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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/9/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 moving unit”, “a supply unit”, “a three-dimensional information acquisition unit”, “a communication unit”, and “a control unit” in claim 1.
“a determination information acquisition unit” in claim 2.
“an adsorption unit” in claim 8.
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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the damaged site" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what is the damaged site.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 17 is directed to a computer program, i.e. “software per se”. “Software per se”, when claimed without any structural limitations, does not have a physical or tangible form. Therefore, it does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and is ineligible under 35 USC 101. see MPEP 2106.03.
If support is found within the specification, Applicant is advised to amend the claim(s) to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, performs: [the claimed functions]”, or equivalent language. see MPEP 2106.03 (I). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium would comprise an article of manufacture and thus fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation recites “…wherein if not determining that the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid…” in lines 1-2, is written in a form that could mean that the determining whether the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid is not being performed. It is believe that the Applicant does not intend that meaning.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flitsch et al. (US 2022/0250311 A1).
For claims 1, 16 and 17, Flitsch discloses a liquid supply device comprising:
a moving unit configured to move in a state of supporting the liquid supply device;
a supply unit configured to supply liquid;
a three-dimensional information acquisition unit configured to acquire three-dimensional information on an entire region potentially supplied with the liquid;
a communication unit configured to transmit the three-dimensional information and receive information indicating a position of a supplied region supplied with the liquid in the entire region (Fig. 1, 2, 8, para. 0003, 0005, 0010, 0046, 0050, 0119, where the robot comprises moving unit, supplying liquid to surfaces in three-dimension based on acquired space information of the environment); and
a control unit configured to control the moving unit so that the liquid supply device moves to the supplied region based on three-dimensional information on the entire region and information indicating a position of the supplied region, and control the supply unit so that the liquid is supplied to the supplied region (Fig. 8, 9, 12A-B, 14A-B, 15, abstract, para. 0045, 0096, where the robot automatically traverse the surfaces and to supply liquid supply to various regions).
For claim 12, Flitsch disclose the liquid supply device according to claim 1, wherein the liquid cures upon irradiation with ultraviolet, the liquid supply device further includes an ultraviolet irradiation unit configured to emit ultraviolet, and the control unit controls the ultraviolet irradiation unit so that the liquid supplied to the supplied region is irradiated with the ultraviolet (Fig. 16B, para. 0143, 0144, where ultraviolet is applied to surfaces to polymerize liquid supplied).
For claim 13, Flitsch discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 1, wherein the moving unit includes a plurality of wheels, a plurality of motors configured to rotate each of the plurality of wheels, and a motor drive device configured to drive each of the plurality of motors (Fig. 1, 2, 14, para. 0046, 0076, where the robot comprises of wheels).
For claim 15, Flitsch discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 1, wherein the supply unit discharges the liquid with fine droplets (Para. 0051, 0146, 0180, 0194).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flitsch et al. (US 2022/0250311 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raman et al. (US 2022/0143640 A1).
For claim 2, Flitsch discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose a determination information acquisition unit configured to acquire determination information for determining whether the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid in a state where the liquid supply device arrives at the supplied region, wherein the control unit determines whether the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid based on the determination information, and, upon determining that the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid, controls the supply unit so that the liquid is supplied to the supplied region. Raman in the same field of the art discloses a determination information acquisition unit configured to acquire determination information for determining whether the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid in a state where the liquid supply device arrives at the supplied region, wherein the control unit determines whether the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid based on the determination information, and, upon determining that the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid, controls the supply unit so that the liquid is supplied to the supplied region (Para. 0084, 0090, 0185, where regions and zones are determined to be appropriate or not to supply liquid into the zones and if it is not appropriate, avoid supplying liquid into those zones and into other appropriate zones). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Flitsch to include a determination information acquisition unit configured to acquire determination information for determining whether the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid in a state where the liquid supply device arrives at the supplied region, wherein the control unit determines whether the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid based on the determination information, and, upon determining that the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid, controls the supply unit so that the liquid is supplied to the supplied region, as taught by Raman to only supply liquid in regions that are appropriate for applying the liquid.
For claim 3, Flitsch, as modified, discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 2, wherein if not determining that the supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid, the control unit newly sets a region other than the supplied region in the entire region as the supplied region, and, upon determining that the set supplied region is appropriate as a region to be supplied with the liquid, controls the supply unit so that the liquid is supplied to the supplied region (Raman - para. 0185, where the control unit of the robot set regions other than regions that should be avoided to supply liquid).
For claim 4, Flitsch, as modified, discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 3, wherein information indicating a position of a region newly set as the supplied region is received by the communication unit or is decided by the control unit based on the three-dimensional information (Raman – para. 0084, 0090, 0185, 0186, where the appropriate region set to avoid region not appropriate to supply liquid).
For claim 5, Flitsch, as modified, discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 3, wherein the determination information acquisition unit acquires image data of a surface of the supplied region, and upon detecting or determining a structure or a pattern designated in advance in the supplied region from the image data, the control unit determines that the supplied region is appropriate as a region supplied with the liquid (Para. 0139, 0141-0143, 0153, where structure or pattern designated in the region is determined to be appropriate for supplying liquid).
For claim 7, Flitsch, as modified, discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 5, wherein the control unit controls the supply unit so that the liquid is supplied to the damaged site (Para. 0139, 0141-0143, 0153).
For claim 11, Flitsch discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein in a case where the liquid supply device moves to the supplied region, the control unit controls the moving unit so that the liquid supply device moves to a part other than a part where the liquid has been supplied to the supplied region by the moving unit and the supply unit. Raman in the same field of the art discloses wherein in a case where the liquid supply device moves to the supplied region, the control unit controls the moving unit so that the liquid supply device moves to a part other than a part where the liquid has been supplied to the supplied region by the moving unit and the supply unit (Para. 0070, where the robot is to determine regions that remained and still require liquid to be supplied). wherein in a case where the liquid supply device moves to the supplied region, the control unit controls the moving unit so that the liquid supply device moves to a part other than a part where the liquid has been supplied to the supplied region by the moving unit and the supply unit, as taught by Raman to ensure the desired tasks are completed.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flitsch et al. (US 2022/0250311 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng (US 2024/0208061 A1).
For claim 8, Flitsch discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose an adsorption unit configured to adsorb to a wall surface, wherein the control unit controls the moving unit so as to move on a wall surface while holding the liquid supply device by suction by the adsorption unit. Deng in the same field of the art discloses an adsorption unit configured to adsorb to a wall surface, wherein the control unit controls the moving unit so as to move on a wall surface while holding the liquid supply device by suction by the adsorption unit (Para. 0003, 0005, 0007, 0008). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Flitsch to include an adsorption unit configured to adsorb to a wall surface, wherein the control unit controls the moving unit so as to move on a wall surface while holding the liquid supply device by suction by the adsorption unit, as taught by Deng to stably position the robot on a wall surface.
For claim 9, Flitsch, as modified, discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 8, wherein the adsorption unit holds the liquid supply device by any method of adsorbing to the wall surface by sucking air or adsorbing to the wall surface by magnetic force (Deng - Para. 0003, 0005, 0007, 0008).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flitsch et al. (US 2022/0250311 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sneyders et al. (US 2022/0397906 A1).
For claim 10, Flitsch discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 1, but does not specifically discloses the control unit controls the moving unit so as to move through the supplied region unicursally based on a graph theory. Sneyders in the same field of the art discloses the control unit controls the moving unit so as to move through the supplied region unicursally based on a graph theory (Para. 0006-0009). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Flitsch to controls the moving unit so as to move through the supplied region unicursally based on a graph theory, as taught by Sneyders to more effectively covers the region that requires liquid supplied.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flitsch et al. (US 2022/0250311 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Brooks et al. (9,858,829).
For claim 14, Flitsch discloses the liquid supply device according to claim 13, but does not specifically disclose a surface of the wheel is provided with a release agent layer. Brooks in the same field of the art discloses a surface of the wheel is provided with a release agent layer (Col. 6, ln 57 – col. 7, ln 42). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Flitsch to provide a surface of the wheel with a release agent layer, as taught by Brooks to reduce traction of the robot using release agent laid on the wheels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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:
For claim(s) 6, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically the determination information acquisition unit includes an actuator configured to tap the supplied region and a microphone configured to acquire sound data of the actuator tapping the supplied region, and upon detecting a structure or a pattern designated in advance in the supplied region based on sound data acquired by the microphone, the control unit determines that the supplied region is appropriate as a region supplied with the liquid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2023/0009566 A1) Dawson et al. discloses an automated mobile sprayer navigating the room and determining which regions the wall will apply the liquid.
(12,043,121) Romanov et al. discloses a mobile robot determining and navigating over the region of the environment applying liquid to supplied regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights