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 .
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 1-13, 24-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12158004 in view of Burton (5205103) or Welborn (4269450).
The scope of claims 1-13, 24-30 are encompassed by the scope of claims 1-25 of patent 12158004 except for the wheels being motorized.
Welborn discloses the use of motorized wheels(56) to move the apparatus as needed on roof.
Burton (col 7 lines 53-56) discloses the selective use of motor to move the apparatus on a roof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claims 1-25 of patent 12158004 to show the wheels being motorized as taught by either Welborn or Burton with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form a mobile roofing apparatus able to be independently control with the motorized wheels.
www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12158004 in view of Burke.
The scope of claims 14-23 are encompassed by the scope of claims 1-25 of patent 12158004 except for wheel legs coupled to the and extending outward laterally from opposite sides of the body portion.
Burke figure 1a, shows wheel legs(43) coupled to and extending outward laterally from opposite sides of the body portion, the wheels (41) coupled to corresponding ones of the wheel legs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claims 1-25 of patent 12158004 to show the wheels being motorized as taught by Burke with a reasonable expectation of success in order to support the body with the wheels at locations further out from the body center for stability and balance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird in view of Burton (5205103) or Welborn (4269450).
Baird figures 1-7a, shows an apparatus configured to operate on an angled surface relative to a direction of gravity, the apparatus comprising: a body assembly including: a body portion(1), one or more wheels(15) coupled to the body portion, one or more motors (figure 2c) coupled to corresponding ones of the one or more wheels, wherein the one or more motors are configured to operate the one or more wheels to move the apparatus on the angled surface, a plurality of cable connectors (at 7) coupled to the body portion, wherein individual ones of the cable connectors are configured to be coupled to corresponding cables(5a, 5); an arm assembly(13, 14, 1c, figure 2a), having a proximal end portion coupled to the body portion of the body assembly and a distal end portion opposite the proximal end portion, wherein the arm assembly includes a retriever at the distal end portion; and an end effector assembly(3) releasably coupled to the retriever of the arm assembly, wherein the end effector assembly is configured to carry a surface material.
Baird does not show the wheels being motorized.
Welborn discloses the use of motorized wheels(56) to move the apparatus as needed on roof.
Burton (col 7 lines 53-56) discloses the selective use of motor to move the apparatus on a roof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baird to show the wheels being motorized as taught by either Welborn or Burton with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be able to independently control the movement of the apparatus with the motorized wheels.
Per claim 2, Baird as modified further shows the body assembly does not include a cable management assembly configured to reel a cable.
Per claim 3, Baird as modified further shows the body assembly further includes a rail fixedly coupled to the body portion, wherein the plurality of cable connectors are each slidably coupled to the rail.
Per claim 4, Baird as modified further shows the rail is shaped such that, when the cables coupled to the cable connectors are under tension, the cables extend along a plurality of axes that intersect at a common point in the body assembly (figure 7A-7b, shows the crossing thereof).
Per claim 5, Baird as modified further shows the body assembly further includes one or more motor housings coupled to an external surface of the body portion and extending radially outward from the body portion, wherein the one or more motors are housed in corresponding ones of the one or more motor housings, and wherein the one or more wheels are coupled to distal ends of corresponding ones of the one or more motor housings (see figure 2D).
Per claim 6, Baird as modified further shows the body assembly further includes one or more body sensors coupled to an external surface of the body portion and configured to measure at least one of a position or an orientation of the body portion relative to the angled surface(par. 33, 10).
Per claim 7, Baird as modified further shows the body assembly further includes: one or more caster wheel arms coupled to an external surface of the body portion and extending away from the body portion; and one or more caster wheels coupled to distal ends of corresponding ones of the one or more caster wheels arms.
Per claim 8, Baird as modified further shows the arm assembly further includes one or more retriever sensors coupled to the retriever(inherently so as the sensors in par. 33, 10 can provide the functions).
Per claim 9, Baird as modified (figures 5a-5e)further shows the end effector assembly includes: a main frame; a bar coupled to the main frame and extending along a lateral axis; a drive belt positioned adjacent to the bar and extending along the lateral axis; a motor coupled to the main frame and operable to drive the drive belt(23) ; and a tool support frame coupled to the bar and to the drive belt, wherein the tool support frame is configured to be releasably coupled to a tool operable to apply the surface material onto the angled surface.
Per claim 10, Baird as modified (60, figures 5e) further shows the retriever includes a first pair of quick disconnect tools spaced apart from one another by a distance, and wherein the end effector assembly includes a second pair of quick disconnect tools spaced apart from one another by the distance such that the end effector assembly can be releasably coupled to the retriever of the arm assembly by engaging the first pair of quick disconnect tools with corresponding ones of the second pair of quick disconnect tools.
Per claim 11, Baird as modified (figure 5e shows the installation assembly) further shows the end effector assembly includes: a main frame; a first actuator coupled to the main frame; a pusher rod coupled to the first actuator, wherein the first actuator is configured to move the pusher rod to press the surface material against the angled surface; a second actuator movably coupled to the main frame; and a suction cup coupled to the second actuator, wherein the second actuator is configured to move the suction cup to engage the surface material.
Per claim 12, Baird as modified further shows a hopper assembly including: a hopper releasably coupled to the body portion of the body assembly, wherein the hopper is configured to store the surface material(89); and a cutting tool coupled to a side of the hopper, wherein the cutting tool is configured to cut through the surface material.
Claim(s) 14-17, 22 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird in view of Burke (4993207).
Baird figures 1-7a, shows an apparatus configured to operate on an angled surface relative to a direction of gravity, the apparatus comprising: a body assembly including: a body portion(1), one or more wheels(15) coupled to the body portion, one or more motors (figure 2c) coupled to corresponding ones of the one or more wheels, wherein the one or more motors are configured to operate the one or more wheels to move the apparatus on the angled surface, a plurality of cable connectors (at 7) coupled to the body portion, wherein individual ones of the cable connectors are configured to be coupled to corresponding cables(5a, 5); an arm assembly(13, 14, 1c, figure 2a), having a proximal end portion coupled to the body portion of the body assembly and a distal end portion opposite the proximal end portion, wherein the arm assembly includes a retriever at the distal end portion; and an end effector assembly(3) releasably coupled to the retriever of the arm assembly, wherein the end effector assembly is configured to carry a surface material.
Baird does not show wheel legs coupled to and extending outward laterally from opposite sides of the body portion.
Burke figure 1a, shows wheel legs(43) coupled to and extending outward laterally from opposite sides of the body portion, the wheels (41) coupled to corresponding ones of the wheel legs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baird to show wheel legs coupled to and extending outward laterally from opposite sides of the body portion as taught by Burke with a reasonable expectation of success in order to support the body with the wheels at locations further out from the body center for stability and balance.
Per claim 14, Baird as modified shows a system for operating a device on an angled surface, the system comprising: an apparatus configured to operate on the angled surface, the apparatus including: a body assembly including a body portion, wheel legs coupled to and extending outward laterally from opposite sides of the body portion, and wheels coupled to corresponding ones of the wheel legs, wherein the wheel legs are aligned with one another along a wheel axis; an arm assembly having a proximal end portion coupled to the body portion of the body assembly and a distal end portion opposite the proximal end portion, wherein the arm assembly includes a retriever at the distal end portion; and an end effector assembly releasably coupled to the retriever of the arm assembly, wherein the end effector assembly is configured to carry a shingle.
Per claim 15, Baird as modified further shows the body assembly further includes motors configured to drive corresponding ones of the wheels.
Per claim 16, Baird as modified further shows the body assembly further includes: a rail fixedly coupled to the body portion; a plurality of cable connectors each slidably coupled to the rail and configured to be coupled to corresponding cables, wherein the rail is shaped such that when the cables coupled to the cable connectors are under tension, the cables extend along a plurality of axes that intersect with one another at a common point in the body assembly and with the wheel axis(see figure 7a for the crossing of the cable axes).
Per claim 17, Baird as modified further shows a plurality of anchor assemblies(5, 6) configured to be attached to the angled surface along a periphery thereof, wherein each of the plurality of anchor assemblies includes a base, a drum rotatably coupled to the base, and an anchor motor operably coupled to the drum and configured to rotate the drum relative to the base; a plurality of cables each wound around the drum of a corresponding one of the plurality of anchor assemblies and coupled to the body assembly of the apparatus; and a controller operably coupled to the plurality of anchor assemblies, wherein the controller is configured to, for each of the plurality of anchor assemblies, operate the anchor motor such that (1) the drum rotates to wind or unwind the corresponding one of the plurality of cables and (ii) the corresponding one of the plurality of cables remains under tension and extends between the anchor assembly and the body assembly of the apparatus.
Per claim 22, Baird as modified further shows a plurality of cables each movably coupled to the body assembly of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 24-25, 28-29 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird in view of Burton (5205103) or Welborn (4269450).
Baird as modified shows all the claimed structural limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12, 14-17, 22, 24-25, 28-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to amended limitations, the newly applied reference to either Burke, Burton or Welborn, in combination with Baird, shows the claimed limitations. The references to Burton, Welborn, Burke and Baird are to the apparatus for laying shingles on roof. The combinations enhances Baird as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 18-21, 23, 26-27, 30 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different shingle laying apparatus.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, BRIAN GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633