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 . 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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Examiner notes that the instant application claims foreign priority to two separate Japanese applications, one dated on 08/21/2023 and one dated 06/03/2024. Examiner has checked and verified that the earlier filed application, JP 20230134169, supports the subject matter contained in the instant application. As such, the instant application is granted the earlier priority date of 08/21/2023.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 02/06/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-16, 18, and 20-34 remain pending in the application. Examiner notes that the limitations resulting the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have either been amended or deleted, and as such, those rejections have been overcome and are not present in the current action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
(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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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:
“a unit configured to …” in claims 1 and 31
“an operation unit configured to …” in claim 22
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-16, 18, 20, 22-23, 26, and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) for being anticipated by Atsumi, JP 2016129923 A, herein referred to as Atsumi.
Regarding claim 1,
Atsumi discloses the following:
a moving apparatus on which a robot is mounted (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0009)
an unmanned vehicle may move to a work position for a working device to perform work
a unit configured to maintain the moving apparatus in a stopped state, wherein, based on information regarding a posture of the robot, the moving apparatus is maintained in the stopped state using the unit (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0052, 0059)
the unmanned vehicle may wait until the robot finishes performing work
a robot performing work can be considered an unstable posture as it may be performing movements or motions leading to a variety of forces, moments, etc.
a stable posture for the robot may be one in which the robot is not working and where it has its arms bent and tightened down (can be considered the predetermined posture)
wherein the stopped state is released after changing the posture of the robot such that at least part of the robot is positioned within a predetermined region over the moving apparatus (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0052, 0059, 0062)
the unmanned vehicle may move after work is finished
when work is finished, the robot may enter a stable posture (see earlier rationale) with its arms tightened down with elbows bent in
the release of the stopped state of the unmanned vehicle may be due to the robot finishing work and entering this stable pose
this stable pose means that the robot is within a predetermined region over the unmanned vehicle
Regarding claim 2,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the following:
in a case where the robot is not in a predetermined posture, the moving apparatus is maintained in the stopped state using the unit (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0052, 0059, 0062)
if the robot is not in its predetermined posture (see claim 1 rationale), then the unmanned vehicle will be fixed in place while the robot works at a given work position/station
*for clarification: if the robot is working (not the predetermined posture), then the unmanned vehicle is maintained in its fixed state
Regarding claim 3,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Atsumi further discloses the following:
Wherein a posture different from the predetermined posture is a posture in which the robot is not stabilized (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0052, 0059, 0062)
If the robot is not in its stable posture/pose (predetermined posture), then the robot may be in an unstable state
A posture of the robot while working is not the predetermined posture and can be considered unstable (see claim 1 rationale for stability)
Regarding claim 4,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Atsumi further discloses the following:
in a case where the robot is not in the predetermined posture, a notification is issued (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0052, 0059, 0062)
a completion signal may be sent from the robot to the unmanned vehicle when work is finished
because the robot is not in the predetermined posture (see claim 1), then this completion signal can be considered a notification being issued when the robot is not in the predetermined posture
Regarding claim 5,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Atsumi further discloses the following:
information regarding the predetermined posture is selected, and, based on the selected information regarding the predetermined posture, the moving apparatus is maintained in the stopped state using the unit (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0052-0053, 0059, 0062)
information regarding the type of work to be performed, etc. is transmitted when a work permission signal is sent
when the work permission signal is sent, the robot is already in its predetermined posture as it hasn’t started the work yet
the robot may also confirm information after receiving the work permission signal but before moving out of the predetermined posture
Regarding claim 6,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Atsumi further discloses the following:
a user selects information regarding the predetermined posture, and wherein a posture of the robot is changed based on the information regarding the predetermined posture selected by the user, and the stopped state is released (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0052-0053, 0062)
an operation input may be provided on the unmanned vehicle
the operation input may allow an operator to provide an input to the system
this input can be related to the operation of the robot which can include the robot being in the predetermined posture before/after work or could be the robot performing the work
if an operator provides input that an operation is finished, then the robot’s posture may change back to the predetermined posture where the unmanned vehicle is not stopped
Regarding claim 7,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Atsumi further discloses the following:
the user selects the information regarding the predetermined posture via a diagram, a model, or text, or by selecting a button corresponding to the information regarding the predetermined posture (Fig. 3, item 45, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0052-0053, 0062)
an operator may provide input to the unmanned vehicle regarding an operation of the unmanned vehicle
the input may be provided through a physical interface which can be considered a button
the control device also includes a computer which includes devices capable of performing selections (mouse, keyboard, etc.)
examiner notes that providing input requires a selection of some sort to occur through either a physical and/or virtual button
Regarding claim 8,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Atsumi further discloses the following:
in a case where a user issues an instruction to no longer maintain the moving apparatus in the stopped state, a posture of the robot is changed based on information regarding the predetermined posture, which is set as default, and the stopped state is released (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0052-0053, 0062)
a user may issue commands for an operation of the unmanned robot
these commands can include both traveling to a work site and performing work
in the case where work is finished, the user may input commands for moving to another work site which would require the unmanned vehicle to begin moving
this would require the robot to modify its posture to go back to the predetermined posture (see claim 1 rationale; posture is for transport for stability)
because the robot utilizes the predetermined posture during transit, this can be considered the default
Regarding claim 9,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Atsumi further discloses the following:
in a case where the robot is not in the predetermined posture, the stopped state is not released even if a user executes an operation of moving the moving apparatus (Figs. 2 and 4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0048, 0052-0053, 0062, 0067)
if the robot is performing work, the robot is not in the predetermined posture (see previous rationale)
the unmanned vehicle may fix the unmanned vehicle and the robot into place during the performing of work
the unmanned robot may only release the vehicle and robot from the fixed position once a completion signal is sent
this completion signal may only be sent from the robot meaning that a user attempting to move the unmanned vehicle during work would not be able to as the robot maintains the fixed state
Regarding claim 11,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Atsumi further discloses the following:
wherein the predetermined posture is a posture in which the robot is stabilized (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0052-0053, 0062)
during transit, the robot may be in a predetermined posture which can be considered more stable as the arms are bent and fastened down
Regarding claim 12,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the following:
wherein the predetermined region is a region obtained by extending an area partitioned with an upper surface of the moving apparatus in a direction parallel to a direction of gravity of the robot or the moving apparatus (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0052-0053, 0062)
examiner notes under BRI that the claim is being interpreted as the predetermined region being one in which the robot resides in a region where it is on a top surface of the moving apparatus
while in transit between work sites, the robot may have its arms folded and tightened down while it is on top of the unmanned vehicle
this can be considered as the robot being located in a region obtained by extending an area partitioned with an upper surface of the moving apparatus in a direction parallel to a direction of gravity of the robot or the moving apparatus as the robot is residing on the top surface of the unmanned vehicle which is an area
Regarding claim 13,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Atsumi further discloses the following:
wherein the predetermined posture is a posture in which a height of the robot is lowered in a direction parallel to a direction of gravity of the robot or the moving apparatus (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0052-0053, 0062)
the robot having its arms bent and tightened down may be considered as a height of the robot lowered in the direction of gravity
bending of the arms moves the elbow portion and hand portions to their lowest possible point during transit (see Fig. 4 for bent arm)
Regarding claim 14,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Atsumi further discloses the following:
a sensor configured to detect a state of the robot at a predetermined position, wherein, based on the sensor, a posture in a case where the predetermined position is in a predetermined region is detected as the predetermined posture (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0021, 0041, 0048, 0052-0053, 0062)
the vehicle may utilize sensors to determine where the unmanned vehicle and robot are
if the vehicle is determined to be traveling (a given state, vehicle senses guide tape present on traveling route), then the system knows that the robot is in the predetermined posture (stable position) during transit
the robot being mounted on the unmanned vehicle in the predetermined posture may result in a given center of gravity which can be considered the predetermined position
the predetermined region may be one which encompasses both the robot and the unmanned vehicle
Regarding claim 15,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the following:
wherein the predetermined region is a region obtained by extending an area partitioned with wheels in a direction parallel to a direction of gravity of the robot or the moving apparatus (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0048, 0052-0053, 0062)
examiner notes under BRI that the claim is being interpreted as a region which encompasses the wheels of the moving apparatus; examiner particularly notes that the term “partitioned with wheels” can be understood as including the wheels under BRI
the region that encompasses the robot and the unmanned vehicle can include the wheels
Regarding claim 16,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Atsumi further discloses the following:
the predetermined region is a region extending in the direction parallel to the direction of gravity of the robot or the moving apparatus in a state where a predetermined width is set in the area (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0048, 0052-0053, 0062)
the region that encompasses the robot and the unmanned vehicle may have a given width which could be defined as the center of gravity to the edge of the unmanned vehicle
Regarding claim 18,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the following:
wherein the predetermined region is located on a placement surface of the robot (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0048, 0052-0053, 0062)
examiner notes under BRI that the claim is being interpreted as an area which encompasses the mounting surface of the moving apparatus
this mounting surface can be considered as a placement surface
examiner notes that the “mounting surface” can be interpreted under BRI as any surface which connects or abuts against another object
the region that encompasses the robot and the unmanned vehicle may include the mounting surface between the robot and the unmanned vehicle
Regarding claim 20,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the following:
wherein the predetermined region is a region extending in a direction parallel to a direction of gravity of the robot or the moving apparatus in a state where a predetermined width is set at a reference position of the moving apparatus (Figs. 2 and 4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0048, 0052-0053, 0062)
examiner notes under BRI that the claim is being interpreted as a region which has a given width horizontally from a reference point
the region encompassing the robot and the unmanned vehicle may have surface edges that are a given width from the center of gravity (reference position, see previous rationale)
Regarding claim 22,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the following:
an operation unit configured to be operated by a user, wherein the predetermined region is a region lower than the operation unit (Figs. 2-4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0048, 0052-0053, 0062)
an input operation unit may may be present on the unmanned vehicle (see Fig. 3 items 45 and 47)
the predetermined region encompasses all the unmanned vehicle and the robot (see previous rationale)
because the region encompasses down to the bottom of the unmanned vehicle, the predetermined region can be considered, under BRI, lower than the input operation unit
Regarding claim 23,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 22. Atsumi further discloses the following:
the predetermined region is a region lower than a portion of the operation unit touchable by a user (Figs. 2-4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0048, 0052-0053, 0062)
an input operation unit may may be present on the unmanned vehicle (see Fig. 3 items 45 and 47)
the predetermined region encompasses all the unmanned vehicle and the robot (see previous rationale)
because the region encompasses down to the bottom of the unmanned vehicle, the predetermined region can be considered, under BRI, lower than the input operation unit that is touchable by a user (see physical input item 45)
Regarding claim 26,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the following:
the unit is at least one fixing leg, and wherein the moving apparatus is maintained in the stopped state by elevating wheels included in the moving apparatus to bring the at least one fixing leg into contact with a surface (Paragraphs 0017, 0036)
the unmanned robot may be able to elevate its wheels by extending legs to fix the unmanned vehicle and robot in place during work
the extended legs may engage with a ground surface
Regarding claim 28,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the following:
a switch configured to transition the moving apparatus from the stopped state to a state where the moving apparatus can be moved (Paragraph 0010)
the support fixing device may extend and retract the fixing legs when the robot is performing work or is being transported, respectively
the support fixing device may be considered a switch
Regarding claim 29, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 30,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 29. Atsumi further discloses the following:
causing the moving apparatus and the robot to move to a work space (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0052, 0059, 0062)
the robot and unmanned vehicle may move to a given location to perform work
operating a target object by using the robot in the work space, thereby manufacturing the article (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0038, 0052, 0059, 0062)
the robot may grip an object to perform work
Regarding claim 31, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 32, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 33,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the following:
wherein the stopped state is released after changing the posture of the robot such that an entirety of the robot is positioned within the predetermined region (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0052, 0059, 0062)
when the robot is in the stable posture (see claim 1 rationale), the robot is within the region above the unmanned vehicle
the unmanned vehicle is released from the fixed position when the robot has finished its work and is in the stable posture
Regarding claim 34,
Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the following:
wherein the stopped state is released after changing the posture of the robot such that an entirety of the robot is positioned over the moving apparatus (Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0052, 0059, 0062)
when the robot is in the stable posture (see claim 1 rationale), the robot is within the region above/over the unmanned vehicle
the unmanned vehicle is released from the fixed position when the robot has finished its work and is in the stable posture
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.
Claims 10 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Atsumi, and in view of Schmitt et al., US 20230355456 A1, herein referred to as Schmitt.
Regarding claim 10, Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses the stopped state is released after changing the posture of the robot such that at least the part of the robot is positioned within the predetermined region (Figs. 2 and 4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0048, 0052-0053, 0062 0067; the robot may enter a stable posture once work is finished; when the robot is in the stable posture, the unmanned vehicle may be released from a stopped state), but fails to disclose in a case where an instruction to release the stopped state is received from a user, the stopped state is released after changing the posture of the robot such that at least the part of the robot is positioned within the predetermined region. However, Schmitt, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches in a case where an instruction to release the stopped state is received from a user, the stopped state is released after changing the posture of the robot such that at least the part of the robot is positioned within the predetermined region (Paragraphs 0190-0191; a user may cancel or pause a current action to unlock the robot to allow for movement; this can be considered as a user executing a movement of the device while it is not in a predetermined posture; a user canceling the action and performing a movement means that the device is no longer in a stopped state). Therefore, from the teaching of Schmitt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Atsumi to include in a case where an instruction to release the stopped state is received from a user, the stopped state is released after changing the posture of the robot such that at least the part of the robot is positioned within the predetermined region, as taught/suggested by Schmitt. The motivation to do so would be to allow a user to interrupt a given work sequence and have the robot immediately enter a predetermined posture. This can help in the instance where there is an emergency which requires the vehicle and robot to be moved on a short notice. Additionally, this can be used to stop the robot from performing work that unexpectedly damages an object.
Regarding claim 27, Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Atsumi further discloses a wheel of the moving apparatus (at least 0039; unmanned vehicle and robot may include wheels), but fails to disclose the unit is a brake provided on a wheel of the moving apparatus. However, Schmitt teaches the unit is a brake provided on a wheel of the moving apparatus (at least Paragraph 0172; device may include brakes for the wheel assemblies). Therefore, from the teaching of Schmitt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Atsumi to include the unit is a brake provided on a wheel of the moving apparatus, as taught/suggested by Schmitt. The motivation to do so would be to include a well-known mechanism for braking a wheel and would be an obvious-to-try variant to any other braking system (see leg fixing of Atsumi).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Atsumi, and in view of Ross et al., US 20170065355 A1, herein referred to as Ross.
Regarding claim 21, Atsumi discloses all the limitations of claim 20. Atsumi further discloses the reference position is a center of gravity position of the moving apparatus (at least Figs. 2 and 4, Paragraphs 0009-0010, 0013, 0041, 0048, 0052-0053; a center of gravity may be established for the robot and vehicle), but fails to disclose the reference position is a centroid position of the moving apparatus. However, Ross, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the reference position is a centroid position of the moving apparatus (at least 0066, Fig. 2; a centroid may be defined for the surgical cart which has the robotic arm attached). Therefore, from the teaching of Ross, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Atsumi to include the reference position is a centroid position of the moving apparatus, as taught/suggested by Ross. The motivation to do so would be to use another well-known location to define a given body. Utilizing a centroid as a reference position (or any other position) may be ideal in a variety of circumstances, especially when concerned with stability of a system as a whole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 24, the examiner has performed a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest prior art combination, Atsumi (JP 2016129923 A) and Ross (US 20170065355 A1), teaches releasing a stopped state after changing the posture of the robot (see claim 1 rationale) and a reference position being a centroid position of the moving apparatus (see claim 21 rationale). However, neither piece of prior art teaches wherein the stopped state is released after changing the posture of the robot such that a centroid position of the robot is positioned within the predetermined region. This feature is novel in that the release only occurs when the centroid of the robot is within a predetermined region. This is unique in that it ensures a specific posture is present before allowing the unmanned vehicle and robot to move. This can ensure that the system is in the most stable posture possible for movement and can prevent possible crashes or collisions due to instability. This can also allow for faster work performance as the time between periods of work can be decreased through an increase in movement speed. This is possible because highly stable postures can allow for faster movements without compromising stability.
Regarding claim 25, the rationale for indication of allowability is the same as that seen in claim 24. Namely, the claim discloses a narrower limitation wherein the stopped state is released when the centroid of the robot and an attached end effector are within the predetermined region. This can lead to an even more secure posturing as the end effector is accounted for. Specifically, end effectors can be quite heavy and accounting for them in the determination of a centroid will increase how stable the system is.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant is arguing that Atsumi fails to disclose “wherein the stopped state is released after changing the posture of the robot such that at least part of the robot is positioned over the moving apparatus”. Applicant points to at least 0056 of Atsumi (referenced as Nagaya) to show that the release of fixation occurs when a work completion signal has been output. However, as can be seen in the rationale for claim 1, the release from the fixed state occurs when the robot has entered a stable pose (arms tightened down and elbows bent) specifically for transport. In this case, the release from the fixed state only occurs after, and in response to, the robot finishing its work and entering the stable state. In effect, the release from the fixed state only occurs when the robot needs to move, and the robot can only move when it is in its stable transport pose, specifically such that the robot does not get caught on anything or cause a collision (see at least 0062)
Regarding claims 10 and 27, Applicant is again arguing that Atsumi (referenced as Nagaya) does not disclose a release from the fixed state when the robot changes its posture. However, as seen above, Atsumi does teach this as the unmanned vehicle only releases itself from the fixed state to move, and movement does not occur until the robot is in its stable pose (see claim 1 rationale). Additionally, Applicant is arguing that the prior art combination of Atsumi (referenced as Nagaya) and Schmitt does not teach the limitations of “an instruction to release the stopped state is received from a user, the stopped state is released after changing the posture of the robot such that at least the part of the robot is positioned within the predetermined region”. However, Atsumi discloses the robot entering the stable posture upon a given input, namely a work completion signal. However, it would be obvious to utilize another input, namely a user providing an interrupt, emergency stop, or stop state release (see Schmitt), for the system as this can increase the flexibility of the system and allow for a user to modify the operation of the robot. Specifically, having the robot enter its stable posture in response to a user input for releasing the stopped state would be obvious as the robot needs to enter this posture for movement and can be considered a default posture (see claim 8 rationale). Furthermore, it would be even more obvious for this robot to enter the stable posture in response to a user input stop release as the robot may topple over if the stop release is performed in the middle of an operation where the posture is unstable. By having the robot enter this stable posture in response to the user input, the system can maintain its stability.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights