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 § 102
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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN117027152 to Gao.
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches an obstacle avoidance motion carrier (intelligent automatically guided robot system), comprising: a motion base 10, configured to autonomously move, turn and rotate; and a rotation module (turntable 25, seen in Figures 3 and 4 (described on page 6, last paragraph, of translation), disposed on the motion base and comprising: a rotation axis actuator (electric motor for turntable 25; page 6, lines 40-43 of translation), fixed on the motion base (in the embodiment of Figure 4 the turntable structure is mounted directly to the motion base, below the sliding structures); and a rotation carrier plate (base 21, attached to the top of the outer ring of the turntable 25, as seen in Figure 4), disposed on the rotation axis actuator 25 and connected to the rotation axis actuator, wherein the rotation axis actuator is configured to rotate to drive the rotation carrier plate to rotate relative to the motion base (see Figure 6, last paragraph of translation).
Regarding claim 2, Gao teaches a first horizontal movement module 26, disposed on the rotation carrier plate 21 and comprising: a first horizontal axis actuator 26, fixed on the rotation carrier plate 21 and having a first moving slide block (at right end of actuator 26, as seen in Figure 4; page 6, lines 32-35 also describe translation component 23 which appears in the drawings to have the same structure as the translation assembly 26 and explicitly describes a slide rail and translation block); and a first carrier plate (plate on which elements 27 and 28 rest, as seen in Figures 2 and 4), disposed on the first horizontal axis actuator 26 and fixed on the first moving slide block Figure 4), wherein the first horizontal axis actuator is configured to move the first moving slide block so that the first carrier plate moves relative to the rotation carrier plate along a first horizontal axis.
Regarding claim 3, Gao teaches that when the rotation axis actuator (motor associated with rotating assembly 25) rotates to drive the rotation carrier plate to rotate relative to the motion base 10, the rotation carrier plate and the first horizontal movement module 26 are rotated together.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphy (PGPub 2022/0305641).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy teaches an obstacle avoidance motion carrier (mobile robot 100 having object avoidance automated controls), comprising: a motion base 110, configured to autonomously move, turn and rotate; and a rotation module (turntable 120), disposed on the motion base and comprising: a rotation axis actuator (turntable actuator autonomously controlled by a computer; para [0061]-0062], [0084]), fixed on the motion base; and a rotation carrier plate (top of turntable 120, 320, 420 that supports robotic arm 140, 340, 440, and mast 340, 440), disposed on the rotation axis actuator and connected to the rotation axis actuator, wherein the rotation axis actuator is configured to rotate to drive the rotation carrier plate to rotate relative to the motion base.
Regarding claim 7, Murphy teaches that the motion base 110 comprises two driving wheels capable of bidirectional rotation (omnidirectional drive wheels moveable in any direction; para [0042]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Muto (USPN 7,637,487).
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches two horizontal movement modules 23, 26, that slide top carrier plate carrying the load in X and Y directions in a horizontal plane, but it is not configures to have a second horizontal movement module, disposed on the first carrier plate and comprising: a second horizontal axis actuator, fixed on the first carrier plate and having a second moving slide block; and a second carrier plate, disposed on the second horizontal axis actuator and fixed on the second moving slide block, wherein the second horizontal axis actuator is configured to move the second moving slide block so that the second carrier plate moves relative to the first carrier plate along a second horizontal axis different from the first horizontal axis.
Muto shows a carrier plate 4 with two horizontal movement modules (Figure 11) that slide top carrier plate 4 relative to base/lower plate 4 in X and Y directions in a horizontal plane including: a first horizontal axis actuator (motor 28), fixed on a lower carrier plate (lower plate 2) and having a first moving slide block 29; and a first carrier plate (intermediate plate 3) disposed on the first horizontal axis actuator 28 and fixed on the first moving slide block Figure 29, wherein the first horizontal axis actuator 28 is configured to move the first moving slide block 29 so that the first carrier plate 3 moves relative to the lower carrier plate 2 along a first horizontal axis. Muto also teaches a second horizontal movement module, disposed on the first carrier plate 3 and comprising: a second horizontal axis actuator (motor 48), fixed on the first carrier plate and having a second moving slide block; and a second carrier plate 4, disposed on the second horizontal axis actuator 48, wherein the second horizontal axis actuator 48 is configured to move the second moving slide block 49 so that the second carrier plate 4 moves relative to the first carrier plate 3 along a second horizontal axis different from the first horizontal axis (the first and second horizontal axes are perpendicular to each other. This arrangement is designed to avoid rattling and form the two horizontal movement modules into a very thin shape (col. 2, lines 27-35). The second horizontal actuator of Muto is fixed to the second carrier plate 4 rather than the second carrier plate 3, however, it would have been an obvious reversal of parts to mounted the motor to the first carrier plate to move a slide block (nut member 49) on the second carrier plate, in order to accomplish substantially the same result is substantially the same way.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the first and second horizontal modules of Gao together, one immediately above the other, and over the rotation module, in view of Muto, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a compact horizontal movement arrangement that is very thin and avoids rattle.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches that when the rotation axis actuator (turntable drive) rotates to drive the rotation carrier plate to rotate relative to the motion base 10, the rotation carrier plate, the first horizontal movement module and the second horizontal movement module are rotated together.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches that when the first horizontal axis actuator moves the first moving slide block so that the first carrier plate moves relative to the rotation carrier plate along the first horizontal axis, the first carrier plate and the second horizontal movement module are moved together along the first horizontal axis (Muto teaches that when the first/lower actuator 28 moves the first slide block 29, the first carrier plate 3 and the second horizontal movement module [second actuator 48/slide block49/ second carrier plate 4] move together along the first horizontal axis).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (PGPun 2022/0305641).
Murphy teaches all of the claim limitations including a navigation element and/or an obstacle avoidance sensing element (sensors 116 fixed to mobile base 110; para [0043]) on a side of the mobile base (Figure 1A and para [0043]). Murphy teaches sensors on multiple sides rather than a navigation or obstacle avoidance sensing element only provided on one side of the motion base. However, removal of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if it would be desired to do so. See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient). In the present case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide sensors on only one side of the mobile base, in order to simplify and reduce the cost of the sensor arrangement, particularly since Murphy also teaches a rotatable perception mast that provides sensing data and is rotatable so that it can monitor in all directions from one location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seavey and Carr teach mobile robots having rotation modules and horizontally movable supports.
WO2025/047994 shows a mobile robot with horizontally moveable platforms.
Nakamura teaches an XY table.
Baird and CN119329644 teach mobile robots with movable supports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights