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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the vehicle", “first vehicle” and “second vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 requires the second mobile robot to have an interface with a platform aperture, but no interface has been provided. Only the first mobile robot has an interface provided.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20250100797A1 ("Nishar").
As per claim 1, Nishar teaches:
A system for transporting products throughout a manufacturing environment, comprising: a mobile robot comprising: a frame; a tractive element coupled to the frame; at least one sensor configured to collect sensor data regarding a surrounding environment of the mobile robot; an interface configured to engage a product; a lift assembly coupling the interface to the frame and configured to raise the interface relative to the frame; and a controller operatively coupled to the motor, the at least one sensor, and the lift assembly and configured to control the motor and the lift assembly based on information from the at least one sensor to transport the product. (Nishar at least the abstract, FIG. 1, [0036])
Although Nishar does not disclose a motor coupled to the frame and configured to drive the tractive element to propel the mobile robot. Nishar does teach automated guided vehicles (Nishar [0012]), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to have motorized capabilities to navigate through an environment.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US20250178678A1 ("Leblanc").
As per claim 2, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
a subframe pivotably coupled to the frame; a second tractive element coupled to the subframe, wherein the motor and the tractive element are coupled to the frame via the subframe, and wherein the subframe pivots relative to the frame to maintain contact of the tractive element and the second tractive element with a ground surface.
Leblanc teaches the aforementioned limitations (Leblanc at least FIG. 1, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by * with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to maintain traction over uneven surfaces (Leblanc [0062]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US20110036084A1 ("Mallan").
As per claim 3, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar teaches: the lift assembly is a scissor assembly and comprises a lift actuator coupled between the frame and the scissor assembly so that the lift actuator is configured to selectively raise the interface relative to the frame (Nishar at least FIG. 1). Nishar does not disclose:
the lift actuator is a multi-stage telescoping actuator that includes a base stage, an intermediate stage, and an outer stage, and wherein the base stage is coupled to the frame, the outer stage is coupled to the scissor assembly, and the intermediate stage is arranged between the base stage and the outer stage.
Mallan teaches the aforementioned limitations (Mallan at least FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Mallan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to lift a heavy object where there is little installation space for the cylinder (Mallan [0048]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and CN219098659U ("Xiao").
As per claim 4, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar teaches a scissor assembly with a platform (Nishar FIG. 1). Nishar does not disclose:
the scissor assembly coupled between the frame and the platform and including a prop pin; a lift actuator coupled between the frame and the scissor assembly, wherein the lift actuator is configured to selectively raise the platform relative to the frame; and a support prop including a plurality of notches, wherein the support prop is pivotably coupled to a side of the scissor assembly so that when the lift actuator raises the platform, the support prop is pivotably biased to bring one of the plurality of notches into engagement with the prop pin and prevent the platform from being lowered.
Xiao teaches the aforementioned limitations (Xiao at least FIGs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Xiao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to prevent falling of a scissor mechanism.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US20240308791A1 ("Warrier").
As per claim 5, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
wherein the mobile robot further comprises: a first channel and a second channel coupled to the frame, the first channel extending along a longitudinal axis and the second channel extending along a lateral axis, the first channel and the second channel each including: a first guide and a second guide offset from one another and each including a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portions extend substantially parallel to one another, and wherein the second portions extend away from one another as the second portions extend away from the first portions.
Warrier teaches the aforementioned limitations (Warrier at least FIG. 4, FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Warrier with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to facilitate loading and unloading (Warrier abstract).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US20210018617A1 ("Iwase").
As per claim 9, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar teaches the front, rear, and side surface (Nishar FIG. 1). Nishar does not disclose:
the at least one sensor comprises a first sensor oriented parallel with at least one of the front surface, the rear surface, or the side surfaces and a second sensor oriented non-parallel with the front surface, the rear surface, and the side surfaces.
Iwase teaches the aforementioned limitations (Iwase at least the abstract, FIG.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Iwase with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to avoid obstacles.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US20240114839A1 ("Peter") and US20210163226A1 ("Worden").
As per claim 10, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
a first implement including: a first implement interface configured to be coupled to a first type of product; and a second implement including: a second implement interface configured to be coupled to a second type of product;
Peter teaches the aforementioned limitations (Peter at least FIGs. 17-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Peter with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to adapt to different lifting techniques and products (Peter [0042]).
Nishar does not disclose:
a first base frame configured to be removably coupled to a mounting interface of the frame; and a second base frame configured to be removably coupled to the mounting interface of the frame.
Worden teaches the aforementioned limitations (Worden at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Worden with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to optimize for specific mission types (Worden [0023]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US11155247B1 ("Afrouzi").
As per claim 11, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
a tow bar coupled to the mobile robot at a first end of the tow bar and coupled to a second mobile robot at a second end of the tow bar opposite the first end, wherein, responsive to the motor propelling the mobile robot, the tow bar exerts a force on the second mobile robot to maintain a space between the second mobile robot and the mobile robot.
Afrouzi teaches the aforementioned limitations (Afrouzi at least the abstract, “tow bar”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Afrouzi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to provide a versatile robot.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US20160243988A1 ("Peterson").
As per claim 13, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
the at least one sensor is moveable coupled to the frame, the mobile robot further comprising: an actuator configured to move the at least one sensor to reposition the at least one sensor relative to the frame, wherein the controller is further configured to detect an obstruction of the at least one sensor and operate the actuator to reposition the at least one sensor.
Peterson teaches the aforementioned limitations (Peterson at least [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Peterson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to gain a view around an obstruction.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US20220019237A1 ("Lee").
As per claim 14, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
the controller is further configured to: obtain a floorplan of a production system and a current position of the mobile robot; receive one or more inputs comprising a plurality of locations and an order of the plurality of locations; generate, based on the floorplan of the production system and a footprint of the mobile robot, a route for the mobile robot from the current position of the mobile robot to the plurality of locations in the order.
Lee teaches the aforementioned limitations (Lee at least the abstract, [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to efficiently move parts through a crowded facility.
As per claim 15, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
a second mobile robot coupled with the mobile robot, the mobile robot and the second mobile robot configured to support the product; wherein at least one of the controller is configured to, or one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon, that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: obtain one or more locations in a floorplan of a production system; obtain a route for the mobile robot and the second mobile robot, from a first current position of the mobile robot and a second current position of the second mobile robot to the one or more locations; and generate a series of coordinated motions between the mobile robot and the second mobile robot based on the route.
Lee teaches the aforementioned limitations (Lee at least the abstract, [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to efficiently move parts through a crowded facility.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US20200108678A1 ("Pierce").
As per claim 16, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
at least one of an audio output device or a visual output device, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a condition of the mobile robot; and provide an alert, via the at least one audio output device or visual output device based on the determined condition, wherein the determined condition is at least one of a plurality of conditions, and wherein each condition of the plurality of conditions is associated with a unique alert, the unique alert comprising at least one unique aspect specific to the condition relative to the other conditions of the plurality of conditions.
Pierce teaches the aforementioned limitations (Pierce at least [0023]: “alert through infotainment when tongue weight has shifted undesirably.”, [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Pierce with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to prevent loss of control.
As per claim 17, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
a sensor coupled to the interface and configured to provide sensor data indicating a measured force on the interface, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive an indication of a current stage of assembly of the product; determine an expected force on the interface based on the current stage of assembly of the product; compare the measured force with the expected force; and in response to a determination that the measured force differs from the expected force, provide a notification to a user.
Pierce teaches the aforementioned limitations (Pierce at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Pierce with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to prevent loss of control.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US20210061312A1 ("Wang").
As per claim 18, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
operate the mobile robot in a first mode of a plurality of modes, wherein the plurality of modes comprises a manual mode, a guided mobile robot mode, and an autonomous mode; determine a match value between the sensor data and at least one operational criteria of a plurality of operational criteria; and operate the mobile robot in a second mode of the plurality of modes based on the match value, wherein the second mode is different than the first mode.
Wang teaches the aforementioned limitations (Wang at least the abstract, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve safety (Wang [0008]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishar and US20190176328A1 ("Kichkaylo").
As per claim 19, Nishar teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nishar does not disclose:
operate the mobile robot along a first path; sense, via the at least one sensor, at least one indicator in the environment; determine, based on the at least one indicator, a boundary of a first predefined zone; determine the first path extends into the first predefined zone in the environment surrounding the mobile robot; generate a second path based on the sensor data that avoids the first predefined zone; and operate the mobile robot along the second path.
Kichkaylo teaches the aforementioned limitations (Kichkaylo at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nishar with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kichkaylo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to increase efficiency and productivity (Kichkaylo [0051]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 12, and 20 recite allowable subject matter.
Claims 6-8 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.
Claim 12 would be allowable if the deficiencies under 35 USC 112 are cured and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 would be allowable if the deficiencies under 35 USC 112 are cured and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 6-8, Nishar teaches the limitations of the inventions as described above. Nishar and the prior art is silent on using a cam plate or bell crank to lift a pin to engage a cart. US20170010609A1 FIGs 3A and 3B teach using a robot under a cart to couple with the car by raising a platform to couple with the underside of a cart with interference/friction.
As per claim 12, Nishar teaches the limitations of the inventions as described above. Nishar and the prior art is silent on:
a second mobile robot; wherein the interface comprises a platform defining a platform aperture and a cradle configured to support an end of the product for movement, the cradle rotatably coupled to the frame, the mobile robot further comprising: a bracket coupled with the cradle and defining a bracket aperture; and a pin configured to be received in a platform aperture and the bracket aperture to inhibit rotation of the cradle relative to the platform, wherein the controller is further configured to: monitor a position of the pin; and control the motor of at least one of the mobile robot or the second mobile robot based on the position of the pin; wherein the mobile robot and the second mobile robot are configured to transition between a first configuration and a second configuration by moving the pin out of the platform aperture and the bracket aperture of one of the mobile robot and the second mobile robot and into the platform aperture and the bracket aperture of the other of the mobile robot and the second mobile robot.
As per claim 20, Nishar teaches the limitations of the inventions as described above. Nishar and the prior art is silent on similar limitations as described in claims 6-8 and 12 as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights