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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 29th, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims as currently submitted are replete with errors and as such it may be possible that there are more issues present than those presented in this section and the 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejections section below. Examiner urges the Applicant to properly review and edit as necessary the entirety of the claims to ensure these common errors are avoided since they create an unnecessary burden on the Examiner for proper interpretation and consideration. Applicant should ensure that each claim is both grammatically proper and definite before filing their response to this Office action.
Similarly, Examiner also encourages Applicant to correct their specification where necessary based on the issues presented in these sections, which are equally applicable to the specification. Due to the large number of errors present, Examiner only did a cursory review of the specification, and thus the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms”, and as currently written, the specification too is replete with portions which are not clear, concise, and exact, for the same reasons as discussed in regards to the current claims. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Examiner reminds Applicant that when amending the specification, no new matter may be added. Any submitted substitute specification must include markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. When filing a substitute specification, it is further required to submit an accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement saying that the substitute specification contains no new matter. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
A few examples of the errors present throughout the entirety of the claim set are given below:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 17 include successive limitations separated by commas and semicolons in a singular, long paragraph format. The lack of spacing and indentation in this arrangement can be difficult to read and understand, especially when the claim language includes limitations in a list. In order to improve readability, examiner suggests each separate limitation to be given a paragraph break and proper indents for more distinct clarification.
For example, claim 1 can be rewritten in a similar format as below:
An autonomously navigating robotic device […] comprising:
Element A,
Element B,
[and so on]
Claim 1 Line 2: “a hotel or similar facility” should be revised to “a facility”. It is unclear to the Examiner what exactly constitutes a facility “similar” to a hotel, furthermore, this limitation contains relative terminology as explained further in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejections section below.
Claim 1 Line 2: “based on a flow of process” should be revised to “based on an order of operations”. Examiner notes the limitation contains repetitive terminology, making it unclear what is being claimed. Issues with the limitations beginning on Line 22 involving this “flow of process” will also be explained in further detail in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejections section below.
Claim 1 Line 7: “control unit further comprising” should be revised to “control unit comprising”. There is no previous limitation claiming what the is comprised within the control unit, so the term “further” is improper in this context.
Claim 1 Line 12: “trigger the robot” should be revised to “trigger the robotic device” to avoid lacking antecedent basis.
Claim 1 Line 13: “needed items” should be revised to “the items to be distributed” to avoid indefinite language and lack of antecedent basis. Examiner notes claim contains distinct language for “items to be distributed” and “items stored in the plurality of storage compartments”. Based on the context of the claim, these two limitations seem to be referring to the same “item”, thus the Examiner suggests revising every instance of “items” in the entire claim set to match one wording or the other for additional clarity.
Claim 1 Lines 15 and 17: “tracking stock” should be revised to “the stock levels determined by the stock control handler” for additional clarity with the relationship of the stock control handler and the restocking trigger.
Claim 1 Lines 15 and 17: “will come from” and “comes from” should be revised to “is determined by” for more clear and accurate language.
Claim 1 Lines 18-20: As stated above, it is unclear to the Examiner what each instance of “item” or “items” in the claim is referring to, although it seems like each limitation including this word is referring to the same item. If this is the case, Examiner urges a revision of each instance of “item” or “items” to match each other.
Claim 1 Lines 24-25: “a concierge or a concierge system” should be revised to “a concierge system” to avoid repetitive language.
Claim 1 Line 28: “ready availability” should be revised to “determined stock levels” for more clear and consistent claim language.
Examiner notes because of the nearly identical claim language between independent Claims 1 and 10, every objection listed with regards to Claim 1 will apply to Claim 10 as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
As stated in the introductory paragraph of this section, the claims as currently submitted are replete with errors and as such it may be possible that there are more issues present than those presented in this section and the 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejections section below. The issues needing to be corrected laid out above by the Examiner are only for Claim 1, and there already exists an entire page of errors to be tended to. Examiner urges the Applicant to properly review and edit as necessary the entirety of the claims to ensure these errors are avoided since they create an unnecessary burden on the Examiner for proper interpretation and consideration. Applicant should ensure that each claim is both grammatically proper and definite before filing their response to this Office action.
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.
The Office maintains production requirements for examiners based on the average anticipated time it takes to examine applications within their technological field and at their experience level, so it should be noted that when far greater than normal time is allocated to merely correct claim construction and/or claim drafting issues, rather than for prior art searching, the overall quality of the prior art searching may be impacted or may not even be feasible given the potential for the applied prior art to change completely following corrective amendments. As such, Examiner urges Applicant and/or their attorney/agent to ensure a bona fide effort and due diligence in improving the quality of the claim set prior to further correspondence with the Office.
Upon initial review of the claims as currently presented, it is clear that there are highly indefinite claims that can be interpreted many possible different ways, particularly, indefinite claim limitations that are dependent upon other indefinite claim limitations, dependent claims and/or limitations drawn to elements that either do not have antecedent basis or are drawn to external elements that are not definitively claimed as part of the claimed system, claims with clearly incorrect dependencies that lead to even more significant antecedent basis issues, limitations clearly drawn to purely optional elements, limitations drawn to potentially previously described elements while describing those potentially previously described elements with differing terminology, and/or limitations drawn to the entire system being described rather than individual components of the system. When this amount of indefiniteness occurs, the Examiner may in the course of examination determine that claims as currently written have meaning far too open to interpretation to warrant prior art searching until the definitive understanding of said limitations are clear. This is currently true for the instant application’s claims and thus any new prior art rejections made by the Examiner after any amendment by the Applicant and/or their attorney/agent to attempt to eliminate the indefinite nature of such claims/limitations, will not be construed as a new grounds of rejection, and will not result in a second non-final action being issued. However, not including prior art rejections in the instant Office action avoids the possibility of the Examiner merely applying arbitrary and/or non/less-applicable prior art and then using “election by original presentation” following a corrective amendment based on the need for completely new prior art and/or new prior art searching.
Based on the highly indefinite nature of the claims (with examples given in the claim objections section above and the 112(b) rejections section below) and the significant amendments necessary to the claims, claim limitations that may be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) will not be discussed in this instant Office action (i.e. this will occur after Applicant can bring the claims into a more definitive state).
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-15, 18 and 20 (along with 7-8, 16-17 and 19 due to dependency) 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.
The reasons for indefiniteness are outlined below. Note the following: (a) this list IS NOT ALL-INCLUSIVE as these claims are replete with errors and the meaning of several limitations may have been incorrectly interpreted by the Examiner due to one or more indefinite issues that warrant clarification from the Applicant in their reply, especially when indefinite limitations are dependent on indefinite limitations and then those are dependent on further indefinite limitations, etc., (2) due to the significant number of indefiniteness issues present, some issues pointed out here may be better classified as just objections but due to the heavy uncertainty within the claims, even these will be included in this section as well for the sake of brevity, (3) all of the issues with each claim will be discussed one-by-one rather than by grouping claims together according to the type of issues present.
Regarding Claim 1, numerous phrases lack antecedent basis, and the manner in which the subject matter is presented makes it unclear to the examiner how to interpret the claim limitations including the said phrases. This includes “items”, “the robot” and “the assistance of a staff member”, along with potentially a few of the objections laid out in the claim objections section above. The “items” are referred to in the claim multiple times using different descriptions, such as “items to be distributed”, “items stored in the plurality of storage compartments”, “items in the plurality of storage compartments”, “needed items”, “all or most items”, “several items”, “an item”, “frequently selected item”, “low-frequency items” and “order of items”. It seems to the Examiner that each of these limitations are referring to the same item(s), but claiming such item(s) in the multitude of ways as noted above makes it unclear as to what item(s) exactly are necessary or relevant to the respective function of the robotic device or overall process. Furthermore, there is no prior limitation mentioning any “robot” or “assistance of a staff member”, thus making the limitations “the robot” and “the assistance of a staff member” improper and indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 1 also includes the terms “similar”, “capable”, “can”, “needed”, “or most”, “several”, “run low”, “run out”, “frequently”, “low-frequency”, “running out”, “running low” and “ready availability” which are all relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “similar”, “capable”, “can”, “needed”, “or most”, “several”, “run low”, “run out”, “frequently”, “low-frequency”, “running out”, “running low” and “ready availability” are not defined by the claims, 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.
Furthermore, the limitation of “a dispensing unit” in Claim 1 is indefinite because it lacks any definitive structure in the claim or specification. Examiner notes the specification includes reference 200 in Fig. 1 as the dispensing unit, and describes this unit as something that “may be constructed as a movable vacuum tube 24” in paragraph [0080]. However, Fig. 1 merely shows a dotted line around the center of the robotic device, and the language in the specification only provides one example of what the claimed dispensing unit “may be”. For at least these reasons, “a dispensing unit” is rendered indefinite.
Lastly, regarding Claim 1, all limitations encompassed within the “flow of process” starting on Line 22 of the claim are not directed to the robotic device, and do not seem to be relevant to the claimed invention given that this process is not necessitated by the rest of the claim. Claim 1 states that “the trigger will come from tracking stock or will come from the flow of process”, which means there are scenarios where the invention does not require the claimed flow of process at all to function. It is unclear to the Examiner why this portion of the claim is being included if this is the case. Regarding the flow of process, Examiner suggests the following:
Revise the “first step” and “second step” to be combined and directed to the robotic device
“in a first step, the robotic device receives a request from a guest through a concierge system, the request containing an order of items to be delivered to a room,”
Revise the “third step”, “fourth step”, and “fifth step” to be directed to the robotic device, while adjusting the step order to account for combining the “first step” and “second step”
“in a second step, the stock control handler of the robotic device determines if the order of operations triggers a restock based on the determined stock levels of the items from the received request containing an order of items,”
“in a third step, if the stock control handler of the robotic device determines that the order of operations triggers a restock, the control unit controls the robotic device to perform the restock, and”
“in a fourth step, the control unit controls the robotic device to deliver the items from the received request containing an order of items.”
Given that the Examiner suggested revisions will remove one step, the total number of steps in this order of operations becomes four, thus every instance in the claim set where a numbered step is being referred to must be revised appropriately as well to reflect the updated number of steps.
As noted in the Claim Objections section above, because of the nearly identical claim language between independent Claims 1 and 10, every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection listed with regards to Claim 1 will apply to Claim 10 as well. Examiner notes the only difference in the two claims is in the preamble, where Claim 10 states “in a hotel or similar facility, including medical centers, nursing facilities, assisted living centers, and hospitals”. Examiner notes this language in the claim does not distinguish the overall robotic device from Claim 1, and similarly uses relative terminology with the limitation “similar facility”, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, similarly to the “flow of process” in Claims 1 and 10 above, each and every “delivery step” in this claim needs to be revised in such a way to be directed towards the claimed robotic device. These steps are comprised within a flow of process that is further comprised within a robotic device that is capable of using an entirely separate components to determine a trigger for restocking items. Thus, in the same manner as Claim 1, it is unclear to the Examiner the relevance of the steps in this claim, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Furthermore, the claim also includes the terms “up in the queue” and “show up”, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “up in the queue” and “show up” are not defined by the claims, 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. The claim also includes the limitations of “to a queue”, “notifying the guest” and “waiting no more than an allotted time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, since it is unclear to the Examiner what the queue is, how or what is notifying the guest, and what mechanism allows the step of waiting based on an allotted time. All of these reasons render the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the Examiner notes the entirety of the claim is directed towards the responsibilities of “the staff member”. It is unclear to the Examiner the relevance of these claims, since the Applicant cannot claim an external human or human activity as part of the robotic device, and what an external user or operator does is not relevant or patentable in the context of the invention. Examiner urges the Applicant to remove Claims 3 and 12 entirely for at least these reasons. Regarding Claims 4 and 13, these claims include the terms “keeping track of”, “on hand” and “times when cleaning must occur”, which are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “keeping track of”, “on hand” and “times when cleaning must occur” are not defined by the claims, 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 to the Examiner how the stock control handler keeps track of anything, or what is meant by “on hand”. Furthermore, it is unclear what it means for a time to be a time when “cleaning must occur”. For at least these reasons, these claims are rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, these claims include the terms “running out or low”, “a good time”, “without loss of function for users”, “surge in use” and “short while”, which are all relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “running out or low”, “a good time”, “without loss of function for users”, “surge in use” and “short while” are not defined by the claims, 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. Furthermore, the claims recite the limitations “historical data” and “users”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims, thus rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear to the Examiner how or where the historical data is recorded or comes from, and there was no prior limitation involving any users.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the claims include the terms “ready availability” and “not being available”, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “ready availability” and “not being available” are not defined by the claims, 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.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, the claims recite the limitations “identifies” and “verifies”, which are indefinite terms in the context of the claim. The terms “identifies” and “verifies” are not defined by the claims, 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 to the Examiner what the identification or verification is with respect to. It seems to the Examiner there may be a separate database containing information that can be used to identify a user or verify a user, but that is not being claimed anywhere.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim includes the term “preferably used”, which is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. The term “preferably used” is not defined by the claims, 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. Furthermore, Examiner notes it is irrelevant to the invention what the preference of use for the robotic device is, and suggests removing this limitation entirely.
As stated in the beginning of this section, this list IS NOT ALL-INCLUSIVE as these claims are replete with errors and the meaning of several limitations may have been incorrectly interpreted by the Examiner due to one or more indefinite issues that warrant clarification from the Applicant in their reply, especially when indefinite limitations are dependent on indefinite limitations and then those are dependent on further indefinite limitations. Furthermore, as previously stated in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office Action, the Examiner may in the course of examination determine that claims as currently written have meaning far too open to interpretation to warrant prior art searching until the definitive understanding of said limitations are clear. This is currently true for the instant application’s claims and thus any new prior art rejections made by the Examiner after any amendment by the Applicant and/or their attorney/agent to attempt to eliminate the indefinite nature of such claims/limitations, will not be construed as a new ground of rejection, and will not result in a second non-final action being issued. However, not including prior art rejections in the instant Office action avoids the possibility of the Examiner merely applying arbitrary and/or non/less-applicable prior art and then using “election by original presentation” following a corrective amendment based on the need for completely new prior art and/or new prior art searching.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights