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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/22/2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action, dated on 02/25/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are pending in the current application. Claim 6 has been cancelled. Claims 11-15 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/22/2026 have been fully considered.
In the Arguments/Remarks:
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see below) necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Re: Rejoinder
Applicant elected claims 1-10 (Group I), in the requirement for Restriction/Election dated on 02/04/2026, for examination without traverse. If applicant intended to argue the restriction/election requirement then applicant should have elected with traverse. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapadia (US 2021/0153973 A1) in view of Solowjow (US 2023/0330858 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kapadia teaches a flexible cart for use in wire harness manufacturing, comprising:
a frame [(element 202, see at least Fig.10)] having a base [(bottom of element 202)] with support members configured to enable the base to move about relative to a floor between multiple work stations [(see at least elements 103a-d, Fig.9 paragraph 49)];
a platform movably supported by the frame [(element 206, see at least Fig.10)]; a vertical slide assembly interconnected between the frame and the platform [(element 204, see at least Fig.10)], the platform cantilevered horizontally outward relative to the vertical slide assembly [(element 206, see at least Fig.10) Examiner notes it would be obvious to one of ordinary in the art that the platform 206 is extended horizontally outward to the vertical slide assembly in Fig.10.];
an actuation assembly operatively connected between the platform and the frame [(element 240, see at least Fig.11)], the actuation assembly configured to move the platform vertically along the vertical slide assembly between multiple positions
[(see at least paragraphs 54-58)]
Kapadia teaches a robot mounted to the platform and configured to transfer a component to at least one of the work stations. [(element 3, see at least Fig.10, paragraph 29) “As will be described in detail below, provided are embodiments of a surgical cart for supporting a robotic arm and for facilitating movement of the robotic arm around an operating room”]
Kapadia does not explicitly teach a cobot mounted to the platform and configured to transfer a component to at least one of the work stations.
However, Solowjow teaches a cobot mounted to the platform and configured to transfer a component to at least one of the work stations. [(see at least paragraphs 13,16) As in 13 “For example, conventional control methods generally cannot perform fine-grained tasks with generic robot hardware, such as low-cost collaborative robots (cobots) and two-finger grippers. Further, it is recognized herein that measurements of insertion locations and preprogramming of how to grasp components are subject to uncertainties and are prone to errors.” As in 16 “FIG. 1, the autonomous machine 104 can further include a robotic arm or manipulator 110 and a base 112 configured to support the robotic manipulator 110. The base 112 can include wheels 114 or can otherwise be configured to move within the physical environment 100. The autonomous machine 104 can further include an end effector 116 attached to the robotic manipulator 110. The end effector 116 can include one or more tools configured to grasp and/or move objects 106.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kapadia to incorporate the teachings of Solowjow of transferring a component to at least one of the work stations in order to move/transport objects within the physical environment/workstations. [(Solowjow 16)]
Regarding claim 2, In view of the above combination of references, Kapadia further teaches wherein the frame includes vertical members extending from the base [(element 204 see at least Fig.10)] to a horizontal support surface [(element 206, see at least Fig.10)], the cobot arranged to reach the component on the horizontal support surface. [(element 3, see at least Fig.10), (paragraphs 53-58)]
Regarding claim 4, In view of the above combination of references, Kapadia further teaches wherein the base extends horizontally beneath the platform. [(element 202, see at least Fig.10)]
Regarding claim 7, In view of the above combination of references, Kapadia further teaches wherein the actuation assembly includes a cylinder configured to extend and retract to move the platform with the vertical slide assembly. [(see at least Fig.11, paragraphs 54-57) As in 57 “the surgical cart 200 may further include a motor 252 operably coupled to the ball screw 242 to effect a rotation of the ball screw 242. In this embodiment, an activation of the motor 252 causes the ball screw 242 to rotate, thereby driving an upward or downward movement of the nut 244 along the ball screw 242 and, in turn, a corresponding upward or downward movement of the carriage 206. In other embodiments, the sensor may be configured to detect when the motor 252 is being activated and upon the sensor sensing the activation of the motor 252, the brake 246 may be configured to automatically release from engagement with the ball screw 242 to allow for the raising or lowering of the carriage 206 by the motor 252. In still other embodiments, another brake (not shown) may be provided that selectively engages the nut 244 to prevent rotation of the nut 244 and/or axial translation of the nut 244.”]
Regarding claim 8, In view of the above combination of references, Kapadia further teaches wherein the actuation assembly includes a switch in communication with a motor operatively connected to the cylinder, the motor operatively mounted to the frame and configured to be responsive to an operator using the switch. [(see at least paragraph 58) “In operation, to raise or lower the robotic arm 3, a clinician may either manually apply a force on the carriage 206, or the motor 252 may be activated by a clinician pressing a button to drive the carriage 206 movement. The sensor senses either the manual force being applied on the carriage 206, or the sensor senses an activation of the motor 252. The sensor communicates with the processor, which then directs the brake 246 of the braking mechanism 240 to release the ball screw 242. If vertical adjustment of the carriage 206 is being driven manually, the force applied on the carriage 206 by the clinician moves the carriage 206 and the attached nut 244 and robotic arm 3, along the ball screw 242 since the ball screw 242 is no longer being prevented from rotating by the brake 246.”]
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapadia in view of Solowjow and in further view of Sturm (US 2013/0226341 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Kapadia has all of the elements of claim 2 as discussed above.
Kapadia does not explicitly teach comprising a movable bin on the horizontal support surface, and the component in the bin.
However, Sturm teaches comprising a movable bin on the horizontal support surface, and the component in the bin. [(element 45, see at least Fig.42) Examiner notes that the bin 45 is mounted to the same platform/horizontal support surface as the robot arm. ]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Kapadia to incorporate the teachings of Sturm of to mount a movable bin on the horizontal support surface with the cobot arm to hold and receive components not currently in use. [(Sturm 117)]
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapadia in view of Solowjow and in further view of Sramek (US 2022/0061927 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Kapadia has all of the elements of claim 4 as discussed above.
Kapadia teaches wherein the support members are provided by casters [(see at least Fig.9, paragraph 49) “the cart base 102 of the surgical cart 100 is fixed to the first end 104a of the support column 104 and includes four casters 103a, 103b, 103c, 103d. In some embodiments, the cart base 102 may include more or less than four casters.”]
Kapadia does not explicitly teach casters, at least one of which locks.
However, Sramek teaches casters, at least one of which locks. [(see at least paragraph 87) “The cart base 15 balances the weight of the column 14, carriage 17, and robotic arms 12 over the floor. Accordingly, the cart base 15 houses heavier components, such as electronics, motors, power supply, as well as components that either enable movement and/or immobilize the cart 11. For example, the cart base 15 includes rollable wheel-shaped casters 25 that allow for the cart 11 to easily move around the room prior to a procedure. After reaching the appropriate position, the casters 25 may be immobilized using wheel locks to hold the cart 11 in place during the procedure.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Kapadia to incorporate the teachings of Sramek of the support members are provided by casters, at least one of which locks in order to immobilize and secure the cart during use. [(Sramek 87)]
Claims 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapadia in view of Solowjow and in further view of Bangalore Srinivas (US 2021/0237554 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bangalore.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Kapadia has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kapadia does not explicitly teach comprising a power supply including a battery, the cobot and the actuation system connected to the battery.
However, Bangalore further teaches comprising a power supply including a battery, the cobot and the actuation system connected to the battery. [(see at least paragraph 33) “The top plate 102 serves to protect inner parts of the AMR 100. The top plate 102 also acts as a base platform for carrying payload. In an embodiment, a plurality of covers for cables are placed in the top plate 102. In an embodiment, one or more rubber straps are provided in between one or more top plates for water and dust protection. The battery holding plate 206 which provides protection for the battery 204 acts as a platform for mounting one or more electrical and electronic components and further divides interior of the AMR 100 into two compartments (lower- and upper). In an embodiment, a lower compartment of the AMR holds heavier components like battery, gear boxes, motors wheels to increase the dynamic stability of the system. In an embodiment, an upper compartment of the AMR 100 is used to hold electrical and control system components (e.g., PCBs, SMPS) which are typically lighter weight and more volume.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Kapadia to incorporate the teachings of Bangalore of comprising a power supply including a battery, the cobot and the actuation system connected to the battery in order to power the cobot and provide power to the other electrical components of the system. [(Bangalore 60)]
Regarding claim 10, in view of the above combination of references, Kapadia further teaches comprising a controller in communication with the cobot, the controller including instructions for the cobot working at the multiple work stations with an operator. [(see at least paragraph 32) “Robotic arms 2, 3 may be driven by electric drives (not shown) that are connected to control device 4. Control device 4 (e.g., a computer) is set up to activate the drives, in particular by means of a computer program, in such a way that robotic arms 2, 3 and thus electromechanical instrument 10 (including the electromechanical end effector (not shown)) execute a desired movement according to a movement defined by means of manual input devices 7, 8. Control device 4 may also be set up in such a way that it regulates the movement of robotic arms 2, 3 and/or of the drives.”]
Kapadia does not explicitly disclose the controller being connected to the battery.
However, when combined Kapadia in view of Solowjow and Bangalore it would have been obvious that the controller of Kapadia would be connected to the battery as robot/cobot power source.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
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 MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA whose telephone number is (571)272-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 with flex.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights