DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
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, “a ball bearing arrangement” (Claim 3) and “one damping element” (Claim 8) 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
The specification does not disclose a reference number for “a ball bearing arrangement” (Claim 3) or “one damping element” (Claim 8).
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 5-7 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.
Regarding Claims 5-7, the claims are directed toward the module and asset that are outside the scope of Applicant’s invention (i.e. the multi-axis modular coupling system of Claim 1). Therefore the metes and bounds are unascertainable. Rather, Applicant may characterize the attachment means structurally, with regards to the mounting plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inagaki et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0249334 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Inagaki et al. discloses
a mounting plate (i.e. the vertical plate of 60, Fig. 1) employed to attach to different custom modules for enabling movement of different user assets (i.e. intended use);
a first degree of freedom element (25, 41, 43) employed to enable a translational degree of freedom of the multi-axis modular coupling system along a vertical axis of the multi-axis modular coupling system;
a second degree of freedom element (i.e. structure pertaining to “SECOND D.O.F.” in annotated Fig. 2 below) to enable a first rotational degree of freedom of the multi-axis modular coupling system along a longitudinal axis (i.e. the longitudinal centerline of 52) of the multi-axis modular coupling system; and
a third degree of freedom element (i.e. structure pertaining to “THIRD D.O.F.” in annotated Fig. 2 below) to enable a second rotational degree of freedom of the multi-axis modular coupling system along a lateral axis (i.e. see annotated Fig. 2 below) of the multi-axis modular coupling system,
wherein when the multi-axis modular coupling system is in use (i.e. contingent limitation, per MPEP 2111.04), a given custom module (i.e. a tool T, but also intended use) from amongst the different custom modules is attached to the mounting plate, wherein at least one of: the first degree of freedom element, the second degree of freedom element, the third degree of freedom element, operates to accommodate for floor surface irregularities when a given user asset from amongst the different user assets is carried by the mobile robot (i.e. intended use, however all three degree of freedom elements accommodate floor surface irregularities by providing mobility in as much as Applicant’s device does).
Regarding Claim 4, Inagaki et al. discloses
the third degree of freedom element is implemented using a first link (51) and a second link (52) that are mechanically coupled using a pin joint (i.e. a pin or shaft feature is inherent since they rotate with respect to each other).
Regarding Claims 5-7, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained as per the 112 rejection above.
PNG
media_image1.png
545
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0249334 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Inagaki et al. discloses the first degree of freedom element to have a guide rod (43) and a linear carriage (41) but does not disclose a plurality of each.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Inagaki et al. by including a plurality of guide rods and linear carriages, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and for the purpose of more stably supporting the robot arm. It is noted that Inagaki et al. does not limit the lifting and lowering device 40 ([0031]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0249334 A1) in view of Jinno et al. (US Patent No. 5,525,027).
Regarding Claim 3, Inagaki et al. does not disclose a ball bearing arrangement.
Jinno et al. discloses a coupling 7 to have a ball bearing arrangement (lines 1-2 of Column 6), for the purpose of facilitating rotation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Inagaki et al. by including a ball bearing
arrangement as disclosed by Jinno et al., for the purpose of facilitating rotation. It is
noted this may be applied to any of the rotational joints of Inagaki et al.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0249334 A1) in view of Nuchter et al. (US Pub No. 2010/0224427 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Inagaki et al. discloses a drive system (35a, wherein the claim does not define the drive system) but does not disclose a damping element.
Nuchter et al. discloses at least one damping element (23), for the purpose of isolating a load transfer/reducing vibration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Inagaki et al. by including the damping element
as disclosed by Nuchter et al., for the purpose of isolating a load transfer/reducing
vibration. It is noted the claim further recites intended use.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0249334 A1) in view of Carithers et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0276203 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Inagaki et al. does not disclose an electrical connector.
Carithers et al. discloses an electrical connector (118) configured to enable electrical interfacing with the given custom module, the electrical connector being adapted to transfer at least one of: a power signal ([0069]), a control signal, an emergency signal, from the mobile robot to the given custom module, for the purpose of transmitting power.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Inagaki et al. by including the electrical connector
as disclosed by Carithers et al., for the purpose of transmitting power.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yokote et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0033020) discloses floating unit 20 as in Fig. 18.
Pringle, IV et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0168388) discloses wrist 228 that has three degrees of freedom as in Fig. 26.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights