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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 8-10, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,660,750. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims comprise substantially similar limitations, thereby anticipating the claims.
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 of this title, 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 1-12, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokuchi et al. (US 2001/0055525) in view of Abrams (US 12,508,715).
Regarding claim 1:
Inokuchi teaches a robot system for performing tasks in an operational environment of an aerial device (see at least abstract), the robot system comprising:
at least one processor(robot controller 13, see at least ¶0031, ¶0096);
a robot unit disposed at a boom tip comprising at least one manipulator configured to perform a task in the operational environment (two-armed manipulators 5, 6, see at least ¶0096);
a tool configured to attach to the at least one manipulator and operational to perform the task (see at least ¶0034-0051);
a camera for obtaining images of the operational environment (cameras 12A, 12B, three-dimensional distance measuring device 11, see at least Fig. 1, ¶0096-0097);
a sensor associated with the robot unit (determine robot posture from position sensors, see at least ¶0055); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method of completing the task (robot controller requires a CRM to perform the operations as disclosed), the method comprising:
obtaining, by the camera, information indicative of the operational environment (displaying images from cameras, measuring 3d distance to an object to be worked, see at least ¶0096-0097. The Examiner notes that the claim limitations may be met by either the teleoperation mode or an automatic mode);
obtaining sensor data from the sensor, wherein the sensor data is indicative of a state of the robot unit (see at least ¶0055);
receiving a tool selection by at least one input;
autonomously retrieving the tool by the at least one manipulator (see at least automatic tool changer, ¶0034-0053, the Examiner notes that at least some input to the robot or tool changer would be required to perform the function);
operating the tool to perform the task based on the tool, the task, and the state of the robot unit (see at least ¶0103, ¶0109-0167, ¶0200-0203).
Inokuchi teaches the limitations as above. Inokuchi further teaches a display and user interface (operation panel 19) for transmitting operations signals to the robot. Inokuchi is silent as to the specifics of the user interface or operations signals. Inokuchi does not explicitly teach receiving input regarding a task to be performed and initiating the task including changing tools.
Abrams teaches a robotic system and method of controlling a robot, including a user input for selecting a tool, triggering the robot to retrieve the tool, and perform a task as input by a user (see at least column 68 line 40- column 69 line 2, column 12, line 4-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the operation panel as taught by Inokuchi to include conventional user interface operations such as selecting tools and initiating tasks as taught by Abrams in order to provide necessary functionality to the user operating the robot.
Regarding claim 2:
Inokuchi further teaches \wherein the sensor is positioned on the at least one manipulator and is configured to detect an angle or a position of the at least one manipulator (see at least ¶0055).
Regarding claim 3:
Inokuchi further teaches wherein the method further comprises:
capturing three-dimensional information of the operational environment by the camera;
determining an object location of an object in the operational environment based on the three-dimensional information; and
perform the task based on the object location (see at least ¶0096-0097).
Regarding claim 4:
Inokuchi further teaches wherein the method further comprises:
accessing stored tool coordinates indicative of a tool location of the tool;
retrieving the tool based on the stored tool coordinates; and
coupling the tool to the at least one manipulator (see at least Fig. 33-36, ¶0223-0244).
Regarding claim 5:
Inokuchi further teaches wherein operating the tool to perform the task is performed by the operator using a joystick to control the at least one manipulator and the tool (see at least ¶0097).
Regarding claim 6:
Inokuchi is silent as to utilizing a virtual reality headset.
Abrams further teaches wherein the information indicative of the operational environment comprises video data; and
wherein the method further comprises transmitting the video data in real time to a virtual reality headset worn by the operator (see at least column 25, line 50+, column 30 line 50+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the teleoperation system and method for a robotic manipulator as taught by Inokuchi with the well-known operator interface of a VR headset as taught by Abrams in order to provide an immersive, intuitive interface for allowing skilled technicians to operate the robot.
Regarding claim 7:
Inokuchi further teaches wherein retrieving the tool is automatically performed when the task is selected (see at least Fig. 33-36, ¶0223-0244).
Regarding claims 8-9:
Inokuchi and Abrams teaches a robot system for performing tasks in an operational environment of an aerial device as in claims 1 and 3 above.
Regarding claim 10:
Inokuchi further teaches receiving a task operation selection by the at least one input device; and
autonomously performing the task (see at least ¶0003).
Regarding claim 11:
Inokuchi further teaches wherein the at least one input device comprises a joystick (see at least ¶0097).
Regarding claim 12:
Inokuchi further teaches wherein the method further comprises:
receiving input by the joystick to control the at least one manipulator; and
manually operating the at least one manipulator to perform the task (see at least ¶0097).
Regarding claim 15:
Inokuchi and Abrams teaches a robot system for performing tasks in an operational environment of an aerial device as above.
Regarding claims 16-17:
Inokuchi does not explicitly teach bonding the robot to the power line, however, the Examiner notes that such electrical bonding is conventional in the field of overhead line work, and the standards for bonding and insulation are standardized in OSHA standards in the United States.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the robotic device for working on a hot line as taught by Inokuchi and Abrams with the well-known technique of electrically bonding the device to the line in order to provide a safe working environment as defined by applicable standards.
Regarding claim 17:
Inokuchi further teaches wherein the robot unit is electrically insulated from a ground vehicle of the aerial device by a dielectric gap (see at least abstract, ¶0007, ¶0012).
Regarding claim 20:
Inokuchi teaches the limitations as in claim 15 above. Inokuchi further teaches controlling the robot via a joystick (see at least ¶0097).
Inokuchi is silent as to a VR headset.
Abrams further teaches a virtual reality headset; and
one or more joysticks;
wherein the method further comprises:
displaying the information indicative of the operational environment by the virtual reality headset;
receiving inputs by the one or more joysticks; and
controlling the at least one manipulator based on the inputs (see at least column 22, line 14-55, column 30, line 60-column 42, line 30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokuchi and Abrams as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jules (US 9,707,680).
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Inokuchi and Abrams teaches the limitations as in claim 15 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach waypoints.
Jules teaches a system and method of controlling a robot including receiving waypoints from an operator of the aerial device; and
autonomously controlling the robot unit to move into the operational environment based on the waypoints (see at least column 6, line 22-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robotic control system and method as taught by Inokuchi and Abrams with the technique of defining robot trajectories via user defined waypoints as taught by Jules in order to provide a reliable, repeatable trajectory for the robot to perform a desired task.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Inokuchi and Abrams as in claim 15 above, in view of Khansari Adeh et al. (US 2020/0122321).
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Inokuchi teaches the limitations as in claim 15 above. Inokuchi is silent as to classifying objects. Abrams teaches classifying objects (see at least column 26, line 40-50).
Khansari teaches a system and method of performing robotic tasks on objects in an environment using a visual detection system including detecting an object in the operational environment using an object detection algorithm;
classifying the object using an object classification algorithm; and
autonomously moving the object to perform the task (see at least abstract, ¶0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the robotic manipulation system and method as taught by Inokuchi and Abrams with the machine learning classifier as taught by Khansari in order to allow for the system to autonomously determine a correct object and task without intervention from a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights