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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 9, the limitation “the one or more objects of interest are not larger than a hazard” in the claims lacks enablement. The specification does not define how the objects of interest are smaller than a hazard. The specification does describe the gap between the top teeth and the bottom teeth is smaller than a hazard and large enough to permit transmission and receipt of signals from the sensor to one or more objects of interest (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 6, which describes the gap being smaller than the hazard, paragraphs 81 and 82). The specification does not describe how and why the objects of interest are smaller than a hazard. The invention is drawn to using the tooth structure to block objects/hazards larger than the gap between the tooth structure from damaging the sensor while having the gap be large enough to emit and receive signals to and from the sensor for scanning a region in front of the module/robot.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected because of their dependency on claims 1 and 9, respectively.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 9, the limitation “the one or more objects of interest are not larger than a hazard” is unclear with respect to the specification. As noted previously, the specification described the gap between top and bottom teeth to be smaller than the hazard (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 6, which describes the gap being smaller than the hazard, paragraphs 81 and 82). In paragraph 91 of the Applicant’s specification it is also described that the top and bottom teeth are misaligned so that objects/hazards would collide with both the bottom and top teeth reducing occlusion of the detector. The specification seems to be equating objects as potential hazards, but does not describe the size of the object with respect to a hazard. Please clarify. For examining purposes the gap between the top and bottom teeth is not larger than a hazard as described in the specification.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected because of their dependency on claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 1, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach a module for a robot to prevent collisions as claimed and understood in rejection as set forth above where the gap is not larger than the hazard, comprising: more specifically in combination with a top portion comprising a first toothed edge comprising one or more top teeth; a bottom portion comprising a second toothed edge comprising one or more bottom teeth; wherein, the top and bottom portions surround a sensor of the robot; and the top teeth and the bottom teeth define a gap comprising a size wide enough to permit transmission and receipt of signals from the sensor to one or more objects of interest, the one or more objects of interest are not larger than a hazard.
Claims 2-8 would be allowable if the 112 rejection of claim 1 is overcome.
In regards to claim 9, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach a robotic system, comprising: a sensor coupled to the robotic system; and a module configured to protect the sensor from a hazard, the module as claimed and understood in rejection as set forth above where the gap is not larger than the hazard comprises: more specifically in combination with a top portion comprising a first toothed edge comprising one or more top teeth; a bottom portion comprising a second toothed edge comprising one or more bottom teeth; wherein, the top and bottom portions surround the sensor of the robotic system; and the top teeth and the bottom teeth define a gap comprising a size wide enough to permit transmission and receipt of signals from the sensor to one or more objects of interest, the one or more objects of interest are not larger than the hazard.
Claims 10-16 would be allowable if the 112 rejection of claim 9 is overcome.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (CN 214924582) teaches a module for a robot to prevent collisions, comprising: a first portion (11) comprising a first baffle (11); a second portion (7) comprising a second baffle (7); wherein, the first and second portions arranged in front and below a sensor (8) of the robot (see fig. 1); and the first baffle (11) and the second baffle (7) define a gap (see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach the top and bottom teeth with a gap of the defined size.
Uehara (US 5808728) teaches a module for a robot to prevent collisions, comprising: a top portion (52) comprising a first toothed edge comprising one or more top teeth (see fig. 5); wherein, the top portion surround a sensor of the robot (see fig. 5 and 1), but does not specifically teach a bottom portion with teeth, the gap between the top and bottom teeth of a specific size.
Ermakov et al. (US 20070061043) teaches louvers placed around a sensor of a robot to protect the sensor from external objects while allowing light to emit and be received by the sensor (fig. 1 and 2, paragraphs 63-65), but does not specifically teach the top and bottom teeth with a gap between of a specific size.
Kim et al. (US 20180184872) teaches a gap (13/14) between a top portion (10b) and a bottom portion (10c) that surround a sensor (25) of a robot (fig. 7), the gap being a specific size preventing the sensor from being damaged by an external hazard (fig. 7, paragraphs 97-101), but does not specifically teach top and bottom teeth with a gap between.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights