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 Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: the Examiner believes line 2 should state “pins from said” and that the claim should end with a period. The Examiner also suggests claiming “said bottom of overlying cart” to avoid any confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “conical” in claims 10 and 16 is used by the claim/drawings to mean “V-shape or U-shape groove,” while the accepted meaning is “A 3-dimensional geometric form featuring a flat, usually circular base that narrows smoothly to a single point (apex) at the top.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Claims 11-18 are rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 10.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chintamani (US 2022/0063085).
In re claim 10, Chintamani discloses a coupling device for (intended use; incidentally, the prior art teaches this functionality and intended use, see below) autonomous mobile robots (10), comprising two arms (left/right arms 310), which are configured to be pivoted at a first end (360) to a robot and can splay on a horizontal plane using electrically-actuated linear actuators (350), said two arms being provided at a second end with conical cutouts (323, as shown in Figure 4, at least as much as Applicant’s cutouts are “conical”) which are adapted to intercept respective pins (220) which are configured to be removably inserted in seats (240) provided on a bottom (coupling structure 200 on the bottom portion of the cart as a whole, as shown in Figure 20) of an overlying cart (500) which is configured to move on idle wheels (as shown in Figure 20).
The Examiner notes that due to the “can” in “can splay on a horizontal plane using electrically-actuated linear actuators”, multiple actuators are not distinctly claimed as part of the coupling device and therefore the prior art does not need multiple actuators, only the ability to do so. In this case, Chintamani could easily be modified to have two actuators with one acting on each arm. The Examiner further notes that the “configured to” language results in the following subject matter also not being distinctly claimed as part of the claim scope.
Further note that the claim scope is presently understood as extending solely to the coupling device comprising arms, without extending to actuators, robots, carts, pins and any other unrelated, unclaimed structures with which the coupling device might or might not interact. Although prior art Chintamani happens to additionally disclose robots, carts, pins, and/or actuators, it would have anticipated the claim even without these unclaimed elements, since the structure and functionality of the claimed coupling device are clearly disclosed.
In re claim 16, Chintamani further discloses wherein said conical cutouts are provided at a perimetric edge of said two arms that is opposite to said second ends (as shown in Figure 4, at least as much as Applicant’s invention), and are adapted to intercept said pins which are configured to be removably inserted into seats provided on the bottom of said overlying cart (as discussed above). The Examiner notes that Claim 10 states that the second ends have conical cutouts, which could conflict with the interpretation of “conical cutouts are provided at a perimetric edge of said two arms that is opposite to said second ends”, which sounds like they are not on the second end of the arm. The Examiner suggests checking the claim language so that the claims are not conflicting. As the Figures show the cutouts on the second end, this is how the Examiner has interpreted the claim.
In re claim 17, Chintamani discloses the coupling device of parent claim 10 (see above), including that the coupling device is configured to interact with (or “intercept”) pins, whereas said pins might be identical to the nail-shaped rods/pins 220 depicted in Figs. 5-7 or similar or different, and regardless of how said pins might interact (or insert into) unclaimed/unrelated portions (e.g. bottoms) of unclaimed/unrelated carts. Stated otherwise, Chintamani’s coupling device, clearly having the structure and functionality as recited, is necessarily/inherently configured to interact with (“intercept”) any pins, including the pins as recited in claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The specific limitations of “further comprising a frame which has a substantially parallelepiped shape structure so as to define a substantially planar upper surface, a protective cover being configured to be superimposed thereon, slots being provided thereon for sensors adapted to generate a proximity scan” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose parallelepiped (a three-dimensional geometric solid formed by six faces, where every face is a parallelogram) shaped structure with a superimposed cover having slots that can be used for proximity sensors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach robots/cart devices of interest. The Examiner notes that if the overlying cart is distinctly claimed, that US 2020/0254607 or US 2023/0052440 could be used as part of a 103 rejection to teach that the robot is nested inside an overlying cart for transportation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights