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 . Claims 1-9, 12-24, and 27-34 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-9, 12-24, and 27-34 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control system” in claims 1-9, 12-15, 21-24, and 29-32, “motion controller” in claims 1-9, 12-24, and 27-34, and “communication interface module” in claims 6-9, 14-15, 21-24, 29-30, 32, and 34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “control system” in claims 1-9, 12-15, 21-24, and 29-32, “motion controller” in claims 1-9, 12-24, and 27-34, and “communication interface module” in claims 6-9, 14-15, 21-24, 29-30, 32, and 34 all use a generic placeholder (system, controller, module) coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Control system: [0061-0062] FIG. 5 is an example control system (or controller) 500 for a robotic system, such as an autonomous robotic system as shown in FIG. 1 according to the present disclosure. For example, all or parts of the controller 500 can be used for the operations described previously, for example as or as part of the control system described with reference to the architecture 200 of FIG. 2. The controller 500 is intended to include various forms of digital computers, such as printed circuit boards (PCB), processors, digital circuitry, or otherwise. Additionally the system can include portable storage media, such as, Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash drives. For example, the USB flash drives may store operating systems and other applications. The USB flash drives can include input/output components, such as a wireless transmitter or USB connector that may be inserted into a USB port of another computing device. The controller 500 includes a processor 510, a memory 520, a storage device 530, and an input/output device 540. Each of the components 510, 520, 530, and 540 are interconnected using a system bus 550. The processor 510 is capable of processing instructions for execution within the controller 500. The processor may be designed using any of a number of architectures. For example, the processor 510 may be a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers) processor, a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processor, or a MISC (Minimal Instruction Set Computer) processor.
Motion controller: [0048] - The architecture 200 in this example, as includes a motion control module 208 and a motor/wheels module 210, each of which is communicably coupled to the control system to obtain commands as well as provide feedback thereto. The motion control module 208 and a motor/wheels module 210 can combine to form a motion controller, which manages navigation and motion control operation (autonomous, manual, semi‐ autonomous), routes, and missions management of the robotic system 100.
Communication interface module: [0054] - Architecture 200, in this example, also includes the communication interface module 232, which is coupled to control system (through the ECU 202). In some aspects, the communication interface module 232 operates to provide for onboard and remote communication (for example, wireless), as well as data and telemetry transfer, encryption, and control of the robotic system 100.
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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 1-9, 13-24, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cyrus (US 2023/0051111 A1) in view of Liang (CN 219404292 U, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Cyrus discloses a robotic system, comprising: a mobile platform (see at least Figs. 1-5 – main frame 14); a gas payload suite mounted on the platform and comprising at least one gas emissions detection sensor (see at least Figs. 1-5, 8, [0050, 0070] - The mast 30 is extendable and retractable to selectively place one or more sensors at a desired height for gas measurement.); a navigation sensors suite mounted on the platform and comprising at least one LiDAR sensor and at least one depth vision module (see at least [0074-0076] - Navigation is achieved by combined visual and inertia monitoring components that include an optical device and an Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU). The optical device may be a single monocular camera, depth camera, lidar, or a combination of the three. The IMU provides angular rate, linear acceleration, and angular orientation to the control system. The IMU can be a modular unit that performs all of the tasks of a conventional IMU by use of various accelerometers and gyroscopes. The optical devices and IMU work together to perform simultaneous location and mapping (SLAM) tasks… the robotic vehicle utilizes depth data from the depth cameras); and a control system communicably coupled to the gas payload suite and the navigation sensor suite and configured to perform operations (see at least Fig. 8, [0063] – central computer 202) comprising: identifying gas emissions measurements from the at least one gas emissions detection sensor (see at least Fig. 7, [0057] - At step 154, the robotic vehicle is driven around the jobsite and data is recorded including measurements of gas concentration, corresponding locations and times.); determining a location of gas emissions based at least in part on the identified gas emissions measurements by triangulating the location of gas emissions based at least in part on the identified gas emissions measurements (see at least [0058-0059, 0062] – location of the leak is the highest intensity value meaning the highest concentration or intensity of the gas leak… pinpoint the source and quantify the magnitude of the leak), the triangulating comprising: identifying a first gas emissions measurement from the at least one gas emissions detection sensor (see at least Figs. 7, 14, [0056, 0058, 0064-0065, 0067] - Instructions from the central computer of the robotic device focus on continually refining the position of the robotic vehicle so that it moves to an area of high probability of increased gas concentration on the surface. When determining which direction to drive the robotic vehicle to get closer to a leak, a source detection algorithm seeks to advance the gradient descent as quickly as possible.); determining a first location of the gas emissions based at least in part on the identified first gas emissions measurements and data from the at least one LiDAR sensor (see at least Figs. 7, 14, [0056-0059, 0064-0065, 0067, 0075] - Instructions from the central computer of the robotic device focus on continually refining the position of the robotic vehicle so that it moves to an area of high probability of increased gas concentration on the surface. When determining which direction to drive the robotic vehicle to get closer to a leak, a source detection algorithm seeks to advance the gradient descent as quickly as possible… The optical device may be a single monocular camera, depth camera, lidar, or a combination of the three.); operating the motion controller to move the mobile platform to the first location of the gas emissions identifying a second gas emissions measurement from the at least one gas emissions detection sensor at the first location (see at least Figs. 7, 14, [0056-0059, 0064-0065, 0067] - Instructions from the central computer of the robotic device focus on continually refining the position of the robotic vehicle so that it moves to an area of high probability of increased gas concentration on the surface. When determining which direction to drive the robotic vehicle to get closer to a leak, a source detection algorithm seeks to advance the gradient descent as quickly as possible.); and determining a second location of the gas emissions different than the first location based at least in part on the identified second gas emissions measurements and data from the at least one LiDAR sensor (see at least Figs. 7, 14, [0056-0059, 0064-0065, 0067, 0075] - Instructions from the central computer of the robotic device focus on continually refining the position of the robotic vehicle so that it moves to an area of high probability of increased gas concentration on the surface. When determining which direction to drive the robotic vehicle to get closer to a leak, a source detection algorithm seeks to advance the gradient descent as quickly as possible… The optical device may be a single monocular camera, depth camera, lidar, or a combination of the three.); and operating a motion controller to move the mobile platform relative to the second location, the second location being the determined location of the gas emissions (see at least Figs. 7, 14, [0056-0059, 0064-0065, 0067] - Instructions from the central computer of the robotic device focus on continually refining the position of the robotic vehicle so that it moves to an area of high probability of increased gas concentration on the surface. When determining which direction to drive the robotic vehicle to get closer to a leak, a source detection algorithm seeks to advance the gradient descent as quickly as possible.); and during the operation of the motion controller to move the mobile platform, operating the navigation sensors suite to perform collision avoidance for the mobile platform (see at least [0018, 0066, 0075] - the navigation subsystem is capable of obstacle detection and avoidance… obstacle avoidance as the vehicle is driven around).
Cyrus does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one acoustic sonar module; operating the at least one acoustic sonar module to perform collision avoidance for the mobile platform.
Liang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: at least one acoustic sonar module (see at least [0033] – sonars); operating the at least one acoustic sonar module to perform collision avoidance for the mobile platform (see at least [0033] – sonars for obstacle avoidance of the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Liang into the invention of Cyrus with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to realize the robot’s positioning, navigation, and obstacle avoidance, so as to realize the robot’s all-around perception of obstacles and ensure the success rate of obstacle avoidance for realizing the safe operation of the robot (Liang – [0033]). Liang also mentions that sonar is a technology that is known in the art and is a commercially available product (Liang – [0033]). Therefore, the use of sonar for obstacle avoidance could be implemented to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Cyrus discloses wherein the mobile platform has at least one wheel (see at least Figs. 1-5 – wheels 12), at least one track, or at least one leg.
Regarding claim 3, Cyrus discloses wherein the operation of operating the motion controller comprises operating the least one wheel, at least one track, or at least one leg to move the mobile platform (see at least [0047, 0067] – Four motor controllers 228 are illustrated, each motor controller being used for rotational control of a corresponding drive motor 232 for each wheel 12.).
Regarding claim 4, Cyrus discloses wherein the at least one gas emissions detection sensor comprises at least one of: at least one optical gas imaging (OGI) sensor (see at least [0061] – optical camera measuring gas concentration), at least one tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS) sensor, or at least one multi‐gas sniffer sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Cyrus discloses wherein the navigation sensors suite comprises: at least one global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor, at least one inertial navigation system (INS) sensor, or at least one optical or IR sensor (see at least [0075] - Navigation is achieved by combined visual and inertia monitoring components that include an optical device and an Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU). The optical device may be a single monocular camera, depth camera, lidar, or a combination of the three. The IMU provides angular rate, linear acceleration, and angular orientation to the control system. The IMU can be a modular unit that performs all of the tasks of a conventional IMU by use of various accelerometers and gyroscopes. The optical devices and IMU work together to perform simultaneous location and mapping (SLAM) tasks.).
Regarding claim 6, Cyrus discloses further comprising a communication interface module communicably coupled to the control system, wherein the operations further comprise operating the communication interface module to provide data associated with the identified gas emissions measurements (see at least Figs. 8-9, 11, [0020, 0062, 0064, 0068] - continuous gas concentration measurements are recorded and fed to the machine learning model of the central computer).
Regarding claim 7, Cyrus discloses wherein the data comprises at least the location of the gas emissions or a quantity of the gas emissions (see at least [0062] – continuous gas concentration measurements are recorded along with the location where the measurements were taken).
Regarding claim 8, Cyrus discloses further comprising at least one power source mounted on the mobile platform and electrically coupled to the gas payload suit, the navigation sensors suite, the communication interface module, and the control system (see at least Fig. 8, [0015, 0022, 0045-0048, 0065] - The electronic subsystem of the device comprises of all the electronics necessary to power, operate, and control the device. The robot is powered by rechargeable batteries. These batteries are connected to an electronics box that contains all of the necessary voltage convertors, motor drivers, capacitors, and other power electronics.).
Regarding claim 9, Cyrus discloses wherein the at least one power source comprises at least one rechargeable battery (see at least Fig. 8, [0015, 0022, 0045-0048, 0065] – rechargeable batteries).
Regarding claim 13, Cyrus discloses wherein the operation of operating the motion controller to move the mobile platform relative to the determined location of the gas emissions comprises operating the motion controller to autonomously move the mobile platform relative to the determined location of the gas emissions based on data from the at least one navigation sensor (see at least Figs. 7, 14, [0056, 0058, 0064-0065, 0067, 0075] - Instructions from the central computer of the robotic device focus on continually refining the position of the robotic vehicle so that it moves to an area of high probability of increased gas concentration on the surface. When determining which direction to drive the robotic vehicle to get closer to a leak, a source detection algorithm seeks to advance the gradient descent as quickly as possible… Navigation is achieved by combined visual and inertia monitoring components that include an optical device and an Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU). The optical device may be a single monocular camera, depth camera, lidar, or a combination of the three. The IMU provides angular rate, linear acceleration, and angular orientation to the control system. The IMU can be a modular unit that performs all of the tasks of a conventional IMU by use of various accelerometers and gyroscopes. The optical devices and IMU work together to perform simultaneous location and mapping (SLAM) tasks.).
Regarding claim 14, Cyrus discloses wherein the operation of operating the motion controller to move the mobile platform relative to the determined location of the gas emissions comprises operating the motion controller to semi-autonomously move the mobile platform relative to the determined location of the gas emissions based on data from the at least one navigation sensor and data from the communication interface module (see at least Figs. 7-8, 11-14, [0056, 0058, 0064-0065, 0067, 0100] - Instructions from the central computer of the robotic device focus on continually refining the position of the robotic vehicle so that it moves to an area of high probability of increased gas concentration on the surface. When determining which direction to drive the robotic vehicle to get closer to a leak, a source detection algorithm seeks to advance the gradient descent as quickly as possible… FIG. 12 illustrates one example of a user interface or user screen 100 viewable on a computer or mobile communication device. The purpose of the user interface is to enable an operator to view the status of a robotic vehicle during operation, and to issue or supplement commands to the robotic vehicle so that it may most efficiently locate the source of a gas leak.).
Regarding claim 15, Cyrus discloses wherein the operation of operating the motion controller to move the mobile platform relative to the determined location of the gas emissions comprises operating the motion controller to move the mobile platform relative to the determined location of the gas emissions based on a human-generated command delivered to the control system through the communication interface module (see at least Figs. 7-8, 11-14, [0056, 0058, 0064-0065, 0067, 0100] - Instructions from the central computer of the robotic device focus on continually refining the position of the robotic vehicle so that it moves to an area of high probability of increased gas concentration on the surface. When determining which direction to drive the robotic vehicle to get closer to a leak, a source detection algorithm seeks to advance the gradient descent as quickly as possible… FIG. 12 illustrates one example of a user interface or user screen 100 viewable on a computer or mobile communication device. The purpose of the user interface is to enable an operator to view the status of a robotic vehicle during operation, and to issue or supplement commands to the robotic vehicle so that it may most efficiently locate the source of a gas leak.).
Regarding claims 16-24 and 28-30, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-9 and 13-15, and it has been determined that claims 16-24 and 28-30 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-9 and 13-15; therefore, claims 16-24 and 28-30 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-9 and 13-15.
Claims 12, 27, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cyrus in view of Liang and Muralidhar (US 2019/0285504 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Cyrus does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operation of determining the location of gas emissions based at least in part on the identified gas emissions measurements comprises: identifying weather or wind data taken at a time associated with the identified gas emissions measurement; and determining the location of gas emissions based on the identified gas emissions measurements and the identified weather or wind data.
However, Cyrus does disclose identifying weather or wind data taken at a time associated with the identified gas emissions measurement (see at least [0101] – measuring wind speed and wind direction).
Muralidhar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the operation of determining the location of gas emissions based at least in part on the identified gas emissions measurements comprises: identifying weather or wind data taken at a time associated with the identified gas emissions measurement; and determining the location of gas emissions based on the identified gas emissions measurements and the identified weather or wind data (see at least [0043] - the relevant wind (speed/direction) data is that which is synchronized with (i.e., collected at the same time as) the gas sensor data—in order to be able to pinpoint the location of the source).
In order to accurately pinpoint the location of the leak (Cyrus – [0025, 0073]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Muralidhar into the invention of Cyrus with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of using relevant wind (speed/direction) data that is synchronized with the gas sensor data in order to be able to pinpoint the location of the source, because the wind will carry the gas from the leak source downwind but not upwind (Muralidhar – [0043, 0048]).
Regarding claim 31, Cyrus discloses wherein the identified weather or wind data comprises wind speed and wind direction (see at least [0101] – measuring wind speed and wind direction).
Regarding claim 32, Cyrus discloses wherein the identified weather or wind data is received through a communication interface module communicably coupled to the control system (see at least [0019, 0027, 0060, 0063-0064, 0101-0102] – onboard control computer receives and records data from the one or more sensors… receiver/transmitter unit… measuring wind speed and wind direction, such as an onboard anemometer).
Muralidhar, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein the operation of determining the location of gas emissions based at least in part on the identified gas emissions measurements comprises: identifying weather or wind data taken at a time associated with the identified gas emissions measurement; and determining the location of gas emissions based on the identified gas emissions measurements and the identified weather or wind data (see at least [0040-0041, 0043-0045] - data communication occurs between motes and/or between the motes and a central base station… the relevant wind (speed/direction) data is that which is synchronized with (i.e., collected at the same time as) the gas sensor data—in order to be able to pinpoint the location of the source).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Cyrus and Muralidhar are the same as in the rejection of claim 27 above.
Regarding claims 27 and 33-34, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 12 and 31-32, and it has been determined that claims 27 and 33-34 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 12 and 31-32; therefore, claims 27 and 33-34 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 12 and 31-32.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 10 filed 3/23/2026, with respect to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that limitations “control system,” “motion controller,” and “communications interface module” do not include “means” or “step” and also that the claim terms do not recite the required functional language. The examiner respectfully disagrees. According to MPEP 2181, examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
With regards to “control system,” “motion controller,” and “communications interface module” these claim limitations use generic placeholders (i.e., system, controller, module). These terms are modified by functional language (i.e., a control system configured to perform operations, a motion controller to move the mobile platform, a communication interface module operating to provide data). These terms are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the examiner maintains the interpretation of these claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 filed 3/23/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Duke (US 2023/0011503 A1) is directed to a process including: receiving inspection path information indicating a path for a robot to travel, and a plurality of locations along the path to inspect; determining, based on information received via a location sensor, that a distance between a location of the robot and a first location of the plurality of locations is greater than a threshold distance; in response, causing a refrigeration system of an optical gas imaging (OGI) camera to decrease cooling; moving along the path; in response to determining that the robot is at a first location of the plurality of locations, sending a second command to the sensor system, wherein the second command causes the refrigeration system of the OGI camera to increase cooling; causing the sensor system to record a first video with an OGI camera; and causing the sensor system to store the first video in memory.
Leen (US 2022/0107189 A1) is directed to technologies for producing efficient investigation routes for identifying gas leak locations include a mobile compute device. The mobile compute device includes circuitry configured to obtain route data indicative of a route to be traveled along to identify a location of a gas leak. The circuitry is also configured to present the route data to a user to guide the user along the route.
Sivarkkamani (US 2020/0158592 A1) is directed to leak-detection systems for detecting fluid leaks in component(s) included in an apparatus are disclosed. The leak-detection systems may include an inspection vehicle for inspecting the component(s) of the apparatus. The inspection vehicle may include at least one camera positioned on a housing, and a fluid-detection tool coupled to the housing. The fluid-detection tool may detect fluids leaking from the component(s) of the apparatus. The leak-detection system may also include a leak-detection device in electronic communication with the fluid-detection tool of the inspection vehicle. The leak-detection device may be configured to identify a specific component of the apparatus leaking a fluid using fluid detection data generated by the fluid-detection tool of the inspection vehicle, and predetermined component data relating to each component of the apparatus. The leak-detection device may also be configured to provide a notification including component-leak information relating to the specific component of the apparatus leaking the fluid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights