DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The restriction requirement mailed on 01/26/2026 is moot in light of the cancellation of claims 1-20, drawn to inventions I-III of the restriction requirement, and the addition of new claims 21-42 filed on 06/26/2026.
2a. As a note, “Election becomes fixed when the claims in an application have received an action on their merits by the Office. If, after receiving an action on the merits of an invention, one or more properly divisible additional inventions are subsequently presented for examination, the examiner may deem the examined invention to be the invention elected by original presentation” (emphasis added). See MPEP 818.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 05/12/2025 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “operating component adapted to provide a pointing-based functionality” and the “attachment module is configured to automatically adjust an orientation” in claims 21, 32 and 36, the “operating component of a different pointing-based functionality type” in claim 24, the “pointing-type operating component” in claims 35 and 40 as well as the “modular structure configured to… eject” in claim 40 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
5. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 24-25 and 37-40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 24, lines 3 and 5: the term “in the plurality of modular structure” should each be rewritten as --of the plurality of modular structures” for the purpose of clarity.
b. Claim 25, line 4: the term “a marking component” should be rewritten as --a marking component--.
c. Claims 37-40, line 1: the preamble of each claim should be rewritten as --The attachment module” such that the claims conform with current U.S. practice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 21-40 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.
9. Claim 21, lines 3-4, recites the limitation “an attachment module” in a duplicate manner which renders the claim uncertain, since it is unclear as to whether these are considered to be the same or distinct attachment modules. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
10. Claim 21, lines 6-7, recites the limitation “an operating component adapted to provide a pointing-based functionality relative to an object identified by the object sensor” (emphasis added) which renders the claim uncertain, since it is unclear as to exactly which specific structure(s) outlined in the specification is being discussed with this claim language, and thus obfuscates the metes and bounds of the claim. Which structure(s) provide a pointing-based functionality? Similarly, claims 24, 32 and 36 are unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
11. Claim 21, lines 8-11, recites the limitation “the attachment module is configured to automatically adjust an orientation of the operating component to maintain a pointing orientation of the operating component relative to an object identified by the object sensor while the autonomous vehicle is in motion relative to the identified object” which renders the claim uncertain, since it is unclear as to exactly which specific structure(s) outlined in the specification is being discussed with this claim language, and thus obfuscates the metes and bounds of the claim. Which structure(s) automatically adjust an orientation of the operating component? Similarly, claims 32 and 36 are unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
12. The term “type” in claims 24-25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to exactly what “type” is intended to convey. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
13. Claim 25, lines 2-4, recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of modular structures comprises at least one modular structure comprising a pointing-type operating component chosen from: a firepower component; a robotic arm component; spray device component; an imaging component; a marking component” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the recited limitation is required by the claim invention. For instance, claim 24 merely requires “the attachment mechanism is configured for releasably and interchangeably attaching a plurality of modular structures” (emphasis added). Therefore, the plurality of modular structures as well as each of the modular structures in the plurality of modular structures are neither positively recited and nor required by the claim invention. For examination purposes, with consideration of the claimed subject matter in claim 24, the limitations of claim 25 are as not being required by the claimed invention. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
14. Claim 35 recites the limitation “the pointing-based operating component” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
15. Claim 37, lines 6-7, recites the limitation “a platform structure of an autonomous vehicle” which renders the claim uncertain, since it is unclear as to whether the platform structure of the autonomous vehicle is considered to be the same as or distinct from the platform structurer of vehicle as recite in claim 36. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
16. Claim 38, line 3, recites the limitation “a platform structure” which renders the claim uncertain, since it is unclear as to whether the structure is considered to be the same as or distinct from the platform structure as recited in claim 36. Similarly, claims 38-40 are unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
17. Claim 40, lines 2-4, recites the limitation “the modular structure is configured to … eject the received supply feed through the pointing-based operating component” (emphasis added) which renders the claim uncertain, since it is unclear as to exactly which specific structure(s) outlined in the specification is being discussed with this claim language, and thus obfuscates the metes and bounds of the claim. Which structure(s) is configured to eject? Similarly, claims 24, 32 and 36 are unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
18. Claim 40 recites the limitation “the pointing-based operating component” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
19. Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
All claims should be thoroughly reviewed such that the claims have support under 112(a) and 112(b) from the applicant’s disclosure, including all prior filed applications. Support for each of the notations made above should be precisely pointed out by the applicant in response to this Office action, including specific paragraph numbers and figures from drawings where appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
20. 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.
(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.
21. Claim(s) 21-25, 27-30 and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pilskalns (US 2018/0067493 A1).
22. Regarding Claims 21 and 36, Pilskalns discloses an autonomous vehicle (50) comprising:
a platform structure (as seen in FIGS. 1, 3 and 5) comprising at least one connection mechanism (406/408) configured for releasable attachment of an attachment module (10) to the platform structure (paras. [0011], [0044] and [0053]; via mechanical interfaces 308 of gimbal assembly 10 and mechanical interface 408 of the platform structure of UAV 50 as seen in FIGS. 1-3 and 5); and
an attachment module (10) configured for releasable attachment (paras. [0011] and [0053]) to the platform structure via the connection mechanism (406/408), the attachment module comprising an object sensor (22) adapted for object identification (paras. [0036]-[0038], [0047] and [0085]) and an operating component (204) adapted to provide a pointing-based functionality relative to an object identified by the object sensor (paras. [0036] and [0047]);
wherein the attachment module (10) is configured to automatically adjust an orientation of the operating component (204) to maintain a pointing orientation of the operating component relative to an object identified by the object sensor while the autonomous vehicle is in motion relative to the identified object (paras. [0045] and [0047]; via processor 208 and controller processor 38 as seen in FIG. 5).
23. Regarding Claim 22, Pilskalns discloses the autonomous vehicle according to claim 21, wherein the attachment module comprises an attachment mechanism (30) and a modular structure (paras. [0041]; gimbal 20 is a replaceable component);
the modular structure (20) comprises the operating component (204); and
the attachment mechanism is configured to adjust orientation of the operating component (paras. [0045] and [0052]-[0053]; node controller 30 interacts with gimbal 20 and one or more sensors 22, gimbal 30 is in electronic communication with gimbal 20, in particular processor 208 and processor 39 are in electronic communication, processor 208 is in electronic communication with aim control 204, accordingly node controller 30 is structurally capable of adjusting an orientation of aim control 204 as seen in FIG. 5).
24. Regarding Claim 23, Pilskalns discloses the autonomous vehicle according to claim 22, wherein
the modular structure is configured for releasable attachment to the attachment mechanism (paras. [0042] and [0052], [0053]).
25. Regarding Claim 24, Pilskalns discloses the autonomous vehicle according to claim 23, wherein
the attachment mechanism is configured for releasably and interchangeably attaching a plurality of modular structures, each modular structure in the plurality of modular structures comprising an operating component of a different pointing-based functionality type from other modular structures in the plurality of modular structures (para. [0041]; with consideration of the controller 30 as well as gimbal 20 being configured for releasable attachment as well as quick assembly and dissemble and modularity, the controller is structurally capable of releasably and interchangeably attaching a plurality of modular structures, each modular structure in the plurality of modular structures comprising an operating component of a different pointing-based functionality type from other modular structures in the plurality of modular structures).
26. Regarding Claim 25, Pilskalns discloses the autonomous vehicle according to claim 24, wherein the plurality of modular structures comprises at least one modular structure comprising a pointing-type operating component chosen from: a firepower component; a robotic arm component; spray device component; an imaging component; a marking component (the plurality of modular structures can comprises at least one modular structure comprising a pointing-type operating component chosen from: a firepower component; a robotic arm component; spray device component; an imaging component; a marking component).
27. Regarding Claim 27, Pilskalns discloses the autonomous vehicle according to claim 22, wherein the connection mechanism is configured to enable a transfer between the platform structure and the attachment mechanism (paras. [0053] and [0055]; via electrical interfaces 306/406 as seen in FIG. 5); and
the attachment mechanism is configured to enable a transfer between the connection mechanism and the modular structure (paras. [0052]-[0053] and [0055]; via electrical interfaces 222/304/306/406 as seen in FIG. 5).
28. Regarding Claim 28, Pilskalns discloses the autonomous vehicle according to claim 27, wherein the connection mechanism and the attachment mechanism are configured to enable a transfer of signals between the platform structure and the modular structure (see the discussion above, regarding claim 27).
29. Regarding Claim 29, Pilskalns discloses the autonomous vehicle according to claim 28, wherein the connection mechanism and the attachment mechanism are configured to transfer signals chosen from: power signals; control signals; data signals; telemetry signals; electromagnetic signals; global positioning information; and sensor signals (para. [0055] and [0060]-[0070]).
30. Regarding Claim 30, Pilskalns discloses the autonomous vehicle according to claim 27, wherein the connection mechanism and the attachment mechanism are configured to enable transfer of a supply feed between the platform structure and the modular structure (se the discussion above, regarding claim 27).
31. Regarding Claim 37, Pilskalns discloses an attachment module according to claim 28, wherein the attachment module comprises an attachment mechanism and a modular structure; the modular structure comprises the operating component and is configured for releasable attachment to the attachment mechanism; and the attachment mechanism is configured to adjust orientation of the operating component and is configured for releasable attachment to a connection mechanism on a platform structure of an autonomous vehicle (see the discussion above, regarding claims 21-23).
32. Regarding Claim 38, Pilskalns discloses an attachment module according to claim 37, wherein the attachment mechanism is configured to enable a passthrough transfer between a connection mechanism on a platform structure and the modular structure (see the discussion above, regarding claim 27).
33. Regarding Claim 39, Pilskalns discloses an attachment module according to claim 38, wherein the attachment mechanism is configured to enable signal transfers between a connection mechanism on a platform structure and the modular structure, the transferred signals comprising at least one chosen from: power signals; control signals; data signals; telemetry (see the discussion above, regarding claim 29).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Szarek (US 9750162 B2) discloses an autonomous vehicle comprising: a platform structure comprising at least one connection mechanism configured for releasable attachment of an attachment module to the platform structure; and an attachment module configured for releasable attachment to the platform structure via the connection mechanism, the attachment module comprising an object sensor adapted for object identification and an operating component adapted to provide a pointing-based functionality relative to an object identified by the object sensor.
Conclusion
No claims are currently allowed and no allowable subject matter is currently being indicated. Further clarification of the claims is required in order to determine allowability in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights