DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 depends from itself.
Claims 4, 5, and 13: “The system of Claim 2/1” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 5, lines 2-3: “the first install location at the autonomous vehicle” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 16, line 3 should be split into two lines similarly to:
configured to install;
on an autonomous vehicle; and
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,329. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite all of the limitations of the presently pending claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable upon overcoming the double patenting rejection and the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The available prior art fails to teach or suggest a robotic manipulator, comprised on an autonomous vehicle, for installing objects using visual feedback, wherein the robotic arm navigates, in response to forces applied to the robotic manipulator, within a keep-in boundary area, in combination with the further claimed features.
Li et al. (CN 117301083) teaches, at Figures 2-7 and the “Contents of the invention” section of the translation included herewith, a forklift with a robotic arm may be used to automatically install solar panels based on visual feedback. Li fails to teach a force following operation of the robotic arm as well as a boundary area.
Iwase (US Publication No. 2021/0060770) teaches, at Figures 1 and 3, and paragraphs [0022 and 0028-0029], including a boundary of an operable area of a robotic arm and modifying an amount of torque felt by a user controlling the robotic arm in a lead-through (external force tracking) mode. Iwase fails to teach the robotic arm being mobile, using visual feedback to control the location of an object, and the boundary being proximal an install location and encompassing a gross install pose.
Hoshiyama (US Publication No. 2021/0078176) teaches, at paragraph [0002], for a robot that detects a positional deviation of a workpiece with a camera, setting a restricted motion area to prevent the robot from moving to a position not intended by a user. This movement by a user is not responsive to externally applied forces.
The further references, Asmari et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0190009), Lu (CN 117885109), Tadepalli et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0051152), Pivac et al. (WO 2023/201396), and Di Stefano et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0350850) teach various aspects of a vehicle mounted robotic arm for installing objects.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached 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 at (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 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights