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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 12/5/24, wherein:
Claims 1-22 have been cancelled;
Claims 23-40 have been added.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a perception module” (claims 1, 39); “a second perception module” (claim 29);
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 23-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. (US 12,186,919). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 23-40 of the copending and claims 1-23 of the US Patent (US 12,186,919) show for example: “a mobile base; a turntable operatively coupled to the mobile base, the turntable configured to rotate about a first axis; and a perception system operatively coupled to the turntable, the perception system including a first perception module configured to rotate around about a second axis parallel to the first axis, wherein the first axis is partially separate from the second axis”.
Although claims 1-23 of US Patent No. (US 12,186,919) have additional features. However, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-23 of the US Patent No. US 12,186,919 to arrive at the claims 23-40 of the copending because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BECKER ET AL (US 2016/0327383). Herein after BECKER.
As for claim 23, BECKER discloses a mobile robot {figures 1A-1D, mobile platform 100} comprising: a mobile base {see at least figures 1A-1D, base 110}; a turntable operatively coupled to the mobile base, the turntable configured to rotate about a first axis {see at least figures 1B, 2A item 130 including joint 154 rotate about first axis 155 and pars. 0070-0071}}; and a perception system operatively coupled to the turntable, the perception system including a first perception module configured to rotate about a second axis parallel to the first axis {see at least figures 1A-1B, 2A, and pars. 0068, 0076 articulate arm 150 attached with scanner 210, configured to rotate a second axis 188, parallel with first axis 155}, wherein the first axis (155) is spatially separate from the second axis (188) {see at least figure 1B}.
As for claim 24, BECKER discloses control circuitry configured to control a rotation of the perception system based, at least in part, on a rotation of the turntable {see at least figures 1B, 2A}.
As for claim 25, BECKER discloses wherein the first perception module includes a two-dimensional (2D) camera, a depth sensor and at least one light source {see at least figures 3A-3C, par. 0085}.
As for claim 26, BECKER discloses wherein the depth sensor comprises a time-of-flight (TOF) camera {see at least figure 17C, pars. 0043, 0163, 0165}.
As for claim 27, BECKER discloses wherein the depth sensor comprises a stereoscopic camera {see at least pars. 0179, 0422}.
As for claim 28, BECKER discloses wherein the 2D camera comprises a red-green-blue (RGB) monocular camera {see at least pars. 0179, 0422}.
As for claim 29, BECKER discloses wherein the perception system further includes a second perception module configured to rotate about the second axis, and wherein a field of view of the first perception module and a field of view of the second perception module do not overlap {see at least figures 15, 17D, pars. 0046, 0163, 0165}.
As for claim 30, BECKER discloses a robotic arm operatively coupled to the turntable, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to control an operation of the robotic arm based, at least in part, on an output of the first perception module {see at least pars. 0006, 0240}.
As for claim 31, BECKER discloses wherein the perception system is operatively coupled to the turntable at an outer edge of the turntable {see at least figure 1B}.
As for claim 32, BECKER discloses control circuitry configured to simultaneously control rotation of the perception system and rotation of the turntable in opposite directions {see at least figure 1B}.
As for claim 33, BECKER discloses at least one antenna configured to receive signals from a system external to the mobile robot {see at last pars. 0185}.
As for claim 34, BECKER discloses a scanner configured to scan an identifier tag attached to an object in an environment of the mobile robot {se at least pars. 0153, 0215}.
As for claim 35, BECKER discloses control circuitry configured to control operation of the first perception module to capture one or more images as the mobile robot is in motion.
As for claim 36, BECKER discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to control an operation of the mobile robot based, at least in part, on the one or more images {see at least par. 0069}.
As for claim 37, BECKER discloses wherein the operation of the mobile robot includes a direction of travel of the mobile robot {see at least pars. 0006, 0069}.
As for claim 38, BECKER discloses control circuitry configured to control a rotation of the perception system independent of controlling a rotation of the turntable {see at least figure 1B, items 154, 157, 155-156, 187, 188}.
As for claims 39-40, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejection above. They are therefore rejected for the same reason sets forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morey (US 2021/0031361): A robotic device may include a spine that provides for mounting thereto of a plurality of components of the robotic device.
Troy et al (US 2019/0331620): A robotic NDI platform is equipped with an NDI sensor and a laser-based alignment system. The laser-based alignment system is operated in a manner to acquire surface profile information in an area of interest on a non-planar surface of the target object.
Zhou et al (US 2021/0206003): An autonomous solar module installation platform can be used for solar module installation onto a solar tracker.
Hance et al (US 10,071,856): a robotic device deployed in a warehouse environment including a plurality of inventory items. The system also includes a camera coupled to the robotic device, configured to capture image data. The system also includes a computing system configured to receive the captured image data. The computing system is configured to, based on the received image data, generate a navigation instruction for navigation of the robotic device.
Troy et al (US 2019/0311555): A ground-based visual-inspection system includes a ground-based visual-inspection apparatus and a control system. The ground-based visual-inspection apparatus includes a mobile base, an actuatable arm coupled to the mobile base, and an effector coupled to the actuatable arm.
Flessas (US 2022/0174220): The robotic camera has a robotic camera mount that moves an image capture device such as a camera and the robotic display has a robotic display mount that moves an image display device, such as a video display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights