DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear whether the “base” mentioned in the claims is part of the robotic arm device or part of the claimed enclosure.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(Claim 1) a first set of engagement features configured to engage with a first part of a base;
(Claim 1) a second set of interlock features configured to selectively engage with the first set of interlock features;
(Claim 1) a second set of engagement features configured to engage with a second part of the base;
(Claim 10) the base plate retainer being configured to receive a base plate
(Claim 12) a first engagement mechanism configured to engage with a first part of a base;
(Claim 12) a second set of interlock features configured to selectively engage with the first set of interlock features;
(Claim 14) the first engagement mechanism;
(Claim 14) the second engagement mechanism;
(Claim 16) a first engagement mechanism configured to engage with a first part of a base;
(Claim 16) the base plate retainer being configured to receive a base plate of a device stand;
(Claim 16) a second set of interlock features configured to selectively engage with the first set of interlock features;
(Claim 16) a second engagement mechanism configured to engage with a second part of the base;
(Claim 19) a riser retention feature configured to retain the riser.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5, 10-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2012/0180565 by Bailey (Here forth “Bailey”) in view of US Publication 2014/0083886 by Winterrowd (Here forth “Winterrowd”).
Regarding claim 1, Bailey discloses an enclosure for a robotic video capture device, comprising:
a first case shell (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey), comprising:
a first plurality of shell walls that define a first interior, a first open side, and a second open side (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey);
a first set of interlock features (Fig 5 of Bailey, latch members 434 attach to locking feature on housing 402); and
a first [Not taught: bracket] assembly at least partially positioned within the first interior (Fig 8 of Bailey, insert 428), the first [Not taught: bracket] assembly comprising a first set of engagement features configured to engage with a first part of a base of the robotic video capture device when the first part of the base is positioned within the first open side defined by the first plurality of shell walls (Fig 8 of Bailey; recess 422 forms the first set of engagement features); and
a second case shell (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey), comprising:
a second plurality of shell walls that define a second interior, a third open side, and a fourth open side (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey);
a second set of interlock features configured to selectively engage with the first set of interlock features to secure the first case shell to the second case shell when the second open side aligns with the fourth open side (Fig 8 of Bailey, latching members 434);
a second [Not taught: bracket] assembly at least partially positioned within the second interior, the second [Not taught: bracket] assembly comprising a second set of engagement features configured to engage with a second part of the base when the second part of the base is positioned within the third open side defined by the second plurality of shell walls (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey; recess 432 is forms the second of engagement features); and
[Not taught: a support platform arranged opposite the third open side within the second interior, the support platform being configured to support an arm extending from the base of the robotic video capture device] when (i) the first [Not taught: bracket] assembly is engaged with the first part of the base, (ii) the second [Not taught: bracket] assembly is engaged with the second part of the base, (iii) the first set of interlock features is engaged with the second set of interlock features (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey and Fig 6 and 9 of Bailey; first bracket 428 and second bracket 420), and (iv) the enclosure is tilted such that the first case shell is vertically positioned over the second case shell (Fig 10 of Bailey, device can be placed such that the first housing 402 is vertical over second housing 404).
Bailey does not expressly disclose a first and second bracket and a support platform.
Winterrowd discloses a similar enclosure that teaches a first bracket assembly at least partially positioned within the first interior (Para 25 of Winterrowd, modular brackets 202/204/206/208/214/216/218/220/222/224/226), the first bracket assembly comprising a first set of engagement features configured to engage with a first part of a base of the robotic video capture device (Fig 2B of Winterrowd, modular brackets can engage instruments; the first set of engagement features comprises a first set of protrusions defined by the first bracket assembly wrap around the instrument) when the first part of the base is positioned within the first open side defined by the first plurality of shell walls (Fig 2B of Winterrowd);
a second bracket assembly at least partially positioned within the second interior (Para 25 of Winterrowd, modular brackets 202/204/206/208/214/216/218/220/222/224/226), the second bracket assembly comprising a second set of engagement features configured to engage with a second part of the base when the second part of the base (Fig 2B of Winterrowd, modular brackets can engage instruments; the second set of engagement features comprises a second set of protrusions defined by the second bracket assembly that attach around the instrument); and a support platform arranged opposite the third open side within the second interior, the support platform being configured to support an arm extending from the base of the robotic video capture device (Fig 2B of Winterrowd, modular brackets 202/204/206/208/214/216/218/220/222/224/22 can engage instrument 302; Fig 2B, one of the brackets is the support platform).
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 enclosure to protect instruments with brackets and a support platform rather than inserts. Such a modification only changes the securement type which provides no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04 III). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed fastener.
PNG
media_image1.png
981
1186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey
Regarding claim 2, Bailey further discloses wherein the first plurality of shell walls comprises a first shell wall, a second shell wall, a third shell wall, and a fourth shell wall, wherein the second shell wall, the third shell wall, and the fourth shell wall are connected to respective edges of the first shell wall and are substantially perpendicular to the first shell wall (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey).
Regarding claim 3, Bailey further discloses wherein the second plurality of shell walls comprises a fifth shell wall, a sixth shell wall, a seventh shell wall, and an eighth shell wall, wherein the sixth shell wall, the seventh shell wall, and the eighth shell wall are connected to respective edges of the fifth shell wall and are substantially perpendicular to the fifth shell wall (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey).
Regarding claim 4, Bailey further discloses wherein, when the first set of interlock features is engaged with the second set of interlock features, the second shell wall interfaces with the sixth shell wall, the third shell wall interfaces with the seventh shell wall, and the fourth shell wall interfaces with the eighth shell wall (Fig 9 of Bailey).
Regarding claim 5, Bailey further discloses wherein the first set of interlock features is arranged on the second shell wall and the fourth shell wall, and wherein the second set of interlock features is arranged on the sixth shell wall and the eighth shell wall (Para 36 of Bailey, first axis 412 connects at the second and sixth walls; Examiner annotated Fig 8 of Bailey; latching members 434 connects the fourth and eight walls ).
Regarding claim 10, Bailey does not expressly disclose a base plate retainer.
Winterrowd further discloses a similar enclosure that teaches further comprising a base plate retainer connected to the third shell wall, the base plate retainer being configured to receive a base plate of a device stand (Fig 2B of Winterrowd, modular brackets 202/204/206/208/214/216/218/220/222/224/22 can engage base plate of device stand; Fig1A and 2B of Winterrowd, one of the brackets is the support platform).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Bailey as modified and Winterrowd before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the enclosure of the modified Bailey toa base plate retainer attached to the third shell wall, as taught by Winterrowd, to advantageously secure instrument within.
Regarding claim 11, Bailey as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein:
the first set of engagement features comprises a first set of protrusions defined by the first bracket assembly, and the second set of engagement features comprises a second set of protrusions defined by the second bracket assembly (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Fig 2B of Winterrowd ).
Regarding claim 16, Bailey discloses an enclosure for a robotic video capture device, comprising:
a first case shell (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey), comprising:
a first plurality of shell walls that define a first interior, a first open side, and a second open side (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey);
a first set of interlock features (Fig 5 of Bailey, latch members 434 attach to locking feature on housing 402);
a first engagement mechanism configured to engage with a first part of a base of the robotic video capture device when the first part of the base is positioned within the first open side defined by the first plurality of shell walls (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey, engagement mechanism is the portion of the enclosure that engages with the device base); and
[Not taught: a base plate retainer arranged opposite the first open side within the first interior, the base plate retainer being configured to receive a base plate of a device stand]; and
a second case shell (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey), comprising:
a second plurality of shell walls that define a second interior, a third open side, and a fourth open side (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey);
a second set of interlock features configured to selectively engage with the first set of interlock features to secure the first case shell to the second case shell when the second open side aligns with the fourth open side (Fig 8-9 of Bailey, latching members 434; and
a second engagement mechanism configured to engage with a second part of the base when the second part of the base is positioned within the third open side defined by the second plurality of shell walls (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey, engagement mechanism is the portion of the enclosure that engages with the device base).
Bailey does not expressly disclose a base plate retainer.
Winterrowd discloses a similar enclosure that teaches a first engagement mechanism configured to engage with a first part of a base of the robotic video capture device when the first part of the base is positioned within the first open side defined by the first plurality of shell walls (Para 25 of Winterrowd, one of the modular brackets 202/204/206/208/214/216/218/220/222/224/226 is the first engagement mechanism); and a base plate retainer arranged opposite the first open side within the first interior, the base plate retainer being configured to receive a base plate of a device stand (Para 25 of Winterrowd, one of the modular brackets 202/204/206/208/214/216/218/220/222/224/226 is the base plate retainer; one of the brackets can be a receiver panel at least partially positioned within the first interior, the receiver panel defining a riser slot for receiving a riser of the device stand with slots configured to receive one or more components of the robotic video capture device and a riser retention feature configured to retain the riser within the riser slot; the riser retention features are the protrusions of the brackets that maintain a hold on the instruments).
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 enclosure to protect instruments with a first engagement mechanism, base plate retainer, or receiver panel rather than inserts. Such a modification only changes the securement type which provides no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04 III). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed fastener.
Regarding claim 17, Bailey as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the first case shell further comprises a receiver panel at least partially positioned within the first interior, the receiver panel defining a riser slot for receiving a riser of the device stand (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 16, Para 25 of Winterrowd).
Regarding claim 18, Bailey as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the receiver panel further comprises one or more additional slots configured to receive one or more components of the robotic video capture device (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 16, Para 25 of Winterrowd).
Regarding claim 19, Bailey as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the receiver panel further comprises a riser retention feature configured to retain the riser within the riser slot (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 16, Para 25 of Winterrowd).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey and Winterrowd in view of US Patent 11617426 issued to Boyles (Here forth “Boyles”).
Regarding claim 6, Bailey as modified does not expressly disclose roller elements.
Boyles discloses a similar enclosure that teaches further comprising a set of roller elements connected to the fifth shell wall of the second plurality of shell walls (Fig 35 of Boyles, wheels 3501).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Bailey as modified and Boyles before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the enclosure of the modified Bailey to include rollers attached to the fifth shell wall, as taught by Boyles, to advantageously aid in transporting the enclosure with ease.
Regarding claim 9, Bailey further discloses further comprising a set of handles connected to the sixth shell wall, the seventh shell wall, and/or the eighth shell wall (Fig 9 of Bailey, Handles 438).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey, Winterrowd, and Boyles in view of US Patent 8181760 issued to Trieu (Here forth “Trieu”)
Regarding claim 7, Bailey does not expressly disclose the base comprising leveling features.
Trieu discloses a similar instrument base wherein the base comprises a set of leveling features (Fig 4 of Trieu, telescopic legs 26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Bailey as modified and Trieu before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the enclosure of the modified Bailey to include leveling features, as taught by Trieu, to advantageously provide a level platform (Column 2 lines 36-54 of Trieu).
Regarding claim 8, Bailey further discloses wherein the base omits roller elements (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Boyles.
Regarding claim 12, Bailey discloses an enclosure for a robotic video capture device, comprising:
a first case shell (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey), comprising:
a first plurality of shell walls that define a first interior, a first open side, and a second open side (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey);
a first set of interlock features (Fig 5 of Bailey, latch members 434 attach to locking feature on housing 402); and
a first engagement mechanism configured to engage with a first part of a base of the robotic video capture device when the first part of the base is positioned within the first open side defined by the first plurality of shell walls (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey, engagement mechanism is the portion of the enclosure that engages with the device base); and
a second case shell (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey), comprising:
a second plurality of shell walls that define a second interior, a third open side, and a fourth open side (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey);
a second set of interlock features configured to selectively engage with the first set of interlock features to secure the first case shell to the second case shell when the second open side aligns with the fourth open side (Fig 8-9 of Bailey, latching members 434);
a second engagement mechanism configured to engage with a second part of the base when the second part of the base is positioned within the third open side defined by the second plurality of shell walls (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey, engagement mechanism is the portion of the enclosure that engages with the device base); and
[Not taught: a set of roller elements connected to a shell wall of the second plurality of shell walls].
Bailey does not expressly disclose a set or roller elements.
Boyles disclose a similar enclosure that teaches a set of roller elements connected to a shell wall of the second plurality of shell walls (Fig 35 of Boyles, wheels 3501; When modifying Bailey, the set of roller elements is configured to support the robotic video capture device; the first position is characterized by the set of roller elements supporting a weight of the enclosure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Bailey as modified and Boyles before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the enclosure of the modified Bailey to include rollers attached to the fifth shell wall, as taught by Boyles, to advantageously aid in transporting the enclosure with ease.
Regarding claim 13, Bailey as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the set of roller elements is configured to support the robotic video capture device (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 12) when (i) the first engagement mechanism is engaged with the first part of the base (Para 36 of Bailey, recess 422/432), (ii) the second engagement mechanism is engaged with the second part of the base (Para 36 of Bailey, recess 422/432), (iii) the first set of interlock features is engaged with the second set of interlock features (Fig 5 of Bailey, latch members 434 attach to locking feature on housing 402), and (iv) the enclosure is tilted such that the first case shell is vertically positioned over the second case shell (Fig 10 of Bailey, device can be placed such that the first housing 402 is vertical over second housing 404).
Regarding claim 14, Bailey further disclose further comprising a set of handles connected to the second case shell (Fig 9 of Bailey, Handles 438), wherein the set of handles is configured to facilitate repositioning of the enclosure from a first position to a second position and vice-versa (Fig 9 of Bailey, Handles 438) when (i) the first engagement mechanism is engaged with the first part of the base (Para 36 of Bailey, recess 422/432), (ii) the second engagement mechanism is engaged with the second part of the base (Para 36 of Bailey, recess 422/432), and (iii) the first set of interlock features is engaged with the second set of interlock features (Fig 5 of Bailey, latch members 434 attach to locking feature on housing 402), wherein the first position is characterized by the set of roller elements supporting a weight of the enclosure (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 12. Fig 35 of Boyles), and wherein the second position is characterized by the base of the robotic video capture device supporting the weight of the enclosure (Examiner Annotated Fig 8 of Bailey).
Regarding claim 15, Bailey further discloses wherein the base omits roller element (Fig 8 of Bailey).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey and Winterrowd in view of US Patent 5704624 issued to Davis (Here forth “Davis”).
Regarding claim 20, Bailey as modified does not expressly disclose a bungee ball fastener.
Davis discloses a similar enclosure that teaches wherein the riser retention feature comprises a bungee ball fastener (Column 3 line 32-35 of Davis).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Bailey as modified and Davis before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the enclosure of the modified Bailey to have the riser retention feature include a bungee, as taught by Davis, to advantageously secure instruments/gear within the enclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055 2142. 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733
2 June 2026
Prosecution Insights