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 Status
Claims 1-18 are currently being examined. By applicant’s amendment of November 24, 2025, claims 1-18 are pending following:
Claims 1, 6, and 13-16 have been amended
Claims 19-22 have been canceled
Drawings
Applicant has amended the claims to address the objections to the drawings set forth in the First Office Action of March 20, 2025. Applicant’s amendments and Replacement Sheets adequately address and resolve the issues with the drawings; therefore, the drawing objections are withdrawn. Examiner notes the Replacement Sheets clearly illustrate the features in the claims and significantly enhance understanding of the current invention; Applicant’s cooperation and amendments are appreciated.
Response to Amendments
Applicant has amended the claims to address the claim objections, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, and Double Patenting rejections in the First Office Action of March 20, 2025. Applicant’s amendments adequately address and resolve the required issues; therefore, the claim objections, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, and Double Patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (see Applicant’s Remarks, filed November 24, 2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The new limitations of the amended independent claims have been mapped below (see Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103 section). Applicant argues a system comprising the porch bot and mother bot is novel and non-obvious. Examiner agrees regarding this system; however, the claims as currently constructed do not positively recite such a system. Discussion of the arguments is provided below.
Novelty
Amended independent claims have been mapped below (see Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103 section). Also see MPEP 2141-2143 detailing guidelines, legal concepts and basic requirements with examples for obviousness rejections.
Non-obviousness
Applicant argues the specific integration of features in the claimed system in not suggested by the prior art in an obvious way. Applicant argues the overall system – a porch bot with both refrigeration and heating capacity, working in tandem with a mother bot that can lift multiple units and share power – achieves a synergistic result not taught or motivated in the prior art.
Examiner agrees that the combination of a porch bot and mother bot in a system (as noted in Examiner’s Note of the First Office Action) presents a novel and non-obvious invention. However, this system is not what is currently claimed. The current construction of claims presents the porch bot (claim 1) and mother bot (claim 15) individually as separate entities. These entities are stated to interact (e.g., a mother bot for lifting and transporting one or more porch bots) but none of the independent claims positively (expressly) recite the combination of the porch bot and mother bot into a system. As Examiner is required to interpret the claims using plain meaning under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), an interaction between two entities cannot be construed as equivalent to a system which contains these two entities.
An independent claim, or amendment to one or both independent claims, which positively (expressly) recites a system comprising these two entities is required in order for the system to be interpreted in this manner.
Examiner suggests combining independent claims 1 and 15 into a single independent claim and expressly reciting a system comprising the two entities. An example combined independent claim might look like:
A Product Transport and Storage System comprising:
at least one porch bot for transporting a plurality of products, the first of said plurality of products being a first product, the porch bot comprising:
a storage shell having a shelved interior for storing said plurality of products on a plurality of shelves, the first of said plurality of shelves being a first shelf;
a pair of brace rails on at least one external side of said storage shell;
a handle frame displaceable along one of said pair of brace rails to a fixed position in register with said plurality of shelves to support said plurality of products configured to slide out of said shelved interior; and
at least one temperature-control apparatus selected from a cooling apparatus and a heating apparatus, configured to maintain a controlled temperature within said shelved interior of said storage shell;
a mother bot for lifting and transporting one or more of said porch bots comprising:
a bed having a side to support said porch bots,
an adjustable height lift connected to an opposite side of said bed from said side to support said porch bots,
wherein said adjustable height lift is configured to raise, lower, and transport said bed from a surface, and
a battery power storage system including a sharable power-transfer interface configured to provide power to said porch bots.
From the above combined independent claim above, Applicant can still delve into additional limitations/features of the porch bot and the mother bot separately in various dependent claims, similar to the current construction of the dependent claims, while providing the combined system in the independent claim which distinguishes over the prior art.
Bullets have been used in the above example claim to help illustrate hierarchical relationships within the claim. The underlined portions have been adapted for illustrative purposes from Applicant’s related application #17/595,895. The italicized portions are the amended limitations from the instant application whose inclusion overcomes the double-patenting rejections from the First Office Action. Examiner recommends maintaining the italicized amended limitations which provide additional, more specific details of the system which distinguish the instant from the reference application recited in the double-patenting rejection from the First Office Action.
Applicant is not limited to the language above and may choose any wording they deem appropriate (using a different title for the system, for example); this example is provided for illustrative purposes only and multiple alternative ways to construct or word the claim exist.
Applicant is encouraged, as needed, to contact Examiner to schedule an interview to discuss the positive recitation of the system and/or combined limitations in the independent claims as a path forward. Interviews can be scheduled using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice or by contacting Examiner directly at (703) 756-1112.
Examiner's Note
Potentially Distinguishing Features: In the previous office actions including the PCT (PCT/US2021/070626) and parent application (17/595,985), it was noted that the system with a combination of the porch bot and the mother bot was what distinguished over the prior art, that it would not be obvious to combine these components together, and that there was prior art available which read on these components individually. As noted above in response to arguments, an independent claim positively reciting the system comprising both entities (porch bot and mother bot) would overcome the prior art of record.
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant' s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
English Translations: If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke et al. (EP 3372541) in view of Cantrell et al. (US 2018/0236840).
Regarding amended independent Claim 1, Franke et al. discloses:
A porch bot for transporting a plurality of products, the first of said plurality of products being a first product, comprising
a storage shell having a shelved interior for storing said plurality of products on a plurality of shelves, the first of said plurality of shelves being a first shelf, [See Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 10 (frame), 40 (shelves) and Fig. 2b, Ref. Numeral 100 (items); Par. 0069]
a pair of brace rails on two external sides of said storage shell, [See Fig. 2b, Ref. Numeral 70 (rails) on external side of 10 (frame)] and
a handle frame displaceable along one of said pair of brace rails to a fixed position in register with said plurality of shelves to support said plurality of products configured to slide out of said shelved interior. [See Fig. 2a, Ref. Numerals 60 (gripper housing) which moves along 70 (rail), aligning with shelves; Pars. 0074-0075]
While Franke et al. discloses a transport robot, Franke et al. does not disclose a temperature-control apparatus. With respect to these limitations, Cantrell et al., directed to the same technology — automated delivery vehicles and robots — teaches:
at least one temperature-control apparatus selected from a cooling apparatus and a heating apparatus, configured to maintain a controlled temperature within said shelved interior of said storage shell. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0019-0028]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cantrell et al. and combine the temperature-control apparatus with the transport robot of Franke et al. The temperature-control apparatus of Cantrell et al. allows delivery of temperature-sensitive products in addition to temperature-agnostic products, enabling increased efficiency and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the temperature-control apparatus of Cantrell et al. with the transport robot of Franke et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the transport robot of Franke et al. and the features of the temperature-control apparatus of Cantrell et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Cantrell et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated delivery vehicles and robots), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding amended claim 6, Franke et al. discloses:
The porch bot of claim 1 wherein said handle frame comprises a pair of arms which clasp said storage shell via said pair of brace rails. [See at least Fig. 2A (replicated below with annotation); Ref. Numeral 70 (rails) outer brace rails which connect/serve as guide tracks for displaceable inner rails]
PNG
media_image1.png
536
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Franke et al. discloses:
The porch bot of claim 1 further comprising at least a first and a second separate interior compartment. [See Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 40 (shelves), where each shelf delineates a separation between multiple interior compartments]
Claims 2, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke et al. (EP 3372541) in view of Cantrell et al. (US 2018/0236840) and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 113247458).
While Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. do not disclose details of maintaining warmer temperatures. With respect to these limitations, Chen et al., directed to solving the same problem, delivering items, teaches these limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al. teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 wherein transporting products comprises delivery from a vendor to an address. [See Par. 0066]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of Chen et al. and combine the heating details with the transport robot of Franke et al. and temperature control of Cantrell et al. The delivery and heating of Chen et al. allows products that are require higher temperatures for delivery to be maintained at proper temperatures.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the heating of Chen et al. with the transport robot of Franke et al. and temperature control of Cantrell et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the transport robot of Franke et al. and temperature control of Cantrell et al. and the features of the heating of Chen et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Chen et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, delivering items, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 wherein transporting products comprises maintaining a product temperature of above fifty degrees Celsius. [See Par. 0052]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of Chen et al. as discussed above, see claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al. teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 further comprising a heating apparatus for maintaining warmer interior temperatures relative to an environment comprising radiant electric heat. [See Par. 0017]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of Chen et al. as discussed above, see claim 2.
Claims 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke et al. (EP 3372541) in view of Cantrell et al. (US 2018/0236840) and further in view of Perry et al. (US 2005/0178142).
While Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. disclose the limitations claim 1, they do not provide details of maintaining colder temperatures. With respect to these limitations, Perry et al., directed to solving the same problem, delivering items, teaches these limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Perry et al. teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 wherein transporting products comprises maintaining a product temperature of less than four degrees Celsius. [See Par. 0003]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of Perry et al. and combine the cooling features with the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. The cooling of Perry et al. allows products that need to be maintained at lower temperatures to be maintained at proper temperatures for delivery.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the cooling of Perry et al. with the transport robot of Franke et al. and temperature control of Cantrell et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the transport robot of Franke et al. and temperature control of Cantrell et al. and the features of the cooling of Perry et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Perry et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, delivering items, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Perry et al. teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 wherein transporting products comprises maintaining a product temperature of less than negative seventeen degrees Celsius. [See Par. 0003]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of Perry et al. as discussed above, see claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Perry et al. teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 further comprising a cooling apparatus for maintaining cooler interior temperatures relative to an environment comprising dry ice. [See Par. 0006]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of Perry et al. as discussed above, see claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke et al. (EP 3372541) in view of Cantrell et al. (US 2018/0236840) and further in view of Dyson (WO 2020/212725).
While Franke et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, Franke et al. does not disclose all-weather seals on the transport robot. With respect to these limitations, Dyson, directed to solving the same problem, weather-proofing for outdoor automated delivery systems, teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 wherein said storage shell further comprises a plurality of all-weather seals said plurality of all-weather seals including at least a first all-weather seal to make said storage shell wind-tight and a second all-weather seal to make said storage shell water-tight. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral D (weather proofed seals; pg. 10, Section 2.2.4. Weather Proofed Seals; claim 8]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dyson and combine the weather-proof seals with the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. The weather-proof seals of Dyson allows improved outdoor transport while protecting delivery contents from the elements, increasing efficiency and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the weather-proof seals of Dyson with the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. and the features of the weather-proof seals of Dyson would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Dyson because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, weather-proofing for outdoor automated delivery systems, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke et al. (EP 3372541) in view of Cantrell et al. (US 2018/0236840) and further in view of McKinnon (WO 2016/109867).
While Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1 including the unit being powered and remote controlled, Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. do not explicitly disclose the use of omni wheels. With respect to these limitations, McKinnon, directed to solving the same problem, upgrading transport systems with improved wheel mobility for robotic/AGV and materials handling technologies teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 further comprising omni wheels wherein said omni wheels are powered and remotely controlled. [See Abstract; page 1, line 12; page 3, line 26-28]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of McKinnon and combine the omni wheels with the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. The omni wheels of McKinnon allows improved transport with increased stability and multi-directional functionality in the same wheel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the omni wheels of McKinnon with the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. and the features of the omni wheels of McKinnon would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of McKinnon because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, upgrading transport systems with improved wheel mobility for robotic/AGV and materials handling technologies, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke et al. (EP 3372541) in view of Cantrell et al. (US 2018/0236840) and further in view of Yi et al. (CN 204012893).
While Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. disclose the limitations claim 1, Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. do not disclose a sharable power transfer. With respect to these limitations, Yi et al., directed to solving the same problem, enabling power sharing among vehicles, teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 further comprising a battery/power storage further comprising a sharable power transfer. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0007-0008, 0022-0025]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of Yi et al. and combine the sharable power transfer with the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. The sharable power transfer of Yi et al. enables expanding power outputs by allowing power sources among vehicles to be shared.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the sharable power transfer of Yi et al. with the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. and the features of the sharable power transfer of Yi et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yi et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, enabling power sharing among vehicles, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Amended claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke et al. (EP 3372541) in view of Cantrell et al. (US 2018/0236840) and further in view of Javidan et al. (US 2021/0256472).
Regarding amended claim 13, while Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. do not disclose the use of an external display. With respect to these limitations, Javidan et al., directed to the same technology — automated delivery vehicles and robots — teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 further comprising a plurality of image/video display panels comprising a flat video display and an audio system on an exterior surface of said storage shell. [See at least Par. 0072, 107]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of Javidan et al. and combine the external display and navigation and location tracking with the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. The external display and navigation and location tracking of Javidan et al. allows users to interact with the transport robot externally and track the transport robot’s location in real-time, enabling increased efficiency and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the external display and navigation and location tracking of Javidan et al. with the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the transport robot of Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. and the features of the external display and navigation and location tracking of Javidan et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Javidan et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated delivery vehicles and robots), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding amended claim 14, while Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. do not disclose navigation and location tracking. With respect to these limitations, Javidan et al., directed to the same technology — automated delivery vehicles and robots — teaches:
The porch bot of claim 1 further comprising a navigation system, a GPS, and position streaming system enhanced in over/under layers [See at least Par. 0040, 0060-0066] with at least one of
a location tracking label comprising any combination of PLANET (Postal Alpha Numeric Encoding Technique) bar codes, cubic codes, bar codes, and tracking identifiers, [See at least Par. 0039, 0060, 0092, 0106]
a plurality of optical/video system integration comprising any combination of ultra violet, infrared, and/or satellite imagery, [See at least Par. 0071, 0072] and/or
a geolocation data.[See at least Par. 0060-0066, localization and geographic location data]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke et al. and Cantrell et al. to incorporate the teachings of Javidan et al. as discussed above, see claim 13.
Claims 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockwood et al. (US 2021/0269110) in view of Yi et al. (CN 204012893).
Regarding amended independent Claim 15, Lockwood et al. discloses:
A mother bot for lifting and transporting one or more porch bots [See Abstract, portable lift device] comprising
a bed having a side to support said porch bots [See Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 300 (platform) and 60 (rails); Par. 0038], and
an adjustable height lift connected to an opposite side of said bed from said side to support said porch bots, [See Fig. 1, Ref Numeral 200 (leg assembly) with leg assembly 200 attached to bottom of platform 300 and rails 60 attached to top (opposite side) of platform 300; Par. 0025]
wherein said adjustable height lift is configured to raise, lower, and transport said bed from a surface, [Pars. 0011, 0027, 0032] and
While Lockwood et al. discloses the structural features of the mother bot, Lockwood et al. does not disclose a sharable power transfer. With respect to these limitations, Yi et al., directed to solving the same problem, enabling power sharing among vehicles, teaches:
a battery power storage system including a sharable power-transfer interface configured to provide power to said porch bots. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0007-0008, 0022-0025]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lockwood et al. to incorporate the teachings of Yi et al. and combine the sharable power transfer with the powered and remotely controlled lifting device of Lockwood et al. The sharable power transfer of Yi et al. enables expanding power outputs by allowing power sources among vehicles to be shared.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the sharable power transfer of Yi et al. with the powered and remotely controlled lifting device of Lockwood et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the powered and remotely controlled lifting device of Lockwood et al. and the features of the sharable power transfer of Yi et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yi et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, enabling power sharing among vehicles, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding amended claim 16, Lockwood et al. discloses:
The mother bot according to claim 15 wherein said adjustable height lift comprises at least one scissor lift having a plurality of legs, two of said plurality of legs being a first leg and a second leg one of each of said plurality of legs connected between opposite sides of said bed to support said porch bots wherein said plurality of legs have rolling wheels at a free end distal from said bed to roll on said surface to transport said mother bot. [See Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 200 (leg assembly), 21-24 (beams) and 31-34 (rollers)]
Regarding Claim 18, Lockwood et al. discloses:
The mother bot according to claim 15 wherein said adjustable height lift is powered and remotely controlled. [See Par. 0009, 0011, 0027, 0034]
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockwood et al. (US 2021/0269110) in view of Yi et al. (CN 204012893) and further in view of McKinnon (WO 2016/109867).
While Lockwood et al. and Yi et al. disclose the limitations of the mother bot of claim 15 including the unit being powered and remote controlled, they do not explicitly disclose the use of omni wheels. With respect to these limitations, McKinnon, directed to solving the same problem, upgrading transport systems with improved wheel mobility for robotic/AGV and materials handling technologies teaches:
The mother bot according to claim 15 wherein said adjustable height lift further comprises omni wheels wherein said omni wheels are powered and remotely controlled. [See Abstract; page 1, line 12; page 3, line 26-28]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lockwood et al. and Yi et al. to incorporate the teachings of McKinnon and combine the omni wheels with the powered and remotely controlled lifting device of Lockwood et al. and Yi et al. The omni wheels of McKinnon allows improved transport with increased stability and multi-directional functionality in the same wheel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the omni wheels of McKinnon with the powered and remotely controlled lifting device of Lockwood et al. and Yi et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the powered and remotely controlled lifting device of Lockwood et al. and Yi et al. and the features of the omni wheels of McKinnon would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of McKinnon because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, upgrading transport systems with improved wheel mobility for robotic/AGV and materials handling technologies, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 19-22 have been cancelled.
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 Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 EST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655