DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 15-17, 20-24, and 27-29 amended 7 November 2025 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the following reference characters have been used to designate different features: “1616.11” in Fig. 16; “1716.11” in Fig. 17; “1816.11” in Fig. 18; “1916.11” has in Fig. 19; and “2016.11” has in Fig. 20.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “112” in Figs. 1-2; “921” in Fig. 9; “1541” in Fig. 15A; “1642” in Fig. 16A; “1742”, “1716.21”, “1716.11”, “1716.12”, “1716.31”, and “1716.32” in Fig. 17; “1842”, “1816.21”, “1816.11”, “1816.12”, “1816.31”, “1816.32”, “1813”, “1816.7”, “1816.41”, “1816.42”, and “1812.3” in Fig. 18; “1942”, “1916.21”, “1916.11”, “1916.12”, “1916.31”, “1916.32”, “1913”, “1916.41”, “1916.42”, and “1912.3” in Fig. 19; “2042”, “2016.11”, “2016.21”, and “2016.12” in Fig. 20; “2110” in Fig. 21; “2210” in Fig. 22; “2486” in Fig. 24; and “2752” in Fig. 27B.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: “1616.22” in ¶177.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
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;
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
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 16, 28, and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 18, 16, and 19, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/878379 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every limitation of claims of the present application is disclosed and therefore anticipated by corresponding claims of the reference application as follows:
Claim of Present Application
Corresponding Claim of Reference Application
1) A robotic construction system for use in constructing a structure, the construction system including:
a) a base;
b) a boom extending from the base;
c) an articulated working head attached proximate an end of the boom, the working head including a working member configured to work construction material; and
d) a controller configured to control movement of the boom and the working head to thereby move the working member and thereby work construction material, wherein the boom moves with a slower dynamic response over larger distances and the working head provides a faster dynamic response over smaller distances.
16) [from claim 1: A robotic construction system for use in constructing a structure, the construction system including:
a) a base;
b) a boom extending from the base;
c) an articulated delivery head attached proximate an end of the boom]
the delivery head includes a working member to work the delivered construction material [from claim 1: and,
d) a controller configured to control movement of the boom and the delivery head to thereby move the nozzle and deliver construction material, wherein the boom moves with a slower dynamic response over larger distances and the delivery head provides a faster dynamic response over smaller distances].
16) The system according to claim 1, wherein the working member includes at least one of: a) a screed member; b) a trowel; c) formwork; d) a mould; e) a biasing member configured to urge working material; f) a cutting implement; g) a grinding head; h) a polishing head; i) washer head; j) a sand blast head; and k) a guillotine.
18. The system according to claim 16, wherein the working member includes one of: a) a screed member; b) a trowel; c) formwork; d) a mould; e) a biasing member configured to urge working material; f) a cutting implement; g) a grinding head; h) a polishing head; i) washer head; j) a sand blast head; and k) a guillotine.
28) The system according to claim 1, wherein the system includes a nozzle configured to deliver a construction material.
16) [from claim 1: the delivery head including a nozzle configured to deliver a construction material]
29) The system according to claim 28, wherein the working head is at least one of:
a) articulated to at least one of:
i) independently move the working member and the nozzle;
ii) move the working member relative to the nozzle;
iii) allow for rotation of the working member around the nozzle;
iv) control a height of the working member relative to the nozzle; and
v) control an orientation of the nozzle;
b) articulated about three axes to allow the nozzle to be maintained in a fixed orientation with a further articulation being provided to allow height and/or positional adjustment of the nozzle; and
c) articulated to allow rotation and horizontal movement of the nozzle.
19) The system according to claim 16, wherein the delivery head is at least one of:
a) articulated to at least one of:
i) independently move the working member and the nozzle;
ii) move the working member relative to the nozzle;
iii) allow for rotation of the working member around the nozzle;
iv) control a height of the working member relative to the nozzle; and
v) control an orientation of the working member;
b) articulated about three axes to allow the working member to be maintained in a fixed orientation with a further articulation being provided to allow height and/or positional adjustment of the working member; and
c) articulated to allow rotation and horizontal movement of the working member.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 5, 7-11, 15-17, 20-23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pivac (US Pub. No. 2009/0038258).
As per Claim 1, Pivac discloses a robotic construction system (10, 12) for use in constructing a structure (as per “constructing a building” in ¶40) (Fig. 1; ¶40), the construction system (10, 12) including:
a) a base (22) (Figs. 1-2; ¶42, 45-46, 68);
b) a boom (24/24a) extending from the base (22) (Figs. 1-2; ¶42-48, 68);
c) an articulated working head (18) attached proximate an end of the boom (24/24a), the working head (18) including a working member (28) configured to work construction material (16) (Figs. 1-2; ¶40-48, 57, 68); and
d) a controller (14) configured to control movement of the boom (24/24a) and the working head (18) to thereby move the working member (28) and thereby work construction material (16), wherein the boom (24/24a) moves with a slower dynamic response over larger distances (as per “support structure … is controlled to cover relatively large distances … and slow dynamic response” in ¶63) and the working head (18) provides a faster dynamic response over smaller distances (as per “the head 18 … controlled to cover smaller distances … and fast dynamic response” in ¶63) (Figs. 1-2, 8-10; ¶40-48, 50, 53-54, 57, 61-68).
As per Claim 2, Pivac further discloses wherein the controller (14) is configured to control the working head (18) to dynamically stabilise (as per “high positional accuracy and fast dynamic response” in ¶63) the working member (28) and thereby correct for unintentional movement (as per “in a matter that corrects for any deflection or positional error” in ¶63) of the end of the boom (24/24a) (¶63).
As per Claim 3, Pivac further discloses wherein the controller (14) is configured to at least one of: a) control the boom (24/24a) and the working head (18) to control movement of the working member (28) during working of construction material (16) (Figs. 8-9; ¶54-64); and
{b) control the boom and the working head to work construction material along a working path}.
As per Claim 5, Pivac further discloses wherein, while construction material (16) is being worked, the controller (14) is configured to:
a) control (as per 86) the boom (24/24a) so as to move the end of the boom (24/24a) to thereby provide coarsely guided (as per “coarse control” in ¶63) movement of the working member (28) (Fig. 9; ¶53, 61-64);
b) control (as per 84) the working head (18) to move the working member (28) to thereby provide fine positioning (as per “Fine control” in ¶63) of the working member (28) (Fig. 8; ¶53-60, 63); and
c) control (as per Fig. 7) the boom (24/24a) and working head (18) so that both the boom (24/24a) and working head (18) move simultaneously (Figs. 7-9; ¶49, 53-64).
As per Claim 7, Pivac further discloses wherein the working head (18) is articulated on two axes (as per “co-ordinate data for the robot may comprise data relating to the axis position of joints of …manipulators 28” in ¶50) to move the working member (28) with two degrees of freedom (as per “at least five or six degrees of freedom of movement” in ¶43) to thereby allow for movement of the working member (28) in two orthogonal spatial directions (as per “x,y,z locations” in Fig 8).
As per Claim 8, Pivac further discloses wherein the two orthogonal spatial directions (as per “co-ordinate data for the robot may comprise data relating to the axis position of joints of the arm 24 and manipulators 28 … to lay a brick at a predetermined location in the building” in ¶50) are one of:
{a) horizontal spatial directions to correct for longitudinal and lateral movement of the end of the boom};
b) one horizontal (as per “fold and unfold in a horizontal plane” in ¶43) and one vertical direction (as per “vertical pivot axis” in ¶43) to correct for (as per “Determine position of brick to be layed using boom tip information” in Fig. 8) longitudinal and vertical movement of the end of the boom (24/24a) (Figs. 1, 8; ¶43, 54-60); and
{c) one horizontal and one vertical direction to correct for lateral and vertical movement of the end of the boom}.
As per Claim 9, Pivac further discloses wherein the working head (18) is articulated on three axes (as per “co-ordinate data for the robot may comprise data relating to the axis position of joints of …manipulators 28” in ¶50) to move the working member (28) with three degrees of freedom (as per “at least five or six degrees of freedom of movement” in ¶43) to thereby allow for movement of the working member (28) in orthogonal spatial directions (as per “x,y,z locations” in Fig 8).
As per Claim 10, Pivac further discloses wherein movement of the working member (28) in orthogonal spatial directions (as per “x,y,z locations” in Fig 8) is used to correct for longitudinal, lateral and vertical movement (as per “fold and unfold in a horizontal plane” and “movement in a vertical plane” in ¶43) of the end of the boom (24/24a).
As per Claim 11, Pivac further discloses wherein the working head (18) is at least one of:
{a) articulated with axes to provide: i) pitch, roll, pitch movement; ii) pitch, pitch, roll movement; and/or iii) pitch, roll and sliding movement,
b) articulated on a further axis to adjust a pitch of the working member};
c) articulated on another further axis (as per “The co-ordinate data for the robot may comprise data relating to the axis position of … manipulators 28” in ¶50) to adjust an orientation (as per “Each of the manipulators 28 … may be provided with at least five or six degrees of freedom of movement” in ¶43) of the working member (28); and
{d) articulated using at least one of: i) a rotational actuator; ii) a linear actuator; iii) a hydraulic motor; iv) an electric motor; v) a hydraulic ram; vi) an electric ram; vii) a hydraulic servo; and, viii) an electric servo}.
As per Claim 15, Pivac further discloses wherein the working head (18) includes a robot arm (28) and end effector (18), and wherein the working member (28) is supported (as per “robotic arms provided with a gripper” in ¶42) by the end effector (18).
As per Claim 16, Pivac further discloses wherein the working member (28) includes at least one of: {a) a screed member; b) a trowel; c) formwork; d) a mould}; e) a biasing member configured to urge working material (as per “gripper” in ¶42); {f) a cutting implement; g) a grinding head; h) a polishing head; i) washer head; j) a sand blast head; and k) a guillotine}.
As per Claim 17, Pivac further discloses wherein the working head (18) is at least one of:
{a) articulated to allow for rotation of the working member;
b) articulated to control a height of the working member};
c) articulated to control an orientation (as per “co-ordinate data for the robot may comprise data relating to the axis position of joints of …manipulators 28” in ¶50) of the working member (28),
{d) articulated about three axes to allow the working member to be maintained in a fixed orientation with a further articulation being provided to allow height and/or positional adjustment of the working member; and
e) articulated to allow rotation and horizontal movement of the working member.}
As per Claim 20, Pivac further discloses wherein the system (10, 12) includes a boom actuator (as per “process 86 for controlling the position and motion of the scara arm 24” in ¶53; as per “controlling motion of the arm 24” in ¶62; as per “controller 14 initiates movement of the arm 24” in ¶63) configured to move the boom (24/24a).
As per Claim 21, Pivac further discloses wherein the boom actuator is configured to at least one of: {a) slew the boom; b) extend or retract the boom;} c) unfold (as per “the entire scara arm 24 can fold and unfold” in ¶43; as per “process 86 for controlling the position and motion of the scara arm 24” in ¶53; as per “controlling motion of the arm 24” in ¶62; as per “controller 14 initiates movement of the arm 24” in ¶63) the boom (24/24a); and {d) raise or lower the boom}.
As per Claim 22, Pivac further discloses wherein the system includes a tracking system (13, 20, 21) (Fig. 1; ¶40-41, 47) configured to measure a position (as per “real time position data” in ¶41) and/or movement of at least one of: a) the working head (18) (as per “target on the head 18” in ¶47); {b) the end of the boom; c) the boom; and d) the working member};
wherein the controller (14) is configured to control the working head (18) in accordance with signals (as per “provide spatial position data to the controller 14” in ¶47) from the tracking system (13, 20, 21).
As per Claim 23, Pivac further discloses wherein the tracking system (13, 20, 21) includes at least one of: {a) a laser guide; b) a physical guide and corresponding guide sensor; c) a positioning sensor; d) a GPS sensor; e) a movement sensor}; f) an inertial measurement unit (51) (Fig. 1; ¶57); {g) a machine vision system; h) a laser tracker; i) a LiDAR; j) a radar; k) a ranging sensor; and l) an ultrasonic ranging sensor}.
As per Claim 24, Pivac further discloses wherein the tracking system (13, 20, 21) includes at least one of:
{a) three retroreflectors mounted proximate an end of the boom and corresponding laser trackers, wherein the tracking system is configured to measure a position and orientation of the end of the boom based on radiation reflected from the retroreflectors},
{b) a retroreflector movably mounted on the articulated head proximate the working member and a laser tracker, wherein the tracking system is configured to measure a position and orientation of the working member based on radiation reflected from the retroreflector}; and
c) a laser guide (20, 21) positioned in the environment and a sensor (51) mounted on at least one of the boom (24/24a) and {the working head}, the sensor (51) being configured to detect deviation from the laser guide (20, 21) (as per “The inertial navigation system data is used to provide a high bandwidth … position data stream between readings from the low bandwidth … ATS 20” in ¶47).
As per Claim 27, Pivac further discloses wherein the laser guide (20, 21) defines at least one of: {a) a height plane}; and b) a working path (as per “the ATS 20 makes real time measurements of the position in space of the had 18 by viewing the target 21” in ¶52; as per “the controller 14 at step 104 determines the position of the brick, which was picked up by the arm 28 to be laid. In determining this position, the step 104 is provided with data on real time position of the tip of the arm 24. This data is derived via step 106, which in turn is derived from the ATS 20. The position data provided by step 106 is continuously updated taking into account the movement of the robot 12 during the brick laying process” in ¶55).
As per Claim 28, Pivac further discloses wherein the system (10, 12) includes a nozzle (as per “An outlet of an adhesive delivery system … is attached to each of the manipulators 28 and 30 for the delivery of mortar” in ¶42) configured to deliver a construction material (as per “mortar” in ¶42).
As per Claim 29, Pivac further discloses wherein the working head (18) is at least one of:
a) articulated to at least one of:
{i) independently move the working member and the nozzle};
{ii) move the working member relative to the nozzle};
{iii) allow for rotation of the working member around the nozzle};
{iv) control a height of the working member relative to the nozzle}; and
v) control an orientation (as per “co-ordinate data for the robot may comprise data relating to the axis position of joints of …manipulators 28” in ¶50; as per “at least five or six degrees of freedom of movement” in ¶43; as per “x,y,z locations” in Fig 8) of the nozzle (as per “An outlet of an adhesive delivery system … is attached to each of the manipulators 28 and 30 for the delivery of mortar” in ¶42);
{b) articulated about three axes to allow the nozzle to be maintained in a fixed orientation with a further articulation being provided to allow height and/or positional adjustment of the nozzle}; and
{c) articulated to allow rotation and horizontal movement of the nozzle}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hendron (US Pub. No. 2013/0297046) discloses a method and system for controlling movement of an end effector on a machine. Peters (US Pub. No. 2015/0082740) discloses a brick laying system. Friend (US Patent No. 9,790,695) discloses operation resume functions for implement control systems and methods utilizing relative positioning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656