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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 02/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-15 have been withdrawn in view of the restriction requirement. Claims 1-10 are pending in the current application.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, The term “in the bin” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited.
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, 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangalore Srinivas (US 2021/0237554 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bangalore, in view of Solowjow (US 2023/0330858 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bangalore teaches a flexible cart for use in wire harness manufacturing, comprising: a frame having a base with support members configured to enable the base to move about relative to a floor between multiple work stations [(see at least Fig.1A, paragraphs 5,25) “For example, in one embodiment, an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) for a plurality of outdoor applications is provided. The autonomous mobile robot (AMR) includes (i) a base frame being configured to obtain the configurable base frame based on one or more parameters; (ii) a first drive wheel sub assembly, and a second drive wheel assembly is additionally re-oriented oppositely to the first drive wheel assembly to form a drive wheel assembly; (iii) a plurality of suspension units is configured by the one or more side plates of the configurable base frame and a plurality of gearboxes to provide an independent suspension to the AMR” As in 25 “Outdoor AMRs must work in irregular terrains and need suspension. The outdoor AMRs for (e.g., non-industrial) use may have independent pivoted suspension which would need more physical space. Whereas in industrial usage, the terrain in outside of factory will be better as compared to an outside factory terrain. A simpler space saving design of dual linear spring small stroke suspension will suffice for outside factory terrain. In such cases for e.g., an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) like autonomous vehicle requires a large stroke suspension for huge variations in floor conditions.”] a platform movably supported by the frame [(see at least Fig.1A, paragraph 6) “the configurable base frame may be bolted for assemble and dismantle to attain varieties of dimensions of a platform for corresponding plurality of applications. In an embodiment, a length and a width of the AMR may correspond to a wheel track and a wheel base respectively for one or more payload characteristics, and one or more working environmental maneuverability parameters. In an embodiment, a flange may be designed on the rear plate of the configurable base frame to provide a space for mounting a robot/cobot.”]; an actuation assembly operatively connected between the platform and the frame, the actuation assembly configured to move the platform between multiple positions [(see at least paragraph 7) “the top plate of the gearbox and the bottom plate of the gearbox may be provided with plurality of clearance holes and remaining plates are provided with plurality of threaded holes through which plurality of fasteners are screwed to form the plurality of gearboxes. In an embodiment, the configurable base frame may distribute and transmit load from a top plate to one or more drive wheels. In an embodiment, the one or more side plates may be assembled with a plurality of drive motors, the plurality of gearboxes, and the plurality of drive wheels to form the first drive wheel sub assembly and the second drive wheel assembly.”]; and a cobot mounted to the platform [(see at least Fig.1A, paragraph 6) “In an embodiment, a flange may be designed on the rear plate of the configurable base frame to provide a space for mounting a robot/cobot. In an embodiment, a force from the robot/cobot may be directly transmitted to the configurable base frame for minimizing deflections.”]
Bangalore does not explicitly teach transferring a component to at least one of the work stations.
However, Solowjow teaches configured to transfer a component to at least one of the work stations. [(see at least paragraph 16) “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 Bangalore 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, Bangalore further teaches wherein the frame includes vertical members extending from the base to a horizontal support surface, the cobot arranged to reach the component on the horizontal support surface. [(see at least Figs.5A-5B, paragraph 37) “FIGS. 5A and 5B are isometric views of a configurable base frame 500 of the autonomous mobile robot (AMR) 100, according to some embodiments of the present disclosure. In an embodiment, the configurable base frame 500 may alternatively referred as a configurable chassis. The AMR 100 includes cutouts 502 to mount the gear box 308A, a cutout 504 for a power switch and a charging port, holes 506 to mount the robot/cobot 126, and holes 508 to mount the plurality of suspension units 210A-N.”]
Regarding claim 4, In view of the above combination of references, Bangalore further teaches wherein the base extends horizontally beneath the platform. [(see at least Figs.1A-2,4)]
Regarding claim 5, In view of the above combination of references, Bangalore further teaches wherein the support members are provided by wheels. [(see at least Fig.1A, paragraph 7) “In an embodiment, the configurable base frame may distribute and transmit load from a top plate to one or more drive wheels. In an embodiment, the one or more side plates may be assembled with a plurality of drive motors, the plurality of gearboxes, and the plurality of drive wheels to form the first drive wheel sub assembly and the second drive wheel assembly.”]
Regarding claim 9, In view of the above combination of references, 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.”]
Regarding claim 10, in view of the above combination of references, Bangalore further teaches comprising a controller connected to the battery and in communication with the cobot, the controller including instructions for the cobot working at the multiple work stations with an operator. [(see at least paragraphs 25-26, 36) As in 26 “The embodiments of the present disclosure provide an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) that is configured to operate with a vision system and an optional robotic arm mounted on top. The AMR dynamically learn about environment and updates learning every time based on navigation of the AMR and works in collaborative environment without any human intervention.” As in 36 “For example, if the length of the AMR 100 is to be increased, few louver plates are added by reusing the existing louver plates to cover the bottom side. The bottom plate 402 are configured to protect the AMR 100 from water and dust and provide a platform for placing the battery 204”]
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangalore in view of Solowjow and in further view of Sturm (US 2013/0226341 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Bangalore has all of the elements of claim 2 as discussed above.
Bangalore 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. [(see at least paragraph 67) “FIG. 1 shows a first embodiment of a robot arrangement (1) with a carrying means (15), which is designed as a carriage (20), which can roll with a plurality or rollers or wheels (21) on a foundation (14), e.g., a flat floor. The wheels (21) may be mounted at least partially pivotably, so that the carriage (20) can travel under the effect of the drive of its own (16) in a straight line or in any desired curves as well as in any desired direction forward or backward and also turn on the spot”]
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 Bangalore to incorporate the teachings of Sturm of a movable bin on the horizontal support surface, and the component in the bin in order for the carriage/bin to travel under the effect of the drive of its own in a straight line or in any desired curves as well as in any desired direction forward or backward and also turn on the spot. [(Sturm 67)]
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangalore in view of Solowjow and in further view of Georgeson (US 2018/0361571 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Bangalore has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bangalore does not explicitly teach comprising a vertical slide assembly interconnected between the frame and the platform.
However, Georgeson teaches comprising a vertical slide assembly interconnected between the frame and the platform. [(see at least paragraph 127) “As seen in FIG. 20, the array support assembly comprises a traveling bridge 300 that rides on a pair of mutually parallel horizontal linear rails 312 and 314 attached to the front face of window frame 76. The traveling bridge is slidably coupled to the horizontal linear rails 312 and 314 by means of respective sliders embedded in block connectors 310 and 316. The traveling bridge 300 comprises a pair of mutually parallel vertical linear rails 320 and 322 disposed perpendicular to the horizontal linear rails 312 and 314. The vertical linear rails 320 and 322 are attached to the block connectors 310 and 316. In addition, a carriage 70 is slidably coupled to the vertical linear rails 320 and 322 by means of sliders 318 (which are shown at a middle position along vertical linear rails 320, 322 in FIG. 20 with the carriage removed). I”]
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 Bangalore to incorporate the teachings of Georgeson of a vertical slide assembly interconnected between the frame and the platform in order to reduce load on motors, which improves the power use efficiency and lifespan of those motors. [(Georgeson 4)]
Regarding claim 7, Modified Bangalore has all of the elements of claim 6 as discussed above.
Bangalore does not explicitly teach wherein the actuation assembly includes a cylinder configured to extend and retract to move the platform with the vertical slide assembly.
However, Georgeson 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 paragraph 130) “In alternate embodiments, the horizontal linear rails 312, 314, bearing 308 and X-axis motion motor 306 may be attached to a frame that is directly mounted to the end effector 224 (in which case, the IRT scanner 214 is removed). In addition, one end of the lead screw 304 is rotatably seated inside a bearing 326 while the other end is connected to the output shaft of a Y-axis motion motor 324. Both bearing 326 and Y-axis motion motor 324 are components of the traveling bridge 300. The traveling bridge 300 slides along the horizontal linear rails 312, 314 whenever lead screw 302 is rotated. The carriage 70 slides along the vertical linear rails 320, 322 whenever lead screw 304 is rotated. The direction of translation depends on the direction of lead screw rotation. Thus the ultrasonic transducer array 72 may be scanned in X and Y directions across the surface of the curved workpiece 202 during an ultrasonic inspection 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 Bangalore to incorporate the teachings of Georgeson of the actuation assembly includes a cylinder configured to extend and retract to move the platform with the vertical slide assembly in order to trigger transitions between discrete sets of system states. [(Georgeson 76)]
Regarding claim 8, In view of the above combination of references, Bangalore 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 29) “according to embodiments of the present disclosure. The AMR 100 which is designed with the configurable base frame 500 (as shown in FIG. 5A), the top plate 102, the bottom plate 402 (as shown in FIG. 4), the plurality of drive wheels 112A-D, the plurality of rim 114A-D, the ON/OFF switch 116, the switch protecting cover 118, the plurality of emergency switches 120A-B, the plurality of mud guards 122A-D, the sensor 124, the robot/cobot 126, the end effector 128, and the plurality of suspension units 210A-N (as shown in FIG. 2).”]
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2021/0300694 A1) Chintalapalli Patta - APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATED OBJECTS MANIPULATION TO AND FROM PALLETS
(US 2023/0085100 A1) Akey - Collaborative Robot Cutting System And Method
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