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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 4/10/25, wherein:
Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Claims 1-13 over come the prior art of record.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. (US 11,820,001). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 1-13 of the copending and claims 1-13 of the US Patent (US 11,820,001) show e.g. an autonomous working system comprising a master working robot and at least one slave working robot, wherein the master working robot comprises: a data receiver configured to receive information on space targeted for working; a sensor configured to sense the space targeted for working; a sensing setter configured to set a movement path of the master working robot, a sensing position, and a sensing angle of the sensor; and a first position determiner configured to determine a position of the master working robot by comparing sensing data obtained through the sensor at the sensing position with reference map data, and the at least one slave working robot comprises a second position determiner configured to determine a position of the at least one slave working robot, wherein the master working robot further comprises an information display to display task information on the space targeted for working, and wherein a position at which the task information is displayed exists on the movement path of the master working robot.
Although claims 1-13 of US Patent No. (US 11,820,001) have additional features. However, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-13 of the US Patent No. US 11,820,001 to arrive at the claims 1-13 of the copending because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fong et al (US 2019/0212752): A multi-robot system includes a first a mobile cleaning robot that has a local storage device to store a persistent map of an environment, at least one sensor to sense the environment, and a control module. The control module is configured to: control the mobile cleaning robot to navigate in the environment using the persistent map and sensing data provided by the at least one sensor, share the persistent map with a second mobile cleaning robot, and coordinate with the second mobile cleaning robot to perform cleaning tasks.
Lee et al (US 2018/0317725): Par. 0273, figure 13B discloses slave cleaning robots 1d and 1e may receive a joint cleaning method determined by the master cleaning robot through a communication unit 58 and perform cleaning on the basis of the received joint cleaning method using controller 56.
Hickman et al (US 9,026,248): Multirobotic management can involve communications between a command or leader robot and one or more client or follower robots through a cloud computing system. In an example implementation, a leader robot can receive first sensory data captured by a first follower robot and second sensory data captured by a second follower robot, determine a command function based on at least one of the first sensory data and the second sensory data, and communicate with at least one of the first follower robot and the second follower robot based on the command function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights