 … The robot 10 grasps the correct discharge valve 150 …” in 6:16-32) the energy transfer operation (via discharge valve 150) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
Hollerback does not expressly disclose:
calibrating or configuring, based on the location and the orientation of the receptacle access point, operation of the robotic system for the energy transfer operation;
wherein the causing is based on calibrating or configuring operation of the robotic system.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Meng.
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback and Meng, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Meng to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by compensating for any misalignment of the fueling system. Applying the teachings of Meng to the system of Hollerback would result in a system that operates by:
“calibrating or configuring, based on the location and the orientation of the receptacle access point, operation of the robotic system for the energy transfer operation” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to perform processing as per Meng; and
“wherein the causing is based on calibrating or configuring operation of the robotic system” in that in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to control the robot (10) of Hollerback in view of the processing as per Meng.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Hollerback further discloses wherein selectively causing the robotic system (10) to move (through plenum 94) comprises:
analyzing (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32);
determining, based on analyzing (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14), that the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) is in a clear state (as per “confirms information received” in 6:15) and that the work machine (192) is in an energy transfer position (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32); and
causing the robotic system (10) to move (through plenum 94) from the interior (as per within walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) of the housing (70) to the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) based on determining that the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) is in the clear state (as per “confirms information received” in 6:15) and that the work machine (192) is in the energy transfer position (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
As per Claim 11, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Hollerback further discloses identifying, based on the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14), the receptacle access point (as per “location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) on the work machine (192) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
As per Claim 12, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Hollerback further discloses wherein causing the robotic system (10) to move (through plenum 94) comprises:
causing the robotic system (10) to move to the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) via a slide system (as per through plenum 94 as advanced and retracted by motors 118) (Figs. 1-3, 7, 9, 11; 2:47-3:6, 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32); and
causing an end effector (40) of the robotic system (10) to move to a ready position (as per “The robot is activated to open a door 230 … The robot removes a fuel cap 240…” in 6:16-32) relative to the receptacle access point (as per “location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56) (Figs. 1-3, 7, 9, 11; 2:47-3:6, 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
Hollerback does not expressly disclose wherein the ready position is based on calibrating or configuring.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Meng.
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback and Meng, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Meng to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by compensating for any misalignment of the fueling system. Applying the teachings of Meng to the system of Hollerback would result in a system that operates “wherein the ready position is based on calibrating or configuring” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to perform processing as per Meng.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Hollerback further discloses wherein obtaining the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14) comprises: obtaining the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14) while (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56 and “advance the rectangular plenum tube 94” in 6:9-13) the robotic system (10) is located within the housing (70) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollerback (US Patent No. 8,393,362) in view of Meng (US Pub. No. 2019/0050697), further in view of Graham (US Pub. No. 2021/0197684).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Hollerback further discloses wherein the one or more controllers (60) are further configured to: obtain, while the robotic system (10) is located in the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192), second image data (as per “A camera may also be mounted on the robot 10” in 5:59-60).
Hollerback does not expressly disclose wherein the second image data is associated with a performance of the energy transfer operation.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Meng.
Graham discloses a robotic system (10) for fueling or charging a vehicle (100) and that includes: sensors (16) associated with a control system (32); and a delivery connector (18) that is adapted to connect with a complementary vehicle connector (110) of the vehicle (100) (Figs. 1-2; ¶32, 46-49). The sensors (16) include a video camera that detects failure of connection between the delivery connector (18) and the vehicle connector (110) (¶53, 56). In response to detection of the failure, the control system (32) initiates an action to prevent a hazard, the actions including stopping of fluid or electrical current delivery and/or disengaging the delivery connector (18) from the vehicle connector (110) (¶56). Like Hollerback, Graham is concerned with vehicle energy systems (¶2-5).
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback, Meng, and Graham, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Meng and Graham to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by: compensating for any misalignment of the fueling system; and appropriately responding to a hazard. Applying the teachings of Meng and Graham to the system of Hollerback would result in a system with “second image data associated with a performance of the energy transfer operation” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to process images as per Graham.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Hollerback, Meng, and Graham teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Hollerback does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to:
detect, based on the second image data, an event that is indicative of unexpected operation for the energy transfer operation; and
perform, based on detecting the event, one or more actions.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Meng.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Graham.
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback, Meng, and Graham, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Meng and Graham to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by: compensating for any misalignment of the fueling system; and appropriately responding to a hazard. Applying the teachings of Meng and Graham to the system of Hollerback would result in a system “wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to: detect, based on the second image data, an event that is indicative of unexpected operation for the energy transfer operation; and perform, based on detecting the event, one or more actions” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to process images and respond to processed images as per Graham.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Hollerback further discloses obtaining, while the robotic system (10) is located in the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192), second image data (as per “A camera may also be mounted on the robot 10” in 5:59-60).
Hollerback does not expressly disclose wherein the second image data is associated with a performance of the energy transfer operation.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Meng.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Graham.
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback, Meng, and Graham, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Meng and Graham to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by: compensating for any misalignment of the fueling system; and appropriately responding to a hazard. Applying the teachings of Meng and Graham to the system of Hollerback would result in a system “wherein the second image data is associated with a performance of the energy transfer operation” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to process images as per Graham.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Hollerback, Meng, and Graham teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 14. Hollerback does not expressly disclose:
detecting, based on the second image data, an event that is indicative of unexpected operation for the energy transfer operation; and
causing, based on detecting the event, the energy transfer operation to be suspended.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Meng.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Graham.
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback, Meng, and Graham, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Meng and Graham to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by: compensating for any misalignment of the fueling system; and appropriately responding to a hazard. Applying the teachings of Meng and Graham to the system of Hollerback would result in a system that operates by “detecting, based on the second image data, an event that is indicative of unexpected operation for the energy transfer operation; and causing, based on detecting the event, the energy transfer operation to be suspended” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to process images and respond to processed images as per Graham.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollerback (US Patent No. 8,393,362) in view of Meng (US Pub. No. 2019/0050697), further in view of Vogelaar (WO 2022/144300 A1).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Hollerback further discloses wherein the one or more controllers (60) (Fig. 7; 3:13-40, 5:44-6:32) are configured to:
selectively permit movement (via plenum 94) of the robotic system (10) from the interior (as per within walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) of the housing (70) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
Hollerback does not expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more controllers are to calibrate or configure operation of the robotic system;
wherein the one or more controllers determine, based on the first image data, whether the work machine is positioned at an energy transfer position; and
wherein movement of the robotic system is only after determining that the work machine is positioned at the energy transfer position.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Meng.
Vogelaar discloses a robotic fueling system for automatically operating a fuel station (1) for fueling a vehicle (5) positioned next to a fuel island (2) (Fig. 1; 20:3-13). The fuel island (2) includes a cabinet (4) having at least one camera (16) at the bottom of the cabinet (4) and used to identify the positioning of the vehicle (5) (Fig. 1; 20:15-22). The system is configured for giving instructions to the vehicle (5) or driver (7) such that the vehicle (5) is positioned within a predefined area and with a predefined orientation (20:24-28). When the camera (16) identifies the vehicle, information about the position of the fuel door (8) can be acquired to guide the robot arm (9) to the right position of the vehicle for operations relative to the fuel door (8) (21:22-22:2). In this way, the system operates to appropriately guide the vehicle (7:1-8). Like Hollerback, Vogelaar is concerned with refueling systems (1:1-4).
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback, Meng, and Vogelaar, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Meng and Vogelaar to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by: compensating for any misalignment of the fueling system; and adapting the system for appropriately guiding the vehicle. Applying the teachings of Meng and Vogelaar to the system of Hollerback would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the one or more controllers are to calibrate or configure operation of the robotic system” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to perform processing as per Meng;
“wherein the one or more controllers determine, based on the first image data, whether the work machine is positioned at an energy transfer position” in that the system of Hollerback would be adapted to determine position and orientation of the vehicle and appropriately guide the vehicle as per Vogelaar; and
“wherein movement of the robotic system is only after determining that the work machine is positioned at the energy transfer position” in that the system of Hollerback would be adapted to determine position and orientation of the vehicle and appropriately inform the robot arm as per Vogelaar.
As per Claim 16, the combination of Hollerback and Meng teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Hollerback does not expressly disclose:
determining, based on the first image data, location information of the work machine; and
transmitting, to a guidance system of the work machine, navigation instructions that are based on the location information and that are based on an energy transfer position for the energy transfer operation.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Meng.
See rejection of Claim 8 for discussion of teachings of Vogelaar.
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback, Meng, and Vogelaar, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Meng and Vogelaar to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by: compensating for any misalignment of the fueling system; and adapting the system for appropriately guiding the vehicle. Applying the teachings of Meng and Vogelaar to the system of Hollerback would result in a system that operates by:
“determining, based on the first image data, location information of the work machine” in that the system of Hollerback would be adapted to determine position and orientation of the vehicle as per Vogelaar; and
“transmitting, to a guidance system of the work machine, navigation instructions that are based on the location information and that are based on an energy transfer position for the energy transfer operation” in that the system of Hollerback would be adapted to appropriately guide the vehicle as per Vogelaar.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollerback (US Patent No. 8,393,362) in view of Graham (US Pub. No. 2021/0197684).
As per Claim 17, Hollerback discloses a camera system (200, 202, 60) (Figs. 2-3, 7-8; 3:41-6:39), comprising:
one or more cameras (200, 202) (Fig. 7; 5:46-60);
one or more memories (as per “programmable” in 3:17, as per “record” in 5:55); and
one or more processors (60), coupled to the one or more memories (as per “programmable” in 3:17, as per “record” in 5:55) (Fig. 7; 3:13-40, 5:44-6:32), configured to:
obtain (as per “The signal provides information concerning the fuel needed, the location of the vehicle fuel port 88, the number of fuel tanks 154 and the type of fuel cap 240” in 5:41-44) an indication that an energy transfer operation (via discharge valve 150) for a work machine (192) is to be initiated (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32);
obtain (as per “The pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230 disclose what needs to be done and confirms information received” in 6:14-15), via the one or more cameras (200, 202) and based on detecting (as per “The signal provides information concerning the fuel needed, the location of the vehicle fuel port 88, the number of fuel tanks 154 and the type of fuel cap 240” in 5:41-44) that the energy transfer operation (via discharge valve 150) is to be initiated, first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14) depicting an external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32),
wherein the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) is external (as per outside walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) to a housing (70) of an energy transfer system (as per 10, 60, 150) (Figs. 1-3, 7, 11; 2:47-3:6, 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32);
provide, to one or more components (60) of the energy transfer system (10, 60, 150), the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14) to initiate the energy transfer operation (via discharge valve 150) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32);
obtain, via the one or more cameras (200, 202) and while a robotic system (10) is located in the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192), second image data (as per “A camera may also be mounted on the robot 10” in 5:59-60).
Hollerback does not expressly disclose:
wherein the second image data is obtained while the robotic system is performing the energy transfer operation;
wherein the second image data is associated with a performance of the energy transfer operation; and
wherein the one or more processors is configured to determine, using the second image data, an operating state of the robotic system during the energy transfer operation.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Graham.
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback and Graham, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Graham to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by appropriately responding to a hazard. Applying the teachings of Graham to the system of Hollerback would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the second image data is obtained while the robotic system is performing the energy transfer operation” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to process images as per Graham;
“wherein the second image data is associated with a performance of the energy transfer operation” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to process images as per Graham; and
“wherein the one or more processors is configured to determine, using the second image data, an operating state of the robotic system during the energy transfer operation” in that the controller (60) of Hollerback would be adapted to process images as per Graham.
As per Claim 18, the combination of Hollerback and Graham teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Hollerback further discloses wherein the housing (70) includes a robotic system (10) that is movable (through plenum 94) between an interior (as per within walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) of the housing (70) and the external environment (as per location of vehicle 192) (Figs. 1-3, 7, 11; 2:47-3:6, 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32), and
wherein the one or more cameras (200, 202) are mounted on an exterior of the housing (70) (Fig. 7; 5:46-60).
As per Claim 19, the combination of Hollerback and Graham teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 18. Hollerback further discloses wherein the one or more processors (60), to obtain the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14), are configured to:
obtain the first image data (as per “pictures of the fuel entry port 88 or door 230” in 6:14) while (as per “record the location and orientation of the vehicle fuel port 88 or 228” in 5:54-56 and “advance the rectangular plenum tube 94” in 6:9-13) the robotic system (10) is in the interior (as per within walls 72, 74, 76, 78 of housing 70) of the housing (70) (Figs 2-3, 7, 11; 3:41-4:38, 5:46-6:32).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollerback (US Patent No. 8,393,362) in view of Graham (US Pub. No. 2021/0197684), further in view of Gao (US Pub. No. 2013/0076902), further in view of Mendel-Senft (US Pub. No. 2021/0325888).
As per Claim 20, the combination of Hollerback and Graham teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Hollerback does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more cameras are stereo cameras, and wherein the first image data includes point cloud data.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Graham.
Gao discloses a robotic charging station (10) for charging or re-charging the primary energy storage device for an electric vehicle (100) (Fig. 1; ¶28). The robotic charging station (10) includes a robotic arm (12) configured to automatically couple an end effector (16) to a mating plug/receptable (102) of the vehicle (100) (Fig. 2; ¶30). The robotic arm (12) includes a target tracking camera (94) disposed near the end effector (16) that provides a periodically captured still image of the vehicle for directing movements of the arm (12) toward the vehicle charging plug/receptable (102) (Figs. 1-2; ¶41). In one embodiment, the arm (12) includes multiple target tracking cameras in a spaced arrangement to provide a stereoscopic perspective/view of the vehicle (100) (¶41). In this way, the skew of the pattern or the position of the pattern within the image (or various images) informs movements in the X direction (20), the Z-direction (24) or the OZ rotation (26) (Fig. 1; ¶41). Like Hollerback, Gao is concerned with robots for use with vehicles (¶2-3).
Mendel-Senft discloses a charging station (420) that includes a plug (460) for plugging the charging station (420) into an autonomous vehicle (410) (Fig. 4; ¶63-64). The autonomous vehicle (410) includes a sensor suite (440), the sensor suite (440) including appropriate interfaces to a camera (220) and lidar (230) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶26, 29, 34-37, 63). The autonomous vehicle (410) further includes an inspection system (450) that receives data captured by the sensor suite (440) including a point cloud captured by a lidar sensor of the sensor suite (440) (Fig. 4; ¶63). The equipment inspection system (450) compares a point cloud describing the plug (460) to a model of the plug in order to determine whether the plug (460) is experiencing wear (¶66). Like Hollerback, Mendel-Senft is concerned with robots for use with vehicles (¶66).
Therefore, from these teachings of Hollerback, Graham, Gao, and Mendel-Senft, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Graham, Gao, and Mendel-Senft to the system of Hollerback since doing so would enhance the system by: appropriately responding to a hazard; informing appropriate movements of the robotic arm; and detecting wear. Applying the teachings of Graham, Gao, and Mendel-Senft to the system of Hollerback would result in a system that operates “wherein the one or more cameras are stereo cameras, and wherein the image data includes point cloud data” in that the system of Hollerback would be adapted to receive images in a stereoscopic perspective as per Gao and point cloud data as per Mendel-Senft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that objections to the Drawings should not be maintained (page 11 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, these objections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “HOLLERBACK does not disclose one or more controllers configured to at least ‘determine, based on the first image data, a location and an orientation of a receptacle access point of the work machine; calibrate or configure, [based] on the location and the orientation of the receptable access point, operation of the robotic system for the energy transfer operation; and selectively cause, after calibrating or configurating operation of the robotic system, the robotic system to move from the interior of the housing to the external environment to initiate the energy transfer operation,’ as recited in amended claim 1” (page 12 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Hollerback in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 36 USC 102 in view of Hollerback are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “HOLLERBACK does not disclose using the recorded location and orientation to calibrate or configure operation of the robotic system, as expressly required by amended claim 1” (page 12 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “using the recorded location and orientation”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “HOLLERBACK still fails to disclose selectively causing the robotic system to move from the interior of a housing to an external environment after calibrating or configuring operation of the robotic system, as recited in amended claim 1” (page 13 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Hollerback in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 36 USC 102 in view of Hollerback are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “HOLLERBACK does not disclose a robotic system that remains inside a housing while image data is analyzed and used to calibrate or configure robotic operation, nor does it disclose conditioning deployment of the robotic system on the outcome of such calibration or configuration” (page 13 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “remains inside a housing while image data is analyzed and used to calibrate or configure robotic operation” or “conditioning deployment … on the outcome”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “HOLLERBACK does not disclose one or more controllers configured to at least ‘obtain, via the one or more cameras and while a robotic system is located in the external environment and performing the energy transfer operation, second image data associated with a performance of the energy transfer operation; and determine, using the second image data, an operating state of the robotic system during the energy transfer operation,’ as recited in amended claim 17” (page 14 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Hollerback in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 36 USC 102 in view of Hollerback are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “HOLLERBACK does not disclose obtaining image data while the robotic system is performing the energy transfer operation, nor does HOLLERBACK disclose obtaining image data that is associated with performance of the energy transfer operation itself, as expressly required by amended claim 17” (page 14 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Hollerback in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 36 USC 102 in view of Hollerback are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “HOLLERBACK uses image data merely for confirmation and guidance of a predetermined fueling sequence, rather than for monitoring or evaluating ongoing operation of the robotic system during energy transfer” (page 15 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “monitoring or evaluating ongoing operation”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “HOLLERBACK is silent as to determining, using image data obtained during fueling, an operating state of the robotic system” (page 15 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “using image data obtained during fueling”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “HOLLERBACK does not disclose analyzing image data to assess whether the robotic system is operating normally or abnormally during performance of the energy transfer operation, nor does it disclose using such image data to evaluate or characterize an operational state of the robotic system” (page 15 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “to assess whether the robotic system is operating normally or abnormally” or “evaluate or characterize an operational state”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “HOLLERBACK fails to disclose at least the claimed features of (i) obtaining second image data while the robotic system is located in the external environment and performing the energy transfer operation, and (ii) determining, using the second image data, an operating state of the robotic system during the energy transfer operation, as recited in amended claim 17” (page 15 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Hollerback in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 36 USC 102 in view of Hollerback are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu (US Pub. No. 2017/0008411), Debeaux (US Pub. No. 2017/0081169), Michalakis (US Pub. No. 2018/0215043), O’Hora (US Pub. No. 2019/0118782), and Shin (US Pub. No. 2020/0361331) disclose vehicle energy systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656