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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, 15-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilkens (US 2018/0133730).
Claims 8-9, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Raman (US 2018/0093289).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Santrach (US 2015/0103621).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Waibel (US 20090166102).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Jouret (US 2021/0077007).
Priority
The priority date for this application is 04/12/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more. A step-by-step analysis of the independent claims has been provided below:
Step One: are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 1 is directed towards a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: do the claims recite a judicial exception?
Yes, Claim 1 recites, “processing said sensor data to obtain user diagnostics”.
Step 2A, Prong Two: do the claims recite a judicial exception that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application?
No, Claim 1 recites, “an input operable to receive sensor data…”, “an output for outputting said user diagnostics”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely refer to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. receiving and outputting data.
Step 2B: do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the additional elements recited merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore are not sufficient to cause the claim as-a-whole to become directed away from the judicial exception and thus amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims: the dependent claims here rejected do not contain additional elements to either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or cause the claim as-a-whole to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1-3, 6, 11-13, 15-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilkens.
As per Claim 1:
Wilkens discloses all of the following limitations:
“A tank management system for an autonomous ground marking robot, the tank management system comprising: an input operable to receive sensor data from one or more sensors coupled to at least one receptacle, the receptacle operable to hold a deposition material; a processor for processing said sensor data to obtain user diagnostics; an output for outputting said user diagnostics.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses a tank of deposit-able material mounted on weigh bars that obtain the initial weight of the material. Paragraphs [0032]-[0033] disclose identifying the weight of materials used (which corresponds to the current weight of the task themselves) by calculating the flow rates of material that is being deposited based on deposition instructions. See also Paragraphs [0037]-[0038].
With regards to Claim 2, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the sensor is a temperature sensor.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0030] discloses temperature sensors for the material.
With regards to Claim 3, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the sensor is a weight measuring plate.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses tanks mounted on weight bars.
With regards to Claim 6, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“the system further comprising processing said sensor data to obtain system diagnostics, and outputting said system diagnostics.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0030] discloses outputting sensor data.
With regards to Claim 11, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“An autonomous ground marking robot comprising: at least one receptacle to hold a deposition material; at least one deposition arrangement; a locomotion arrangement; tank management system according to claim 1”
Wilkens Figure 1 discloses tanks for deposition material, sprayers for deposition arrangement and a locomotion arrangement.
With regards to Claim 12, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the flexible bag or the tank is supported by a weight monitoring device or volume monitoring system.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses tanks mounted on weight bars.
With regards to Claim 13, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11 and further discloses the following limitations:
“ comprising one or more load sensors provided to measure the weight of the flexible bag or flexible bag and tank.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses tanks mounted on weight bars.
With regards to Claim 15, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the flexible bag or the tank are held in a frame housed with the robot.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses tanks mounted on weight bars.
With regards to Claim 16, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the robot comprises an on-board control system.”
Wilkens Figure 2 discloses an on-board control system.
With regards to Claim 17, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the robot comprises an onboard control system having a communications link to the weight monitoring device.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses weight monitoring devices connected to control systems.
With regards to Claim 18, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein, when the robot is in use and depositing material on the ground, the onboard control system is configured to periodically gather weight data from the weight monitoring device.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses weight monitoring devices connected to control systems.
With regards to Claim 19, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 18 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the onboard control system is configured to transmit weight data to a remote resource, such as a cloud server, or an edge device optionally a tablet or smartphone.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses weight monitoring devices connected to control systems which is represented on a screen in the vehicle representing a tablet.
With regards to Claim 20, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the material for deposition is a herbicide, pesticide, insecticide, plant growth aid, water or marking material, optionally wherein the marking material is a paint, ink, coloured material, powder.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses paint.
With regards to Claim 21, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11 and further discloses the following limitations:
“a user sending deposition instructions to the autonomous robot; the autonomous robot depositing material according to the deposition instructions.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0016] discloses user controlling deposition in addition to automatic control.
With regards to Claim 23, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the user sends deposition instructions to the autonomous robot via a cloud server or device, or an edge server or device”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses weight monitoring devices connected to control systems which is represented on a screen in the vehicle representing a tablet.
With regards to Claim 24 Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the material to be deposited is marking material, paint or ink, and the deposition instructions are printing instructions.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses paint.
With regards to Claim 25 Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21 and further discloses the following limitations:
“A tank management system for an autonomous ground marking robot, the tank management system operable to carry out the method steps of claim 21”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses weight monitoring devices connected to control systems which is represented on a screen in the vehicle representing a tablet.
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.
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 8-9, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens.
With regards to Claim 8, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the coupling is wired.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0030] teaches transmitting data, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the transmission medium is arbitrary and could include wireless or wired systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use a wired coupling for communication purposes as previously argued. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, as some method of coupling is required for communicative connection.
With regards to Claim 9, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the coupling is wireless.”
Wilkens Paragraph [0030] teaches transmitting data, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the transmission medium is arbitrary and could include wireless or wired systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use a wireless coupling for communication purposes as previously argued. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, as some method of coupling is required for communicative connection.
As per Claim 22:
Wilkens teaches the following limitations:
“A method of calculating the usage weight of a tank of deposition material when in use in an autonomous deposition robot, the method comprising the steps of: obtaining initial tank weight data; obtaining tank and machine deposition flow rate data values for the tank and autonomous deposition robot; receiving at least one instruction for a deposition; carrying out the deposition in accordance with the at least one instruction; calculating the weight used in the deposition using the deposition flow rate data values; calculating the total weight of deposition material used by adding the weight used in the deposition to the current total weight usage; outputting the total weight of deposition material used; estimating the new current weight of the tank based on the newly calculated total weight used from the tank subtracted from the initial weight”
Wilkens Paragraph [0026] discloses a tank of deposit-able material mounted on weigh bars that obtain the initial weight of the material. Paragraphs [0032]-[0033] disclose identifying the weight of materials used (which corresponds to the current weight of the tank themselves) by calculating the flow rates of material that is being deposited based on deposition instructions and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a new current weight could be produced by subtracting the used amount from the old total. See also Paragraphs [0037]-[0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the method disclosed by Wilkens with an estimate of the current total weight level. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so would provide a redundant measure of the tank weight level and the parameters required to perform the calculation have already been obtained.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Raman (US 2018/0093289). These references are analogous as they both relate to autonomous systems of depositing fluids.
With regards to Claim 4, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitation that Raman teaches.
“wherein the sensor is a PIR sensor.”
Raman Paragraph [0122] teaches using infrared sensors to detect paint level in a container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Wilkens with the infrared sensor data determining paint level taught by Raman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide another means of ascertaining paint level data.
With regards to Claim 10, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitation that Raman teaches.
“wherein the sensor data is used for forecasting demand, forecasting refill rates, forecasting automated refilling schedule intervals, remote robot and/or complete system performance.”
Raman Paragraphs [0122]-[0123] teach forecasting refill needs based on sensor data for a painting robot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Wilkens with the forecasting taught by Raman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more user-friendly by automating tasks.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Santrach (US 2015/0103621). These references are analogous as they both relate to paint system management.
With regards to Claim 5, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Santrach teaches:
“wherein the sensor is an RFID reader.”
Santrach Paragraph [0065] teaches identifying paint containers via RFID.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Wilkens with the RFID sensor taught by Santrach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more reliable by ensuring the correct paint is loaded into the system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Waibel (US 20090166102). These references are analogous as they both relate to robotic control systems.
With regards to Claim 7, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Waibel teaches:
“wherein the user diagnostics is tamper data.”
Waibel Paragraph [0041] teach tamper detection via sensor data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Wilkens with the tamper information taught by Waibel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more secure by guarding against attacks.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Jouret (US 2021/0077007). These references are analogous as they both relate to identification of a fluid level within a container that is moving.
With regards to Claim 14, Wilkens discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11 but does not disclose the following limitations that Jouret teaches:
“wherein the robot comprises an accelerometer to measure tilt and computation means are provided to determine weight of the flexible bag or flexible bag and tank using one or more load sensors measurements whilst accounting for tilt.”
Jouret Paragraph [0019] teaches accounting for tilt when making a weight measurement for the purposes of acquire a fill level of a fluid in a container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Wilkens with the tilt-aware weight measurement of a fluid taught by Jouret. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more accurate by considering external parameters when making a weight measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights