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. The current application is a 371 national stage of PCT/EP2023/062170 and also claims foreign priority to EP22174203.4. Examiner has checked and verified that the foreign priority document supports the subject matter of the instant application, and as such, the earlier filed date of 05/19/2022 is granted.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 05/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 17-33 remain pending in the application.
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 contact element configured to …” in claim 17
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.
(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 17-22 and 26-33 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Telleria et al., US 20180283019 A1, herein referred to as Telleria.
Regarding claim 17,
Telleria discloses the following:
a construction robot for carrying out construction work on a construction site object, comprising: (Paragraphs 0021-0023)
An automated robot may be used for construction purposes
Construction purposes can include construction objects such as drywall, etc.
a mobile platform (Paragraphs 0026-0028)
the automated system may be mobile and can include a platform
an end effector, wherein the end effector has a tool or a tool fitting and wherein the end effector has a contact element which is configured to contact the construction site object (Figs. 3-4, Paragraphs 0023, 0029-0030, 0037, 0044)
automated system may include an end effector 160 which can have a variety of devices used for operating on construction objects such as drywall, etc.
this end effector may include multiple types of end effectors together, such as a cutting end effector 160C, a hanging end effector 160H, a sanding end effector 160S, etc.
each of these may be considered as a tool
the devices within each of these tools can include cutting devices, hanging devices, sanding devices, etc.
these devices may be considered as contact elements that contact the construction object (drywall, etc.)
a parallel manipulator, wherein the end effector and the mobile platform are connected to one another via the parallel manipulator (Paragraphs 0028-0029)
automated system may include a robotic arm that connects the platform to the end effector
the arm may include a gimbal mechanism as well
and a sensor system, wherein a pose of the end effector relative to the mobile platform is detectable by the sensor system (Paragraphs 0103-0104)
sensors may be utilized to determine the orientation of the tool relative to the system
Regarding claim 18,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses the following:
the sensor system comprises an image recording unit (Paragraphs 0033, 0103-0104)
sensor system can include a vision system
vision system can include a camera
Regarding claim 19,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein a location marking is disposed on the end effector or on the parallel manipulator (Paragraph 0123)
tags or RFID may be located on tooling of the system for localization
Regarding claim 20,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 19. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein the sensor system comprises an image recording unit and wherein the location marking is disposed at least partially in a field of view of the image recording unit (Paragraphs 0033, 0123)
vision systems may track the tags/RFID on tooling
vision systems can include imaging
tags/RFID would need to be at least partially in view of the vision system in order for localization to occur
Regarding claim 21,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein the parallel manipulator is a passive system (Paragraphs 0028-0029, 0103-104)
the robotic arm between the mobile platform and the end effector may include a passive gimbal system
Regarding claim 22,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein the parallel manipulator has at least three degrees of freedom (Paragraphs 0028-0029, 0103-104)
the robotic arm and gimbal together can have any suitable number of degrees of freedom
the end effector may move in horizontal and vertical directions at the very least which means that the robotic arm and gimbal can have at least 3 degrees of freedom
Regarding claim 26,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses the following:
an acceleration sensor, wherein the acceleration sensor is formed on the end effector (Paragraph 0123)
an IMU may be attached to a tool which can be considered an acceleration sensor
Regarding claim 27,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein the end effector or the mobile platform has a position measuring system for determining a pose of the construction robot relative to a construction site, or wherein the end effector or the mobile platform is configured to be detected by the position measuring system for determining a respective position and/or a respective attitude (Paragraph 0131)
LIDAR may be used to localize the system/tooling within the 2D/3D maps or models
Regarding claim 28,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein the position measuring system comprises a laser distance meter or a total station (Paragraph 0131)
LIDAR may be used for localization of the system/tooling
LIDAR may be considered a laser distance meter
Regarding claim 29,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein the contact element has a wheel (Fig. 16, Paragraphs 0036, 0048)
the sanding end effector contacts a drywall for sanding and includes a wheel structure
Regarding claim 30,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 29. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein the wheel is an omnidirectional wheel (Fig. 16, Paragraphs 0036, 0048)
sanding end effector wheel may be rotatable and movable in a variety of directions making it omnidirectional
Regarding claim 31,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein the contact element is drivable by a motor (Fig. 16, Paragraphs 0036, 0048)
sanding end effector may be drivable by a motor
Regarding claim 32,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein the parallel manipulator has a reset element and/or a damping element (Paragraph 0105)
the gimbal system attached to the robotic arm may include springs or damping elements
Regarding claim 33,
Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses the following:
wherein the tool is a marking tool or a drilling tool or a chiseling tool or a grinding tool or a cutting tool (Fig. 16, Paragraphs 0036, 0048)
the sanding end effector can be considered a grinding tool
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Telleria and in view of Spenninger et al. US 20230025318 A1, herein referred to as Spenninger.
Regarding claim 23, Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses wherein the parallel manipulator is configured such that, when the end effector deflects slightly out of position relative to the mobile platform, the end effector automatically returns to a given position (Paragraph 0149; if unwanted force is exerted on the robotic arm (examiner notes that any force produces a deflection, however miniscule that may be), then the robotic arm may retract to reduce the unwanted force (deflection)), but fails to disclose wherein the parallel manipulator is configured such that, when the end effector deflects slightly out of a rest position relative to the mobile platform, the end effector automatically returns to the rest position driven by gravity.
However, Spenninger, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the parallel manipulator is configured such that, when the end effector deflects slightly out of a rest position relative to the mobile platform, the end effector automatically returns to the rest position driven by gravity (Paragraph 0037; after deflection of a robotic arm from a rest position is released, springs may return the robotic arm back to the rest position; the return by spring force is based on the weight of the arm which is affected by gravity). Therefore, form the teaching of Spenninger, 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 Telleria to include wherein the parallel manipulator is configured such that, when the end effector deflects slightly out of a rest position relative to the mobile platform, the end effector automatically returns to the rest position driven by gravity, as taught/suggested by Spenninger. The motivation to do so would be to ensure that the robotic device returns to a safe resting position if unwanted forces or deflection occur. This can prevent the robot from falling and causing damage to construction objects or to users in the vicinity.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Telleria and in view of Qian, WO 2022198948 A1, herein referred to as Qian.
Regarding claim 24, Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses a mobile platform (Paragraphs 0026-0028; the automated system may be mobile and can include a platform), but fails to disclose wherein the mobile platform is a flying platform. However, Qian, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the mobile platform is a flying platform (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0041; construction robot may be an aerial vehicle). Therefore, from the teaching of Qian, 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 robot system of Telleria to include wherein the mobile platform is a flying platform, as taught/suggested by Qian. The motivation to do so would be to increase the functionality of the system and allow for easier access to higher construction objects that might not be reachable through a standard ground based mobile platform.
Regarding claim 25, Telleria discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Telleria further discloses a parallel manipulator (Paragraphs 0028-0029; automated system may include a robotic arm that connects the platform to the end effector), but fails to disclose wherein the parallel manipulator is a hexapod. However, Qian, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the parallel manipulator is a hexapod (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0041; construction robot may have 6 arms (multiple arms 37,38 extending from the main body, each with a tool at the end). Therefore, from the teaching of Qian, 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 robot system of Telleria to include wherein the parallel manipulator is a hexapod, as taught/suggested by Qian. The motivation to do so would be to increase the functionality of the system and allow for multiple tools to be utilized during a given operation. For example, the sanding tool and spraying tool of Telleria could be used together to reduce construction times.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that the prior art of Telleria fails to disclose the limitations of at least claim 1. Specifically, Applicant is asserting that the examiner relied on inherency to establish the prior art as disclosing the claim limitations. The features that Applicant is contending that Telleria fails to disclose (“wherein the end effector (16) has a tool or a tool fitting and wherein the end effector (16) has a contact element (24) which is configured to contact the construction site object”) are clearly described in the prior art of Telleria, namely at least 0023, 0029-0030, 0044. Although 0029-0030 generally describe the end effector 160 containing multiple end effectors, the prior art reference contains numerous descriptions and figures about what the end effector 160 entails.
For instance, the prior art of Telleria clearly discloses a multitude of various tooling (multiple end effectors) that are a part of the end effector 160. In fact, 0041 further describes the end effector 160 as having multiple distinct end effectors, of which several have a portion that contacts a construction object (namely drywall), and at least 0023 and 044 state that the automated system can cut drywall (contact with the cutting end effector 160C), hang drywall (contact with the hanging end effector 160H), etc. It is quite clear that the disclosure of Telleria discloses multiple end effectors that contact construction objects, either through a blade, a sanding pad/material, etc. (‘contact elements’), and would be clear to any person of ordinary skill in the art. Fig. 4 of Telleria shows that each end effector has various ‘devices’ that perform the given function (see 0037 for corresponding ‘devices’ on each end effector). For instance, the cutting end effector has cutting devices, the sanding end effector has sanding devices, etc. In the case of sanding and cutting, the sanding and cutting devices would contact the drywall since cutting and sanding drywall require physical contact through some element.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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