DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 10 – 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byeon et al. (12214491) in view of Simard (2023/0027130).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19, the Byeon et al. reference discloses method and a gas supply system (10; Figure 1) comprising: a cabinet (130, 300, 600) in which a gas container is disposed; a fastening device (193; Fig. 5) configured to detach an end cap (80) from a valve (51) of the gas container or fasten a valve connector to the valve of the container (see col. 17, line 46 – col. 18, line 9); and
a mobile robot device (121, 170 and 200; Figures 8 and 9) disposed outside the cabinet and connected to the fastening device to operate the fastening device (see col. 17, line 46 – col. 18, line 9; and col. 21, lines 26 – 36), wherein the mobile robot device comprises: a body movable along a ground (see col. 17, lines 61 – 64; and col. 20, lines 28 – 32), a first robot arm (170; Fig. 8) installed on the body, the first robot arm having a multi-degree-of- freedom motion (inherent); a docking module (172) disposed at an end portion of the first robot arm and detachably fastened to the fastening device; a three-dimensional (3D) vision camera (171) configured to collect an image; and a controller configured to control an operation of the first robot arm based on the image collected by the 3D vision camera (see col. 47, lines 12 – 25).
The Byeon et al. reference doesn’t disclose the camera being three-dimensional. The Simard reference discloses another system having a robot with articulated arm, tool and three-dimensional camera (400; para. [0040]) to generate a 3D model of the object based on imaging data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Byeon et al. device to have a three-dimensional camera (if not already) as, for example, taught by the Simard reference in order to generate a 3D model of the object based on imaging data.
Further, regarding claim 11, the Byeon et al. reference further discloses the fastening device comprises a docking portion (172; col. 18, lines 49 – 65).
Regarding claim 10, modified Byeon et al. discloses the invention (discussed supra) but doesn’t disclose wherein the mobile robot device further comprises:
a second robot arm installed on the body, the second robot arm having a multi-degree-
of-freedom motion, wherein the 3D vision camera is disposed on the second robot arm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second robot arm, as defined above, on the Byeon et al. device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the fastening device further comprises:
an end cap detacher (193; col. 18, lines 54 - 65) configured to detach the end cap from the valve of the gas container or mount the end cap on the valve of the container, wherein the end cap detacher is rotatable about a first rotation axis (331), and the valve connector is rotatable about a second rotation axis (333).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the first rotation axis coincides with a central axis of the valve (53) of the gas container in a state in which the fastening device is aligned in a first state with respect to the valve of the gas container, and the second rotation axis coincides with the central axis of the valve of the gas container in a state in which the fastening device is aligned in a second state with respect to the valve of the gas container. See col. 36, lines 14 – 38.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the first rotation axis (331) and the second rotation axis (333) are parallel to each other. See Figures 22 -25 and 27.
Regarding claim 15, modified Byeon et al. discloses the invention, but doesn’t disclose the first and second rotation axis are the same. Absent criticality of the defined structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Byeon et al. device to make the parallel first and second rotation axis the same, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 16, the docking module comprises a power motor configured to supply power in a state in which the docking module is fastened to the fastening device, and the docking portion comprises a power transmitter into which a rotation shaft of the
power motor is inserted, the power transmitter configured to transmit power from the power motor to the end cap detacher and the valve connector. See column 37, lines 11 – 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 9, 17, 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior of record, alone or in combination, doesn’t teach a controller configured to control an operation of the mobile robot device based on the images collected by the 3D vision camera, wherein the controller is configured to determine an alignment position of the docking module according to a set algorithm, and control a first robot arm so that the docking module is positioned in the determined alignment position, wherein the alignment position is one of a first alignment position at which the docking module is aligned to be fastened to the docking portion of the fastening device; a second alignment position of the docking module at which the fastening device is in a first state with respect to the valve of the gas container; and
a third position of the docking module at which the fastening device is in a second state
with respect to the valve of the gas container.
Claims 3 – 9 are dependent upon claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior of record, alone or in combination, doesn’t teach wherein the set algorithm is configured to generate in real time a 3D model of the gas supply system in a virtual space based on the images collected through the 3D vision camera, determine an image similarity by comparing the generated 3D model with a set reference model, and determine a predicted position of the docking module at which the image similarity is greater than or equal to a set value to be the alignment position wherein the alignment position is one of: a first alignment position at which the docking module is aligned to be fastened to the docking portion of the fastening device;
a second alignment position of the docking module at which the fastening device is in
a first state with respect to the valve of the gas container; and a third position of the docking module at which the fastening device is in a second state with respect to the valve of the gas container.
Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior of record, alone or in combination, doesn’t teach wherein the aligning of the docking module comprises: collecting a 3D image through a 3D vision camera, generating the 3D model based on the collected 3D image;
determining an image similarity by comparing the 3D model with a set reference model,
and determining a predicted position of the docking module at which the image similarity is greater than or equal to a set value, if the image similarity is less than the set value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Choi et al. (2021/0222834) reference discloses an apparatus for automatic filling of gas containers (10). See Figure 3B.
The Rado (9765932) reference discloses an apparatus for automatic filling of gas containers (106). See Figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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 L MAUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753