Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims *** are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. EP23152868.8 filed on 01/23/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a typographical error: “the portable platform the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a typographical error: “sensor includes least two”. 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-19, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pryor (US 4,788,440).
Regarding claim 11:
Pryor teaches a method for controlling a construction robot, the method comprising:
controlling the construction robot to move to at least one work position on a building element with a tool disposed on a manipulator of the construction robot (see at least Fig. 7, column 4, line 55+), the work position being marked by at least one line light beam (grid beam, see at least column 10, line 45-58, column 1, line 55-60); and
the construction robot moving the manipulator or the tool in dependence on a position of at least one point of impact of the line light beam on the construction robot (see at least Fig. 8, column 10, line 45-62).
Regarding claim 12:
Pryor further teaches wherein the position of the point of impact is determined via at least one line light sensor or an area light sensor (detector 821, column 3, lines 37-65).
Regarding claim 13:
Pryor further teaches wherein the at least one point of impact includes two different points of impact on the construction robot (see at least Fig. 8: 821, 830, 831, Fig. 7b: 560, 585, 525).
Regarding claim 14:
Pryor further teaches wherein the position of the point of impact is detected on the manipulator (see at least Fig. 7b, sensor 525, column 9 line 3-40).
Regarding claim 15:
Pryor further teaches wherein, in addition, at least one second coordinate is measured (see at least Fig. 7a, coordinate z).
Regarding claim 16:
Pryor further teaches wherein the second coordinate is a distance to the building element or to a second building element (see at least column 9, line 45-60).
Regarding claim 17:
Pryor further teaches wherein the manipulator of the construction robot is pivoted depending on the positions of the at least two of the points of contact (see at least column 8, line 20-67).
Regarding claim 18:
Pryor further teaches wherein, depending on the positions of the at least two of the points of contact, the manipulator is set at an incline relative to a vertical or relative to a surface normal of the building element based on the work position (see at least column 9, line 3-21).
Regarding claim 19:
Pryor teaches a construction robot comprising:
a portable platform (see at least Fig. 71);
a manipulator, a tool arrangeable on the manipulator (see at least Fig. 8);
at least one light sensor (sensor package); and
the construction robot configured to determine a position of at least one point of impact of a line light beam on the construction robot via the light sensor (see at least Fig. 8, column 10, line 45-62).
Regarding claim 21:
Pryor further teaches wherein the construction robot is configured to determine positions of at least two different points of contact of the at least one point of impact (see at least Fig. 8: 821, 830, 831, Fig. 7b: 560, 585, 525).
Regarding claim 22:
Pryor further teaches wherein the at least one light sensor includes least two line light sensors or area light sensors (see at least column 8, line 22-30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor.
Regarding claim 23:
Pryor teaches the limitations as above. Pryor further teaches a plurality of sensors, but does not explicitly teach exactly three sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the sensor array as taught by Pryor to utilize any number of sensors as desired, as suggested by Pryor as a matter of design choice depending on the particular application and requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Halvorsen et al. (US 2021/0323163).
Regarding claim 20:
Pryor teaches the limitations as in claim 19 above.
Pryor does not teach the mobile platform comprising a lift.
Halvorsen teaches a mobile construction robot, including an optical tracking system, a mobile platform, and a lift (see at least Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robotic tracking and calibration system and method as taught by Pryor by utilizing a mobile platform and lift as taught by Halvorsen in order to allow for increased flexibility when working in a dynamic environment and allowing the robot to reach higher workspaces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights