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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
storage 50 of Par. [080]
battery 191 of Par. [099/109/112/133]
loading area 50 and cover 10 of Par. [104/105]
frame assembly 104 of Par. [111]
heat dissipation fan 187 of Par. [118]
caster wheel 1731, caster body 1732, shaft 1736 of Par. [121]
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 depicts a “sensing unit;” however, the specification does not provide this language and instead only describes a “sensor unit.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Par. [114/115], “lower structure 101” is disclosed after being labeled as “lower portion 101” previously.
In Par. [119], “driving robot 101” is disclosed after being labeled as “driving robot 100” previously.
In Par. [122], “upper portion 101” is disclosed after being labeled as “upper portion 102” previously.
In Par. [087], “PC 400” is disclosed after being labeled as “PC 400a” previously.
In Par. [091], “Lidar 141” is also disclosed as “Lidar 142.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Specification Par. [080] and [104-105] both use numeral 50 to describe separate elements (storage area and loading area, respectively). Similarly, numeral 101 has been used in the specification to describe both a driving robot and lower/upper portions/structure.
Different structural elements are required to have unique numerals. The specification is replete with various numeral assignment errors or omissions. While the Examiner has included as many instances as could be reasonably captured during examination, it is strongly recommended that Applicant review their own specification and drawings to determine whether more instances of typos/misnumbering has occurred.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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: “a driving structure” as recited in claim 1 found at least in Par. [8 and 43].
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 § 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 1-13 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.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of “a driving structure” in claim 1, Applicant’s invocation requires a review of the disclosure of the instant specification and drawings disclosed “driving structure.” After review of the specification, it appears that the phrase “driving structure” only appears in Par. [8] and constitutes no elaboration as to the structural components making up the “driving structure.”
The specification also discloses performance of a “driving function” in Par. [43] and subsequently lists the components of the robot including “a driver, wheel(s), a frame, a brake, a caster, a motor, etc.” The “etc.” of this list renders the claim indefinite since the definitive elements that are intended to be claimed cannot be readily ascertained. The “etc.” also is recited after components which are fundamentally different (i.e., a caster and a frame are completely different structural elements) making the “etc.” even more ambiguous since the unrecited elements could be different from any in the list provided. Thus, the scope of the exact metes and bounds of the “driving structure” cannot be ascertained rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 as inheriting its deficiencies as discussed supra.
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, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022/144035 in view of US11613030 to Kang et al. and US11732960 to Ryu et al.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, WO2022/144035 discloses a driving robot comprising: a lower housing (at least upper plate 111 – See Par. [0030] and Fig. 3); a frame assembly positioned inside the lower housing (at least support rods 131 within upper plate 111 – See Fig. 2); a driving structure positioned under the frame assembly (at least “drive wheel assembly” 3 positioned under support rods 131 – See Fig. 3) comprising:
a driver (at least “drive wheel set” 3 used to “drive the robot to move” – See Par. [0027])
wheels (see annotated Fig. 9 below)
a frame (at least “base plate” 12 – See at least Fig. 3)
a caster (at least “one or more omnidirectional wheels” used for “driving the robot to move and rotate” – See Par. [0027] and annotated Fig. 9 below),
a motor (at least “internal and external mechanisms…to perform different operations, such as controlling the drive wheels” – See at least Par. [0027]), and
a tray frame coupled to an upper portion of the lower housing and extending upward (At least frame 11 coupled to upper plate 111 – See Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, WO2022/144035 does not appear to expressly disclose a driving structure comprising a brake, load cell, moving bracket, tray holder coupled to the moving bracket, and a tray module seated on the tray holder.
Kang, in the same field of driving robots, discloses a driving robot with an incorporated charging terminal mounter, charging terminal, and system for stopping the driving wheels after engaging with the charging terminal.
Specifically, Kang teaches: a driving structure positioned under the frame assembly (at least driving unit under frame 220 – See Fig. 5) comprising: a brake (at least “a brake…and the like in a driving unit” – See column 3, lines 64-67).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the driving robot of WO2022/144035 to have a brake, as taught by Kang, in order to allow the robot to stop for improved safety while driving.
Further, though not appearing to be expressly discussed in WO2022/14403, it is more than likely that WO2022/144035 utilizes a brake of some sort since normal navigational operation would require some type of braking system to stop/adjust movement speed during operation.
Ryu, reasonably pertinent to the problem of having fixed, non-weight-sensing shelves, discloses a refrigerator appliance with an adjustable shelf assembly including a weight sensor to detect stored mass on a shelf.
Specifically, Ryu teaches: a load cell coupled to the tray frame; (at least weight sensor 210, “weight sensor includes…any suitable electronic load sensor or cell,” coupled to cantilever bracket 242 – See at least column 7 lines 14-17 and at least Fig. 9) a moving bracket coupled to an upper portion of the load cell (at least cantilever bracket 226 coupled to weight sensor 210) a tray holder coupled to the moving bracket and protruding via a fastening hole of the tray frame (at least shelf 224 coupled to cantilever bracket 242, with the combination protruding via an aperture 254 of cantilever bracket 242 – See at least Fig. 9) a tray module seated on the tray holder (at least horizontal platform 232 seated on shelf 224 – See at least Fig. 10).
It has been held that, “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results” (See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc.) Further, according to MPEP 2143, rationales of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results
(E) "Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have substituted the tray frame assembly, tray holders, and tray module of WO2022/144035 with adjustable shelf assembly incorporating the weight sensor of Ryu to yield the predictable results of expanding the carrying capacity of the driving robot through the addition of shelves, allowing the weight of items placed on the shelves to be determined, and to allow for the variation of shelf heights.
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of WO2022/144035, Kang, and Ryu discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of fastening holes and tray holder fastening portions.
Nevertheless, Ryu teaches: wherein the fastening hole of the tray frame includes a plurality of fastening holes (at least apertures 254 of mounting bracket 242 – See at least Fig. 9) wherein the moving bracket is formed at a location corresponding to each pair of fastening holes and includes a plurality of tray holder fastening portions (at least cantilever bracket 226 attached to mounting bracket 242 with pair of apertures 254, through mating hook 228 on top and where sensor housing 250 “may be slidably mounted to mounting bracket 242” on bottom – See column 10, lines 6-8, at least Figs. 9 and 10) .
As established previously, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have substituted the tray frame assembly, tray holders, and tray module of WO2022/144035 with adjustable shelf assembly incorporating the weight sensor of Ryu to yield the predictable results of expanding the carrying capacity of the driving robot through the addition of shelves, allowing the weight of items placed on the shelves to be determined, and to allow for the variation of shelf heights.
Regarding claim 7, the previous combination of WO2022/144035, Kang, and Ryu discloses the claimed invention except for the orientation of the claimed elements.
Ryu teaches a fixed bracket 264 fixed to tray frame 242, wherein
the load cell is fastened to an upper portion of the fixed bracket and coupled to the tray frame (see Fig. 10, bracket 264 fixed to mounting bracket 242 with weight sensor 210 fastened to upper part of bracket 264 and also coupled to mounting bracket 242, see Fig. 9).
As established previously, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have substituted the tray frame assembly, tray holders, and tray module of WO2022/144035 with adjustable shelf assembly incorporating the weight sensor of Ryu to yield the predictable results of expanding the carrying capacity of the driving robot through the addition of shelves, allowing the weight of items placed on the shelves to be determined, and to allow for the variation of shelf heights.
Regarding claim 8, the primary reference, WO2022/144035, discloses that the tray frame is inclined such that an upper end is positioned rearward of a lower end, wherein the fastening hole is defined in a direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the tray frame, wherein the tray holder includes a support flat in a direction perpendicular to a direction of gravity (At least shown in Fig. 1 and 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022/144035 to Chen et al. in view of US11613030 to Kang et al. and US11732960 to Ryu et al. and in further view of US2021/0364337 to Smith et al.
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination of Yang, Kang, and Ryu discloses the claimed invention except for the specifics of the load cell.
Nevertheless, Smith teaches that the load cell includes: an elastic body whose shape changes when pressurized; and a strain gauge configured to generate an electric signal based on the deformation of the elastic body (At least Par. [0055-0056]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the load cell of the previous combination of Chen/Kang/Ryu to perform the specific load cell functions, as taught by Smith, in order to provide exact measurements of changing load weights, as taught by Smith, in order to allow for on-the-fly weight measurement to determine when a tray is overloaded for improved operability.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022/144035 to Chen et al. in view of US11613030 to Kang et al., US11732960 to Ryu et al., and US2021/0364337 to Smith et al. and in further view of CN108369131.
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of Yang, Kang, Ryu, and Smith discloses the claimed invention except for the specifics of the load cell.
Nevertheless, CN108369131 teaches an elastic body that has a Z-shape (At least Z-beam load cell listed in a list of different types of load cells) including a first slot extending rearward from a front side and a second slot extending forward from a rear side (At least via bodily incorporation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the load cell of the previous combination of WO2022/144035/Kang/Ryu to perform the specific load cell functions, as taught by Smith, and in the particular shape of CN108369131 in order to provide exact measurements of changing load weights, as taught by Smith, in order to allow for on-the-fly weight measurement to determine when a tray is overloaded for improved operability.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022/144035 to Chen et al. in view of US11613030 to Kang et al. and US11732960 to Ryu et al. and in further view of US20130020776 to Taranto.
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination of WO2022/144035, Kang, and Ryu discloses the claimed invention except for the head frame.
Taranto teaches that a tray frame includes a pair of tray frames on left and right sides, wherein the driving robot includes: a head frame connecting upper ends of the pair of tray frames to each other; and an upper basket formed on the head frame (At least at Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the robot of WO2022/144035/Kang/Ryu to have a head frame with a basket, as taught by Taranto, in order to provide extra storage space that is in close proximity to an operator’s hand for added convenience.
Regarding claim 13, the primary reference, WO2022/144035, discloses that the tray frame includes a pair of tray frames on left and right sides (At least upper frame 11, See Fig. 3).
Taranto teaches a slide basket inserted into a space between the tray module, the lower housing, and the pair of tray frames (At least storage locker 160 inserted between bucket shelf 105, front feet 155, and pair of bases 185).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the robot of WO2022/144035 /Kang/Ryu to have a slide basket, as taught by Taranto, in order to provide extra storage and tray capacity to carry more objects.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022/144035 to Chen et al. in view of US11613030 to Kang et al., US11732960 to Ryu et al., and US2013/0020776 to Taranto and in further view of CN112248007.
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination of WO2022/144035, Kang, and Ryu discloses the claimed invention except for the display.
CN112248007 teaches a display located on a front surface of the upper basket (At least Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the robot of WO2022/144035 /Kang/Ryu/Taranto to have a display, as taught by CN112248007, in order to provide a means to display the contents of the trays for load identification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, either taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach the cover/stopper/tray bar limitations or the tray/cable orientation/structural relationships.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights