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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Amendments filed 06/05/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Go et al. (US 2022/0350582 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further search and consideration, independent claims 1, 18, and 20 are now rejected in view of Williams et al. (US 2017/0312916 A1) and Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 2022/0066456 A1).
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.
Claim 12 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "wherein the indication" in line 1. However, claim 1 does not recite any “indication.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12-13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0312916 A1), in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 2022/0066456 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches:
A robotic system (Fig. 1; [0019] “robotic platform 100”), comprising:
a memory ([0021] “the memory of the main body 214 of the robotic platform 100”) configured to store locally on a robot configuration information ([0029] “service plans 128”) for each of a plurality of robotic applications ([0029] “Service plans 128 store the details for providing service to a service area 140A-B, such as mapping for navigation around the service area, features of the service area and how to navigate around them, a schedule for servicing, service modules to be used, consumable resources, order of service modules, and the like.”; [0033] “ The robotic platform 100 may service multiple service areas utilizing multiple service modules, such as in a coordinated process outlined in a stored service plan.”); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Fig. 4; [0043] “processor 106A”) and configured to:
determine autonomously at the robot ... that a first set of tasks associated with a first robotic application included in the plurality of robotic applications has been completed ([0033] “For example, the robot platform 100 may have completed vacuuming a rug covered service area 140B with service module 102A, and per a service plan sequence, is next directed to wash a linoleum covered service area 140A with service module 102B.”);
determine autonomously at the robot to perform tasks associated with a second robotic application included in the plurality of robotic applications ([0033] “The robotic platform 100 may service multiple service areas utilizing multiple service modules, such as in a coordinated process outlined in a stored service plan ... per a service plan sequence, is next directed to wash a linoleum covered service area 140A with service module 102B. The robotic platform 100 may then automatically proceed to a pre-designated location for exchanging the service modules 102A-B, such as at the service robot resource facility 110”);
use the stored configuration information to determine autonomously at the robot a required hardware configuration ([0020] “different service modules 102A-D, each of which may provide a different functional capability.”) associated with the second robotic application ([0029] “Service plans 128 store the details for providing service to a service area 140A-B, such as ... service modules to be used ...”; [0033] “The robotic platform 100 may service multiple service areas utilizing multiple service modules, such as in a coordinated process outlined in a stored service plan. Therefore, the robotic platform 100 may have a continuous need to switch between service modules 102A-D. To aid in accomplishing this exchange, the service module exchange facility 114 may be located at a designated location where service modules 102B-D are stored while the robotic platform 100 provides a service with service module 102A. When the robotic platform 100 needs to switch between service modules 102A-D, it may do so through aid of a user or automatically through the service module exchange facility 114 (e.g., a mechanism for automatically switching between service modules) ... For example, the robot platform 100 may have completed vacuuming a rug covered service area 140B with service module 102A, and per a service plan sequence, is next directed to wash a linoleum covered service area 140A with service module 102B. The robotic platform 100 may then automatically proceed to a pre-designated location for exchanging the service modules 102A-B, such as at the service robot resource facility 110”);
update a current hardware configuration of the robotic system as needed to match the required software configuration and the required hardware configuration ([0033] “Therefore, the robotic platform 100 may have a continuous need to switch between service modules 102A-D. To aid in accomplishing this exchange, the service module exchange facility 114 may be located at a designated location where service modules 102B-D are stored while the robotic platform 100 provides a service with service module 102A. When the robotic platform 100 needs to switch between service modules 102A-D, it may do so through aid of a user or automatically through the service module exchange facility 114 (e.g., a mechanism for automatically switching between service modules).”); and
use the updated software configuration ([0021] “the software for top-level processing 106 may be updateable, such as to accommodate updates to processing in the main body or for upgrades to service modules”) and the updated hardware configuration to autonomously perform tasks associated with the second robotic application ([0021] “For instance, each service module 102A-D may have a unique identifier, and when the service module 102A-D is mated with the main body 214 the processing functionality in the main body may identify a module type, a tool type, a software version, and the like, by the unique identifier, and determine an action associated with this particular service module. For example, a service module 102A may be a new version of a mopping service module, with updated software and/or hardware components. The processing functionality in the main body 214 may then have the capability to accommodate the updated mopping service module through customizable functions and messaging. In embodiments, software for one or more of the processing levels may be updateable, such as through wireless automatic updates. For example, the software for top-level processing 106 may be updateable, such as to accommodate updates to processing in the main body or for upgrades to service modules, where the top-level processing then appropriately modifies operations and communications with the lower levels of processing per the software updates.”; [0033]).
The limitations of “determine ... one or both of a required software configuration and a required hardware configuration ...” and “update one or both of a current software configuration and a current hardware configuration ...” are written in an alternative form. Therefore, the prior art reference needs to disclose only one alternative to meet the claimed limitation. In this case, Williams teaches determining a required hardware configuration and update a current hardware configuration to match the required hardware configuration.
Williams does not explicitly teach determine autonomously at the robot, based on received sensor data, that a first set of tasks associated with a first robotic application included in the plurality of robotic applications has been completed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches:
determine autonomously at the robot, based on received sensor data, that a first set of tasks associated with a first robotic application included in the plurality of robotic applications has been completed ([1487] “ In some embodiments, a processor of mobile robotic chassis or a control system managing a mobile robotic chassis autonomously detects completion of a task or service using sensors, such as imaging devices (e.g., observing position at a particular location such as tow yard), weight sensors (e.g., delivery of persons or items is complete when the weight has decreased by a particular amount), and inertial measurement units (e.g., observing coverage of roads within a particular area for tasks such as snow plowing or sweeping).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Williams to determine autonomously at the robot, based on received sensor data, that a first set of tasks associated with a first robotic application included in the plurality of robotic applications has been completed, as taught by Ebrahimi Afrouzi, in order to instruct the robot to stop performing the first set of tasks when it has been completed.
Regarding claim 2, Williams further teaches: wherein the robot comprises a mobile logistics robot (Fig. 2; [0019] “the robotic platform 100 may be adapted to service a plurality of other environments, such as servicing outdoor traffic surfaces (e.g., cleaning roads and walkways), outdoor groomed landscapes (e.g., mowing lawns), industrial faculties (e.g., warehouses, truck loading areas, manufacturing facilities), and the like.”).
Regarding claim 8, Williams further teaches:
wherein the second robotic application comprises truck or container loading (Fig. 2; [0019] “the robotic platform 100 may be adapted to service a plurality of other environments, such as servicing industrial faculties (e.g., warehouses, truck loading areas, manufacturing facilities), and the like.”).
Regarding claim 10, Williams further teaches one or more cameras or other sensors and wherein the processor is further configured to use image or other sensor data generated by the one or more cameras or other sensors to autonomously perform tasks associated with the second robotic application ([0036] “In addition, each service module 102A-D may incorporate one or more sensors including, but not limited to, pressure sensors, moisture sensors, LIDAR systems, imaging systems, and the like, tailored to performing in an operating mode for which the service module 102A-D is designed.”; [0037] “In an example, a service module 102A adapted to provide cleaning services to a surface comprised of thick rug may incorporate a 2D LIDAR system for evaluating, either statically or dynamically, a two-dimensional profile of the rug to determine surface roughness or pile length. The same service module 102A may comprise an imaging system for sensing anomalous stains in the rug so as to apply additional cleaning solution. In other instances, a service module 102B may include a series of sensors and mechanisms designed to buff and polish marble floors.”; [0044] “The main body 214 may further comprise a selection of various technology sensors 104A to sense the internal and external environment of the main body 214. It may include numerous sensor technologies such as inertial, vision, laser radar, ultrasonic, electromagnetic or other types of sensor valuable for determining unit location, pose and condition.”).
Regarding claim 12, Williams further teaches:
wherein the indication comprises a first indication ([0033] “For example, the robot platform 100 may have completed vacuuming a rug covered service area 140B with service module 102A, and per a service plan sequence, is next directed to wash a linoleum covered service area 140A with service module 102B.” – The indication being indication that the robot platform have completed vacuuming a rug covered service area 140B with service module 102A) and the processor is further configured to receive a second indication to perform tasks associated with a different one of the plurality of robotic applications ([0033] “ The robotic platform 100 may service multiple service areas utilizing multiple service modules, such as in a coordinated process outlined in a stored service plan. Therefore, the robotic platform 100 may have a continuous need to switch between service modules 102A-D.” – The second indication being an indication that the robot platform has completed a task and is directed to perform the next task in the service plan).
Regarding claim 13, Williams further teaches:
a communication interface ([0044] “The main body 214 may further comprise an external communications module 416 to interface with external systems with radio frequency methods, direct digital methods, or audible methods.”) and wherein the processor is included in a first robot (Fig. 4; [0043] “processor 106A”) comprising the robotic system and the processor is further configured to send and receive communications via the communication interface to coordinate work with one or more other robots comprising the robotic system ([0062] “more than one robotic platform 100 may act in concert to complete a plan. In such instances, robotic platforms 100 may be enabled to engage in direct communication with one another or via an external server.”).
Regarding claim 16, Williams further teaches:
wherein the robotic system comprises a mobile logistics robot (Fig. 2; [0019] “the robotic platform 100 may be adapted to service a plurality of other environments, such as servicing outdoor traffic surfaces (e.g., cleaning roads and walkways), outdoor groomed landscapes (e.g., mowing lawns), industrial faculties (e.g., warehouses, truck loading areas, manufacturing facilities), and the like.”) comprising a mobile chassis (Fig. 2; [0020] “the robotic platform 100 includes a main body 214”) having a drive system that includes two or more independently controllable wheels, tracks, or other propulsive drive elements (Fig. 2; [0034] “Propulsion mechanism 202 may include a drivable wheel assembly or other mechanism capable of providing controlled motion of robotic platform 100.”).
Regarding claim 17, Williams further teaches:
wherein the robotic system comprises a mobile logistics robot (Fig. 2; [0019] “the robotic platform 100 may be adapted to service a plurality of other environments, such as servicing outdoor traffic surfaces (e.g., cleaning roads and walkways), outdoor groomed landscapes (e.g., mowing lawns), industrial faculties (e.g., warehouses, truck loading areas, manufacturing facilities), and the like.”) comprising a mobile chassis (Fig. 2; [0020] “the robotic platform 100 includes a main body 214”) and the processor is further configured to cause the mobile logistics robot to use the mobile chassis to move to a location associated with performing autonomously said tasks associated with the second robotic application ([0024] “The robotic platform may be able to identify level transition points as a means of moving from work area to work area on different levels. Physically the work areas may be on different levels, but the robotic platform 100 may implement an overall service plan as one logical network of interconnected work areas through a limited number of access and level transition points. For example, the robotic platform 100 may finish with a first work area on a first level and then utilize an elevator that is identified as a level transition point to proceed to a second work area on a second level.”; [0044] “ The body 214 may further comprise a processor 106A to execute software to plan, manage, navigate and execute functions of the body 214. The body 214 may further comprise a locomotion system 412 to control the drive mechanism to move the body 214 and a feedback control mechanism to implement guidance from the processing module 106A.”).
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0312916 A1), in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 2022/0066456 A1), and in further view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2022/0135346 A1).
Regarding claim 3 and similarly cited claim 19, Williams further teaches wherein the mobile logistics robot comprises a mobile chassis (Fig. 2; [0020] “the robotic platform 100 includes a main body 214”).
Neither Williams nor Ebrahimi Afrouzi specifically teaches one or more robotic arms mounted on the mobile chassis.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuoka teaches:
one or more robotic arms mounted on the mobile chassis (Fig. 4A; [0027] “The robotic system 100 can include and/or be coupled to physical or structural members (e.g., robotic manipulator arms) that are connected at joints for motion (e.g., rotational and/or translational displacements) ... In some embodiments, the robotic system 100 can include transport motors configured to transport the corresponding units/chassis from place to place.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Williams, in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, to include one or more robotic arms mounted on the mobile chassis, as taught by Matsuoka, in order to pick up a target object.
Regarding claim 11, Williams further teaches one or more cameras or other sensors ([0035] “robotic platform 100 may include a camera 210”). Neither Williams nor Ebrahimi Afrouzi specifically teaches wherein the processor is further configured to use image or other sensor data generated by the one or more cameras or other sensors to update its hardware configuration.
However, Matsuoka teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to use image or other sensor data generated by the one or more cameras or other sensors to update its hardware configuration ([0066] “In some embodiments, the robotic system 100 can select the fixed-angle gripping tool 450 based on a surface pose 514 for the angled object 512 . For example, the robotic system 100 can process one or more images (e.g., top view images) of the start bin 322 and/or the angled object 512 therein as captured by the imaging devices 222 of FIG. 2. The robotic system 100 can identify the edges depicted in the images based on an edge detection mechanism (e.g., Sobel filter). The robotic system 100 can identify each continuous surface depicted in the images based on determining connections and/or relative orientations between a set of edges and/or recognizing shapes, colors, and/or designs located between the edges. The robotic system 100 can map the surfaces to three-dimensional images (e.g., depth maps) and calculate one or more slopes for each surface using the depth measures. Using the calculated slope(s), the robotic system 100 can derive the surface pose 514 of each surface.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Williams, in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, to use image or other sensor data generated by the one or more cameras or other sensors to update its hardware configuration, as taught by Matsuoka, in order to select a suitable end effector/hardware configuration to perform the assigned task.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0312916 A1), in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 2022/0066456 A1) and Matsuoka et al. (US 2022/0135346 A1), and further in view of Yamazaki (US 2016/0031084 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Williams, Ebrahimi Afrouzi, and Matsuoka do not specifically teach wherein the mobile logistics robot includes two or more robotic arms at least two of which have different end effectors.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches:
wherein the mobile logistics robot includes two or more robotic arms (Fig. 1; [0057] “a first articulated arm (simply referred to as a “first arm”) 230 and a second articulated arm (simply referred to as a “second arm”) 240”) at least two of which have different end effectors ([0065] “The end effectors 610 and 620 are portions corresponding to human hands, and have a function of gripping an object, for example. A configuration of the end effectors 610 and 620 varies depending on work to be carried out.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Williams, in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Matsuoka, to include two or more robotic arms at least two of which have different end effectors, as taught by Yamazaki, in order to increase work output.
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Williams in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Matsuoka and Yamazaki have been discussed above with respect to claim 4. Neither Williams nor Ebrahimi Afrouzi specifically teaches wherein the different end effectors are prescribed by the required hardware configuration.
However, Matsuoka teaches:
wherein the different end effectors are prescribed by the required hardware configuration ([0050] “ In some embodiments, the robotic system 100 can utilize a set of tools (e.g., specialized end-effectors) to perform different tasks using the same robot and/or improve the performance of a given task. For example, the robotic system 100 can selectively connect the robotic arm 306 to a gripper, a welder, or a cutter to perform corresponding functions according to the assigned task.”; [0052] “In utilizing the set of tools, the system manager 302 can provide a target selection 313 to the planner 304 to identify the tool and/or the target object 112 selected for one or more of the tasks/objects.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Williams, in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Matsuoka and Yamazaki, to prescribe the different end effectors by the required hardware configuration, as taught by Matsuoka, in order to select a suitable end effector to perform corresponding functions according to an assigned task.
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Williams in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Matsuoka and Yamazaki have been discussed above with respect to claim 5. Williams does not specifically teach wherein the processor is configured to cause the end effectors to be mounted on the robotic arms based at least in part on the required hardware configuration.
However, Matsuoka teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to cause the end effectors to be mounted on the robotic arms based at least in part on the required hardware configuration ([0050] “ In some embodiments, the robotic system 100 can utilize a set of tools (e.g., specialized end-effectors) to perform different tasks using the same robot and/or improve the performance of a given task. For example, the robotic system 100 can selectively connect the robotic arm 306 to a gripper, a welder, or a cutter to perform corresponding functions according to the assigned task.”; [0052] “In utilizing the set of tools, the system manager 302 can provide a target selection 313 to the planner 304 to identify the tool and/or the target object 112 selected for one or more of the tasks/objects.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Williams, in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Matsuoka and Yamazaki, to cause the end effectors to be mounted on the robotic arms based at least in part on the required hardware configuration, as taught by Matsuoka, in order to select a suitable end effector to perform corresponding functions according to an assigned task.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0312916 A1), in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 2022/0066456 A1), and in further view of Go et al. (US 2022/0350582 A1).
Regarding claim 7, neither Williams nor Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches wherein required software configuration includes one or more of the following: grasp strategies; robotic primitives; combinations and sequences of primitives to achieve an objective of the second robotic application; learned or configured techniques to perform a task or subtask associated with the second robotic application; and a model of a hardware element included in the required hardware configuration.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Go teaches:
wherein required software configuration includes combinations and sequences of primitives to achieve an objective of the selected robotic application ([0045] “ a containerized software package includes, at least, a device driver component configured to allow control over one or more physical components of the AMR, a sensor control component configured to allow reading data provided by one or more sensors of the AMR, and a maneuvering component configured to perform physical maneuvering of the AMR.”); and learned or configured techniques to perform a task or subtask associated with the selected robotic application ([0048] “an AMR can re-use two containerized software packages, (e.g., one handles object detection from a vision sensor, and, one handles the exploring and searching motion)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Williams, in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, to include required software configuration including combinations and sequences of primitives to achieve an objective of the selected robotic application and earned or configured techniques to perform a task or subtask associated with the selected robotic application, as taught by Go, in order to provide instructions for the robot to perform the application.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0312916 A1), in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 2022/0066456 A1), and further in view of Cella et al. (US 2022/0197306 A1).
Regarding claim 9, neither Williams nor Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches wherein the stored configuration comprises one or more libraries.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cella teaches:
wherein the stored configuration comprises one or more libraries ([2252] “In this example, the robot configuration library 12314 may have references to robot configuration data sets (e.g., data that when uploaded to a multipurpose robot may enable the robot to perform a function, such as standing, welding, and the like).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Williams, in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, to comprise one or more libraries in the stored configuration, as taught by Cella, in order to provide the robot data sets that enable the robot to perform a specific function.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0312916 A1), in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 2022/0066456 A1), and further in view of Murphy et al. (US 2022/0305667 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the teachings of Williams and Ebrahimi Afrouzi have been discussed above with respect to claim 1. William further teaches wherein the robotic system comprises a mobile logistics robot comprising a mobile chassis (Fig. 2; [0020] “the robotic platform 100 includes a main body 214”).
Williams does not specifically teach the mobile chassis having a width equal to or less than 36 inches.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murphy teaches wherein the robotic system comprises a mobile logistics robot comprising a mobile chassis having a small footprint ([0033] “Also of note in FIG. 2B is that the robot 20 a is working alongside humans (e.g., workers 27a and 27b ). Given that the robot 20 a is configured to perform many tasks that have traditionally been performed by humans, the robot 20a is designed to have a small footprint, both to enable access to areas designed to be accessed by humans, and to minimize the size of a safety zone around the robot into which humans are prevented from entering.”).
Even though Murphy does not explicitly teach the mobile chassis having a width of equal to or less than 36 inches, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Williams, in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, to configure the mobile chassis having a width equal to or less than 36 inches, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such modification further enables access to areas designed to be accessed by humans, and minimizes the size of a safety zone around the robot into which humans are prevented from entering, as stated by Murphy in [0033].
Regarding claim 15, neither Williams nor Ebrahimi Afrouzi specifically teaches wherein the mobile logistics robot comprises one or more robotic arms mounted on the mobile chassis and the processor is further configured to cause the mobile logistics robot to place each of the one or more robotic arms in a stowed position to facilitate transit through a space constrained area.
However, Murphy teaches:
wherein the mobile logistics robot comprises one or more robotic arms mounted on the mobile chassis (Fig. 1A; [0030] “The robotic arm 130 is a 6 degree of freedom (6-DOF) robotic arm including three pitch joints and a 3-DOF wrist. An end effector 150 is disposed at the distal end of the robotic arm 130. The robotic arm 130 is operatively coupled to the mobile base 110 via a turntable 120, which is configured to rotate relative to the mobile base 110”) and the processor is further configured to cause the mobile logistics robot to place each of the one or more robotic arms in a stowed position to facilitate transit through a space constrained area ([0055] “As such, the arm may be stowed (e.g., retracted into the footprint of the base and powered down) during such navigation. In this operating configuration, the spatial extent and the speed of the arm are reduced, and thus the size of the robot's overall buffer zone may be reduced accordingly, allowing the robot to enter more confined areas safely.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Williams, in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Murphy, to cause the mobile logistics robot to place each of the one or more robotic arms in a stowed position to facilitate transit through a space constrained area., as taught by Murphy. Such modification reduces spatial extend and speed of the arm, thus reducing the size of the robot’s overall buffer zone according and allowing the robot to enter more confined areas safely, as stated by Murphy in [0055].
Conclusion
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 NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 AM - 6:00PM 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, 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.
/NHI Q BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights