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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 07/28/2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 10-28 are pending for examination.
Claims 1-9 are canceled.
Due to the new grounds of rejection on claims herein; this office action is Non-
Final and supersedes any previous action.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 20, line 2 “an gas or oil platform construction robot” should read – a gas or oil platform construction robot --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 25 recites the limitation “The holding frame as recited in claim 16” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 16 is directed to a construction robot, not a holding frame. It is therefore unclear whether claims 25-26 are directed to the construction robot or to the holding frame of claim 10. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, as best understood, the Office has interpreted the above recitation to mean “the construction robot as recited in claim 16”.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 10-11, 15, 17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda et al. (US 20240066586 A1) in view of Wages (US 20210078158 A1), and in further view of Braun (US 20210347031 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Onoda discloses a holding frame (See at least 132, 162, 164) for receiving a tool (2) having a storage battery interface (8 and/or 108) for receiving a detachable storage battery (B), the holding frame (132) comprising: an attachment point (162, 170) for attachment to a manipulator (130, and/or 142) of a construction robot (100). Onoda teaches a battery adapter (108) that attaches to battery receptacle (8) in place of battery pack (B; [0067], [0090]-Fig. 1, 7-10)
Onoda does teach
a holding portion designed complementarily with respect to the storage battery interface. Onoda’s adapter (108) is attached to the tool, not to grip mechanism (132)
The storage battery being detachable without the use of tools
Regarding (A), Wages teaches a holding portion (100) for power tool (10) that mounts a battery powered tool (10) to a separate structure such as tool bench, work bench etc. through mounting bracket (237; [0029], [0036]). The holder engages the tool at its storage battery interface region ([0034]; “the body can be arranged so that it engages both the battery 20 and the battery-engaging portion 16 of the tool 10”) and a detent on the body may engage a mating slot in the battery 20 or battery engaging portion (16; [0033]). Wages further explains that because the holder (“tool holder 100 engages and retains the heaviest part of the tool 10, i.e., the battery 20” and tool holder 100 holds the tool 10, without any additional retaining straps” ([0028]-[0030])). Wages is relied upon for teaching that holding a cordless tool at its battery interface region is known, secure way to mount the tool to a support. Onoda’s adapter 108 provides the structure that mates with the interface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Onoda by fixing Onoda’s adapter (108) to support plates of grip mechanism 132, so that the holding frame comprises a holding portion designed complementarily with respect to battery receptacle and engages the tool at its battery interface as suggested by Wages. Wages teaches that engaging a cordless tool at its battery interface region, the heaviest part of the tool, supports the tool securely on amounting structure ([0028], [0030]). Onoda’s adapter already occupies receptacle 8 when the tool is mounted (Figs 7-8 of Onoda),so the change requires no change to the tool and no change to where the adapter meets it. Therefore, making separable parts integral is a matter of obvious engineering choice and involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04, subsection V, paragraph B & In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding (B), Braun in a related invention teaches a tool having a detachable storage battery (16) detachable from tool interface (13a) without the use of tools (via actuating element; 54-see [0102]-[0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Onoda as modified by incorporating detaching the battery without the use of tool as taught by Braun in order to easily withdraw the battery of the power tool ([0109]). Also, the tool and battery are recited only as the article the frame is intended to receive and are not positively claimed (Intended use limitation. See MPEP 2115)
Onoda as modified (Onoda is referred to in the rejection below unless as otherwise stated) further discloses:
Regarding 11, further comprising a bearing arm (162, 164) situated at a different point than the holding portion for additionally supporting the tool (162, 164 hold grip 6 bwetween them at its upper portion, adjacent 84 (Fig. 8; [0095] which is spaced from the holding portion formed by adapter 108 at battery receptacle 8 below grip 6).
Regarding 15, A construction robot (100; [0064]) for performing construction tasks on a building construction site, on a civil engineering construction site or in steel construction, the construction robot comprising: a mobile platform (106; includes a carrier 190, a right crawler 192, a left crawler 194); and a manipulator ((130 of 104) having a tool interface (142) designed complementarily to the attachment point of the holding frame as recited in claim 10 (See lifter 142 to which one end of pivot pin 170 is fixed, while e the other end of pin 170 is pivotably supported by support plate 162; [0096] and See rejection above).
Regarding 17, wherein the holding frame is installed on the manipulator (132 of Onoda), the tool being arranged on the holding frame (162, 164).
Regarding 20, wherein the construction robot is an gas or oil platform construction robot. The recitation that the constriction robot is “a gas or oil platform construction robot” is an intended use and adds no structure that distinguishes the claimed robot from the robot of Onoda as modified. Onoda’s robot travels over and ties rebar for reinforced concrete construction ([0064]), and it can perform that work on any structure built with reinforcing bars, including a gas or oil platform. A recitation of intended use that does not result in a structural difference does not distinguish the claim over the prior art. See MPEP 2111.02
Regarding 21, wherein the mobile platform is a motorized mobile platform ([0102], [0104], [0107]).
Claims 12, 22-24, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda et al. (US 20240066586 A1) in view of Wages (US 20210078158 A1) and Braun (US 20210347031 A1), and in further view of Halvorsen et al. (US 20180326507 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Onoda teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 10 above but is silent to at least one vibration damper.
Halvorsen teach a vibration damper (606, 607, 604; [0099]-[0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Onoda to include a vibration damper, as taught by Halvorsen in order to cancel and/or reduce vibration caused by the drill ([0109]).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the tool comprises a handle ([0067] of Onoda).
Regarding claim 23, wherein the handle comprises an actuator (84 of Onoda) usable to manually control the tool ([0067] of Onoda).
Regarding claim 24, wherein the tool is manually controllable ([0067] of Onoda).
Regarding claim 27, wherein the tool is a battery powered tool ([0067] of Onoda) and Braun teaches the tool (10) may be a hammer drill or chisel drill ([0098] of Braun), but is silent regarding the tool is a rock drill
Halvorsen teaches that the tool (122) is rotary hammer that drills into ceilings and wall (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Onoda to have the tool to be perform drilling task, as taught by Halvorsen, in order to perform drilling tasks. Choosing a known tool for its known function yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 28, Onoda as modified teaches the battery powered rock drill but is silent it comprises a dust extraction device. Halvorsen teaches that powered rock comprises a dust extraction device (132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Onoda to have the tool to be comprises a dust extraction device, as taught by Halvorsen, in order to to assist in the removal of debris and dust when the drilling device 122 is drilling holes in the ceiling 126 or wall 128 ([0075]).
Claims 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda et al. (US 20240066586 A1) in view of Wages (US 20210078158 A1) and Braun (US 20210347031 A1), and in further view of Wallgren et al. (US 20240326267 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Onoda teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 10 above but is silent to at least one electrical connection formed between the holding portion and the attachment point.
Wallgren teaches at least one electrical connection formed between the holding portion (11) and the attachment point (3; [0027] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Onoda to include electrical connection formed between the holding portion (11) and the attachment point, as taught by Wallgren in order to power the tool through the robots tool interface instead of a separate cable.
Regarding claim 14, further comprising a converter (8 of Wallgren) for converting at least one electrical parameter along the electrical connection ([0038], [0041], [0043]). It would have been obvious to provide such a converter along the electrical connection to match the robots supply to the tool’s electrical requirement (Wallgren, [0009], [0041]).
Claims 16 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda et al. (US 20240066586 A1) in view of Wages (US 20210078158 A1) and Braun (US 20210347031 A1), and in further view of Zito et al. (US 20200121125 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Onoda as modified teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 15 above.
However, Onoda as modified is silent to a storage magazine to store the tool.
Zito teach a robot (10, 20) having a storage magazine (housing 30, 32) to store the tool (Housing supports various tools/objects like server, motor, engine, pneumatic systems etc. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot of Onoda as modified to include a storage magazine, as taught by Zito in order to support various other tools and/or objects of the robot ensuring ease of access.
Regarding claim 25, wherein the storage magazine comprises a plurality of storage spaces (Housing supports various tools/objects like server, motor, engine, pneumatic systems etc. [0069]).
Regarding claim 26, wherein the plurality of storage spaces numbers three storage spaces (Housing supports various tools/objects like server, motor, engine, pneumatic systems etc. [0069]).
Claims 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda et al. (US 20240066586 A1) in view of Wages (US 20210078158 A1) and Braun (US 20210347031 A1), and in further view of Stampfl et al. (US 20180367874 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Onoda as modified teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 15 above in which control unit (126) control operation of the tool through actuator (180) and trigger (84) but is silent to wherein the tool is configured such that at least one tool function is controllable via the storage battery interface of the tool or wirelessly.
Stampfl teaches a power tool (104) configured such that at least one tool function is controllable via the storage battery interface of the tool or wirelessly ([0029], [0037], [0054], [0087] and [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Onoda as modified to include at least one tool function is controllable via the storage battery interface of the tool or wirelessly, as taught by Stampfl in order to provide an easy-to-use interface for the user to control and customize operation of the power tool ([0030]).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the at least one tool function includes a motor power, a rotational frequency or an operating mode ([0029], [0036], [0040], [0061], [0087]-[0091], [0054] of Stampfl).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights