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 .
Claim Status
Claims 19-38 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 19, 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palan (Pub. No.: US 2019/0302775 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Palan teaches a robot (Abstract, autonomous cart robot 200) comprising:
a motor;
a battery;
a robot body, the motor and the battery being accommodated in the robot body (Fig, 2, and para [0029]. The robot 200 includes a housing 210, a motor 258 and a battery 260);
a first leg and a second leg, each leg coupled to respective opposite side surfaces of the robot body (Figs. 6C - 6D, shows the robot has 2 legs on each side);
a first wheel and a second wheel rotatably coupled to the first leg and the second leg (Figs. 6C - 6D, each leg has a wheel 318), respectively;
a first upper functional module configured to be replaceably coupled to an upper side of the robot body (Figs. 6C - 6D, the robot has a lift 324 placed on top of the robot’s back), the upper functional module including:
a first flat upper plate being configured to be coupled to an upper surface of the robot body (Figs. 6C - 6D, the lift 324 has a flat guiding rail that is coupled to the upper surface 306 of the robot); and
a first functional unit being configured to be coupled to an upper side of the upper plate, the first functional unit being configured to provide a first service to a user (Figs. 6C - 6D and para [0061]. The lift 324 is coupled to the flat guiding rail to adjust the height of the lift.); or
a second upper functional module configured to be replaceably coupled to the upper side of the robot body in place of the first upper functional module, the second upper functional module including:
a second flat upper plate configured to be coupled to the upper surface of the robot body; and
a second functional unit configured to be coupled to the upper side of the upper plate, the second functional unit configured to provide a second service to the user, the second service being different from the first service (Fig. 7, shows a shopping basket 320 can be used to replace the lift).
Regarding claim 26, Palan teaches the robot of claim 19, wherein each functional unit includes a storage stand having an open upper side and an internal space, wherein the robot is configured to transport an object accommodated in the internal space of the storage stand (Fig. 7, the shopping basket is coupled to the upper surface of the robot’s housing.).
Regarding claim 31, Palan teaches the robot of claim 26, wherein the robot is configured to move according to a preset algorithm or a user's instruction to transport the object accommodated in the storage stand (para [0059], “Continuing with this non-limiting example, the robot 200 may also utilize visual sensors 328 to perform object recognition on objects and/or facial recognition to identify/authenticate people. Additionally, the sensors 328 may be utilized to detect potential hazards or obstacles to avoid and/or to follow a person.”. The robot is programmed to transport the stored objects by following the user.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palan (Pub. No.: US 2019/0302775 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Palan teaches the robot of claim 19, wherein each functional unit further includes:
a display (Fig. 8, display 802, para [0066], “Turning to FIG. 8A, a perspective view of a robot 200A is presented. In this embodiment, the robot features a display 802, a speaker 804, a display mechanism 806, batteries (not shown), sensors (not shown), and/or wiring (not shown). In this embodiment the robot 200A may feature one or more display 802, or no display.”. One or more displays is removable from the robot.); and
a controller configured to cause the display to present a preset facial expression image (Fig. 2, processor 230 para [0066], “Some embodiments may utilize a display as part of an external human-machine interface.”. According to MPEP 2114, section II, “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”, Palan teaches all the structural limitation including a display and a controller to display images for human-machine interface. The manner of operating the controller to display a preset facial expression image does not structurally differentiate from Palan. Therefore, the disclosed structures are sufficient for anticipation.).
Palan teaches the display 802 and the display holder 806 are attached to a side surface of the robot instead of the upper surface of the robot.
However, it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
In this case, the rearranging of the display 802 and the display holder 806 (analogous to a “functional unit” and a “flat upper plate”) from a side surface to the upper surface of the robot is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palan (Pub. No.: US 2019/0302775 A1) in view of Wang (Pub. No.: US 2019/0033858 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Palan teaches the robot of claim 26, but fails to teach wherein the storage stand is configured to charge a mobile phone accommodated in the internal space.
However, in the same field of robot, Wang teaches a robot that includes a USB charger 138/140 and a pocket 136 for charging and holding the phone. See Fig. 1 and para [0060], “The telepresence robot 10 may also be provided with such accessories as a payload pocket 136 and a 12V cigar port 138. It will be appreciated that the payload pocket could carry a variety of objects such as a cell phone, or other objects. Telepresence robot 10 is also provided with a USB port 140. The USB port can act as a charger for a cell phone, tablet or the like.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palan’s robot with a USB charger configured to charge a phone placed within the holding basket 320 to provide charging during shopping.
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palan (Pub. No.: US 2019/0302775 A1) in view of Lore (Pub. No.: US 2006/0186297 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Palan teaches the robot of claim 26, wherein the basket 320 stores object 704 but fails to expressly teach wherein the storage stand further includes a cup holder configured to accommodate a drink container.
However, in the same field of object, Lore teaches a cup holder 40 for holding and warning a cup 70. See Figs. 1 – 8 and para [0028], “Referring to FIGS. 4 through 5b and 7, a cup 70 of the present invention will be described. Cup 70 is sized to fit into cup holders 10 and 40 of the first and second embodiments, respectively, of the present invention.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of Palan’s objects with a cup holder to hold and warm the user’s beverage while shopping.
Regarding claim 33, Lore in the combination teaches the robot of claim 32, wherein the cup holder includes a heating wire configured to transfer heat to the drink container (Fig. 2, heating element 44 to warm beverage.).
Regarding claim 34, Lore in the combination teaches the robot of claim 32, wherein the cup holder includes a heat-insulating member configured to reduce a change in temperature of the drink container (Fig. 1, and para [0019], “Surround 16 is made from an insulating material such as tempered glass, ceramic, porcelain, thermoplastic or any such material that has similar insulating properties.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 22-25, 28-30 and 35-38 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights