DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 08/12/2025. Claims 1-23 are pending, and Claims 21-23 are examined. Claims 1-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (including Claims 21-23) in the reply filed 08/12/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are withdrawn from consideration. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on 05/07/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 21, line 8 recites, “the environment” (i.e., lacking clear antecedent basis). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably interpreted as - - an environment - - .
In Claim 21, line 9 recites, “the processor” (i.e., lacking clear antecedent basis). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably interpreted as - - a processor - - .
Examiner respectfully request from Applicant verification and requires appropriate correction regarding these matters.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,298,110 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because not only the scope of the novel features of the claims is the same, but also, for instance, independent Claim 21 of the instant application is broader in scope than the corresponding Claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,298,110 B2.
Examiner notes that the broader “apparatus” of Claim 21 in the instant application is anticipated by using the “method” in Claims and 15 of U.S. Patent No.: 12,298,110 B2 as an obvious variant.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 11 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,153,503 B1 in view of Pitzer et al., US 2018/0348783 A1, hereby Pitzer.
Claim 21 of the instant application discloses the additional structural features of a robotic device with wheels. Such features are known and used in the conventional prior art of record (see Pitzer, Figs. 1-3, 6, and 8, and paragraphs [0021]-[0027] and [0083]; see also Figs. 9-11). Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such teachings, the motivation being to allow the wheel motors to control the wheels independently to move and steer the robot adequately (see Pitzer, Figs. 1-3, 6, and 8, and paragraphs [0021]-[0027] and [0083]; see also Figs. 9-11).
Claim 22 of the instant application recites the limitation “continuously”. Although corresponding Claim 19 does not explicitly recite “continuously”, this is a minor difference, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand a light beam directed based on a trajectory of the camera carrying device essentially means to direct a light beam along a path of the camera carrying device, indicating continuously overexposing images captured.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 21-23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 12 and 19-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,690,457 B2 in view of Pitzer.
Claim 21 of the instant application discloses the additional structural features of a robotic device with wheels. Such features are known and used in the conventional prior art of record (see Pitzer, Figs. 1-3, 6, and 8, and paragraphs [0021]-[0027] and [0083]; see also Figs. 9-11). Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such teachings, the motivation being to allow the wheel motors to control the wheels independently to move and steer the robot adequately (see Pitzer, Figs. 1-3, 6, and 8, and paragraphs [0021]-[0027] and [0083]; see also Figs. 9-11).
Claim 22 of the instant application recites the limitation “continuously”. Although corresponding Claim 21 does not explicitly recite “continuously”, this is a minor difference, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand a light beam directed based on a trajectory of the camera carrying device essentially means to direct a light beam along a path of the camera carrying device, indicating continuously overexposing images captured.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Examiner notes that reference(s) cited disclose autonomous robotic devices. For example, the following references show similar features in the claims, although not relied upon: Karlsson (US 2005/0182518 A1), Figs. 6 and 8, and paragraphs [0061] and [0065]; see also Figs. 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482