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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 29 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not mutually exclusive, the materially different design finding misreads claim 15 and the office action did not establish a serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the independent claims have two-way distinctness in that claim 1 requires the functional limitation, and not merely a statement of intended use as alleged by Applicant, of the discharge voltage and the discharge current being emitted from the discharge and that claim 15 requires a range sensor and an onboard computing device including a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium with computer-readable instructions stored thereon as recited. Thus, the claims have at least a serious examination burden due to the presence of two-way distinctiveness.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 29 July 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the wheel gear, the motor gear and the terminal ejection aperture of the discharge must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 113467442 with reliance upon the English-language machine translation; hereinafter “Li”) in view of Penelon et al. (US 2006/0156983; hereinafter “Penelon”).
In regard to claim 1, Li discloses an autonomous disinfection platform (epidemic prevention robot) comprising a front surface (front wall of chassis 1) opposite a rear surface (back wall of chassis 1) with a body (robot chassis 1) extending between the front surface and the rear surface; a pair of wheels (driving wheels 1-1-2 or guide wheels 1-1-4) secured to the body, the pair of wheels configured to translate the platform along a ground surface; an arm (pulse mist gun 3) extending in a direction away from the rear surface, the arm terminating at a pulse mist gun spraying system 3-3 configured to be disposed at a height above the ground surface in order to treat a pathogen within an environment surrounding the platform (gun 3 is used to disinfect the area surrounding the robot). See Figures 1-2, the abstract, page 2 and pages 4-5.
Li is silent in regard to wherein the arm terminates with a discharge and a power source electrically coupled to the discharge, the power source configured to transmit a discharge voltage and a discharge current to the discharge, wherein the autonomous disinfection platform is configured to treat, via the discharge voltage and the discharge current emitted from the discharge, a pathogen within an environment surrounding the platform
Penelon discloses a plasma apparatus which can be used for the sterilization of materials comprised of a power supply 102 which is connected to a discharge (electrodes 110 which cooperates with grounded electrode 112) which causes a plasma to form within a gas flow in a tube 108. It is held that the power source 102, along with the tuning network 104, is necessarily configured to transmit a discharge voltage and a discharge current to at least electrode 110 which necessarily emits the discharge voltage and discharge current to the grounded electrode 112 to create the plasma. The plasma can then be used to sterilize surfaces by removing bacteria and other harmful biological organisms. Penelon further discloses that the plasma apparatus can be mounted on an x-y-z mechanical stage that is controlled by a robotic arm to enable treatment of a surface area. See Figure 2, [0046], [0059] and [0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the plasma apparatus on a robotic arm of Penelon for the pulse mist gun of Li without creating any new or unexpected results as the structures are functionally equivalent as they both are used in the disinfection of an area.
In regard to claims 2-3, Li discloses wherein the arm is a disinfection arm (pulse mist gun 3) that is secured near to the rear surface, further comprising an opposing detection arm (robot main body 2 having mechanical arm 2-1-1) secured to the front surface of the chassis (the sloped front surface of chassis 1 in Figure 1), such that the detection arm extends in a direction away from the front surface and away from the disinfection arm, and wherein the detection arm has a pair of grasping components (large clamp and/or small clamp as depicted in figure 1 and in the last block of text on page 4) disposed at a terminal end thereof as recited in claim 3. Li discloses wherein the robot, and thus the mechanical arms, can be used for non-contact sampling detection. See the background on page 2.
Li is silent in regard to wherein the disinfection arm is secured to the rear surface. However, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arranged the plasma apparatus on a robotic arm as disclosed by Penelon on the rear surface of the above combined apparatus without creating any new or unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In regard to claim 5, it is noted that Penelon discloses that the plasma apparatus can be mounted on an x-y-z mechanical stage that is controlled by a robotic arm to enable treatment of a surface area. See [0059]. Thus, it is held that the arm of the above combined apparatus is pivotably attached to the body of the platform as the plasma apparatus on a robotic arm was substituted for the gun on the chassis of the apparatus of Li and the robotic arm of Penelon is capable of x-y-z motion.
In regard to claim 6, Li discloses wherein the pair of wheels is a first pair of wheels (driving wheels 1-1-2) secured to the body proximate to the front surface, further comprising a second pair of wheels (guide wheels 1-1-4) secured to the body proximate to the rear surface. See Figure 2 and page 4.
In regard to claims 8-9, Penelon does not explicitly disclose the discharge voltage and the discharge current which is used. However, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimum or workable range of discharge voltage and discharge current through routine experimentation and without the creation of any new or unexpected results. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). It is noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of either the recited discharge voltage or the discharge current. Nonetheless, the limitations of claims 8-9 also constitute a manner of operating the apparatus and does not structurally differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, the recited limitations do not further limit the patentability of the apparatus claims.
In regard to claim 11, Penelon discloses that the tube 108 can have an outside diameter of 3 mm which a terminal ejection aperture necessarily smaller than 3 mm. See [0047]. Penelon discloses in the embodiment of Figure 5, that the tube can have a height of 5 mm and a width of a desired size. See Figure 5 and [0051]. Penelon is silent to wherein the terminal ejection aperture having a diameter of approximately 100 mm. However, it is noted that the instant invention does not disclose the criticality of the size of the aperture, nor is the aperture depicted in the figures. Therefore, it is viewed that it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a terminal ejection aperture of the recited diameter in the tube of the above combined robot apparatus without creating any new or unexpected results and/or through routine experimentation. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Penelon as applied to claims 1 and 2 above and further in view of Rathi (US 12,087,440).
In regard to claim 4, Li and Penelon are silent in regard to an onboard detection chamber. It is noted that Li discloses wherein the robot, and thus the mechanical arms, can be used for non-contact sampling detection. See the background on page 2.
Rathi discloses an autonomous vehicle for supporting contactless medical inactions which comprises a robotic arm which can swab a patient to take a specimen and then process the specimen in a closed onboard compartment. See col. 15, lines 1-26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the onboard detection chamber of Rathi with the above combined apparatus and to have placed the chamber proximal to the front surface for the purpose of receiving test specimens for testing from the detection arm.
In regard to claims 12-14, Li discloses an autonomous navigation locating module but does not disclose the specific components of the module. See page 2.
Rathi discloses that the autonomous vehicle includes a range sensor (sensor system 324 which includes LiDAR which necessarily determines a range) as recited in claim 12 which are taught to “ascertain when there are objects near” to the vehicle. The sensor system 324 is taught to communicate with a processor 304, which is equivalent to the onboard computing device having a processor as recited in claim 13, which necessarily includes non-transitory computer-readable medium in the control system 336 for carrying of the autonomous operation of the vehicle. Rathi discloses that the sensor system allows the vehicle to operate autonomously and automatically, thus it is held that the control system is necessarily programmed with instructions to receive updated scan data from the sensor system for calculating how the vehicle is to travel (i.e. a target path and a diversion form the target path) in order to avoid contact with other objects as recited in claim 14. Rathi explicitly disclose that the navigation system 312 controls the vehicle through paths while the control system 336 determines where the vehicle may safely travel and determines the presence of objects in the vicinity of the vehicle from the results of the sensor system. Thus, the recited instructions are obvious in light of the disclosure of Rathi. See Figure 3 and col. 5, line 1 through col. 7, line 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the autonomous vehicle control structures of Rathi with the above combined apparatus for the purpose of allowing the robot to autonomously move through a path while avoiding contact with other objects.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Penelon as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Takayama et al. (US 5,739,657; hereinafter “Takayama”).
In regard to claim 7, Li and Penelon are silent in regard to a wheel gear mechanically coupled to each wheel, and a motor gear mechanically coupled to each wheel gear, each wheel gear having a diameter greater than a diameter of each motor gear.
Takayama discloses an omni-directional vehicle comprising four wheels which each include a wheel gear 46 and a motor gear 44 mechanically coupled to each wheel gear, with each wheel gear having a diameter greater than a diameter of each motor gear. See Figure 5 and col. 6, line 64 through col. 7, line 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the gear arrangement of Takayama with the above combined apparatus as one of ordinary skill would have looked to the prior art to provide a mechanical means to transfer power from a motor to wheels.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Penelon as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 4,780,277; hereinafter “Tanaka”).
In regard to claim 10, Li is silent to wherein the discharge is made of tungsten.
Tanaka discloses a plasma generating apparatus which uses tungsten electrodes to form a plasma within a gas flow. See Figure 4 and col. 8, lines 30-46.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the use of tungsten as taught by Tanaka for the material forming the discharge electrode of the above combined apparatus without creating any new or unexpected results as the materials are functionally equivalent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM ET.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights