Whitebox Robotics Patent App?
dttw...@aol.com
with a PC inside? There HAS to be prior art on this. I believe in
intellectual property but this idea doesn't seem new to me.
You can go to the www.uspto.gov website and look up patent
applications (not issued patents). Do a search for Thomas Burick and
his application will come up.
I want to sell a robot with an ITX motherboard inside but there could
be complications if this patent issues. I'm looking to the community
for prior art references.
Thanks,
Danh
Here is a copy of the claims:
The invention claimed is:
1. A hobby robot having an encasement shell surrounding a support
structure, wherein the hobby robot is comprised of: means for securing
the encasement shell to the support structure; at least one cavity
defined within the support structure, wherein the cavity is adapted to
receive at least one mounting element; and an opening situated in the
encasement shell, wherein the opening is sized to accommodate the
insertion and removal of the mounting element therethrough, and
wherein a portion of the cavity and a portion of the opening are
arranged to allow the mounting element to simultaneously be situated
within the cavity while protruding through the opening.
2. The hobby robot of claim 1, wherein the cavity is adapted to
receive the mounting element in one of a substantially horizontal
orientation and substantially vertical orientation.
3. The hobby robot of claim 1, wherein the mounting element is
hardware for performing a desired function in connection with the
operation of the robot.
4. The hobby robot of claim 3, wherein the hardware is one of a mother/
daughter board, hard disk drive, optical drive, media reader, non-
volatile/volatile memory, slide rail, speaker system, I/O interface,
rack mount, riser card, and face plate.
5. The hobby robot of claim 1, wherein the mounting element is a tray
for supporting hardware that performs a desired function in connection
with the operation of the robot.
6. The hobby robot of claim 5, wherein the tray is slidably received
in the cavity.
7. The hobby robot of claim 1, further comprising a face plate for
covering at least a portion of the cavity.
8. The hobby robot of claim 1, further comprising means for securing
the mounting element to the support structure.
9. The hobby robot of claim 1, wherein the support structure is
adapted to receive a circuit board.
10. The hobby robot of claim 1, wherein the support structure is
adapted to receive a self-contained power source.
11. The hobby robot of claim 1, wherein the support structure is
adapted to receive means for imparting motive force to the support
structure.
12. The hobby robot of claim 11, wherein the means for imparting
motive force includes a motor coupled to one of a plurality of wheels,
one or more treads, and a combination thereof.
13. A hobby robot having a support structure, the hobby robot
comprising: a cavity defined within the support structure, wherein the
cavity includes means positioned within the cavity for removably
coupling at least one mounting element to an interior portion of the
cavity; and means for securing an encasement shell to the support
structure.
14. The hobby robot of claim 13, further comprising the encasement
shell for receiving the support structure therein.
15. The hobby robot of claim 13, further comprising means attached to
the support structure for imparting motive force to the support
structure.
16. The hobby robot of claim 15, wherein the means for imparting
motive force to the support structure includes one of wheels, one or
more treads, and a combination thereof attached to the support
structure.
17. The hobby robot of claim 13, wherein the mounting element is in
one of a substantially horizontal orientation and substantially
vertical orientation.
18. The hobby robot of claim 13, wherein the means for securing the
encasement shell to the support structure is one of a snap fit,
friction fit, screwing and bolting.
19. The hobby robot of claim 13, wherein the means for removably
coupling the mounting element is one of slide rails, screws, and
fasteners.
20. The hobby robot of claim 13, wherein the cavity is substantially
rectilinear.
21. The hobby robot of claim 13, wherein the mounting element is one
of a mother/daughter board, hard disk drive, optical drive, media
reader, non-volatile/volatile memory, slide rail, speaker system, I/O
interface, rack mount, riser card, tray, and face plate.
Padu
<dttw...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Any comments on Whitebox Robotics trying to get a patent for a robot
> with a PC inside? There HAS to be prior art on this. I believe in
> intellectual property but this idea doesn't seem new to me.
>
> You can go to the www.uspto.gov website and look up patent
> applications (not issued patents). Do a search for Thomas Burick and
> his application will come up.
>
> I want to sell a robot with an ITX motherboard inside but there could
> be complications if this patent issues. I'm looking to the community
> for prior art references.
>
> Thanks,
> Danh
>
> Here is a copy of the claims:
>
> The invention claimed is:
>
I'm sure and othes will be more specific that there is prior art. But that
is not guarantee that this guy won't have his patent accepted. I'm also a
photographer, and I can provide you with an interesting example of such
patents.
Without being too specific, the guy patented a certain workflow that
comprises of taking pictures of sport events and then publishing the
pictures to be sold on a web site that has a search mechanism (by bib
number, clothes color or approximate time the participant passed by the
camera).
The claims section is as long as this one, and kind of generic too. And if
you think, people have been selling pictures of sporting events on the
internet since the internet (and digital photography) is known. In my
opinion (and I'm not a lawyer), his patent won't hold on court, but that
doesn't keep him from hassling other photographers (and event sponsors). He
sends a letter for any photographer selling pictures on the internet warning
about the "patent infringement" and to discuss licensing options. Most of
photographers will say "f-you very much" and go on about their days, but
others, afraid of the amazingly high costs of going to court on a patent
case will simply bow and pay the license fees.
We may be talking about something similar here. If his patent is approved
and even if your project doesn't infringe all of his claims (which probably
won't), he may start doing the same...
Cheers
Padu
Pogo
> Any comments on Whitebox Robotics trying to get a patent for a robot
> with a PC inside? There HAS to be prior art on this. I believe in
> intellectual property but this idea doesn't seem new to me.
>
> You can go to the www.uspto.gov website and look up patent
> applications (not issued patents). Do a search for Thomas Burick and
> his application will come up.
>
> I want to sell a robot with an ITX motherboard inside but there could
> be complications if this patent issues. I'm looking to the community
> for prior art references.
>
> Thanks,
> Danh
>
> Here is a copy of the claims:
>
> The invention claimed is:
>
> 1. A hobby robot having an encasement shell surrounding a support
> structure, wherein the hobby robot is comprised of: means for securing
> the encasement shell to the support structure; at least one cavity
> ...
> snipped here by JCD
> ...
> reader, non-volatile/volatile memory, slide rail, speaker system, I/O
> interface, rack mount, riser card, tray, and face plate.
>
This might be one starting point : http://www.trossenrobotics.com/tutorials/tutorialshome.aspx
I also want to do something similar to what you are talking about (but not exactly). If I am not mistaken, they can't really patent the *idea* of using a PC inside a robot, right? But they can patent their particular shell and features about it that make it unique, I would think? Admittedly I don't have legal training or even much experience, so take that with a grain of salt!
JCD
Hotwing
Newton(486 inside), Androbot B.O.B. and the Topo 2, and for that
matter even the RB5X (INS8073 Microprocessor) uses a card cage system
with a back plane and externally accessable periphials. Even more the
Heathkit Hero 2000 was an 8088 on a backplane system with a floppy
drive.
I respect what Tom is doing, but I dont think his patent holds any
weight. These things have already been done.
Perhaps I should send him a nasty gram claiming that he is infringing
on my own patents for the RB5X even if they are expired (filed in
1982,83)..... (Card Cage, own powe rsource, option covers, floppy
option (even if it was never made, but patented), speaker system, I/O
interface, mobility ....)
Gordon McComb
John, We'll be calling you as an expert witness! No one knows more about
old robots than you. Seriously. (And I think you have many of them in
your garage...)
-- Gordon
dttw...@aol.com
prior art and prevent the WhiteBox application from being granted.
I did some more research and found that WhiteBox got a design patent
but failed to get a utility patent so far. I suspect the USPTO
rejected his first claim which would invalidate the other dependent 20
claims.
Danh
Pogo
> Do you have a patent number on your RB5X? This would be considered
> prior art and prevent the WhiteBox application from being granted.
>
> I did some more research and found that WhiteBox got a design patent
> but failed to get a utility patent so far. I suspect the USPTO
> rejected his first claim which would invalidate the other dependent 20
> claims.
>
What's the difference between a "design patent" and a "utility patent", in a nutshell ?
Thanks !
JCD
Pogo
> Any comments on Whitebox Robotics trying to get a patent for a robot
> with a PC inside? There HAS to be prior art on this. I believe in
> intellectual property but this idea doesn't seem new to me.
>
> You can go to the www.uspto.gov website and look up patent
> applications (not issued patents). Do a search for Thomas Burick and
> his application will come up.
>
> I want to sell a robot with an ITX motherboard inside but there could
> be complications if this patent issues. I'm looking to the community
> for prior art references.
Here's some links for you to research. Happy hunting !
http://www.epiacenter.com/modules.php?name=Sections&sop=viewarticle&artid=61
Good page - but has nasty popups:
http://home.scarlet.be/~mhorst/robot.html
http://oap.sourceforge.net/index.php
Gordon McComb
>
> Do you have a patent number on your RB5X? This would be considered
> prior art and prevent the WhiteBox application from being granted.
The prior art is the product itself, whether or not ever for sale, as
long as it has been publicly demonstrated or published prior to his
filing. I suspect the RB5X patents John refers to are design patents,
which don't apply here, but in any case, it doesn't matter, Claim 1 of
WB's patent is dependent on a hole ("opening") in the enchasement shell
that allows the insertion or removal of a part. That's basically what it
comes down to: a way to get something into the robot without taking it
apart, or removing its case. Secondarily, Claim 1 has this part protrude
through the opening, as a disk drive would in a PC.
While RB5X is generally designed where its case (shell) is removed to
get to the inside, and its parts are fully enclosed, in fact a
well-known picture of this mid-80's robot shows a person plugging a PROM
into a socket, through an opening of the encasement shell. The socket
serves as "at least one mounting element through an opening," and when
plugged in, the PROM protrudes through the opening. The PROM serves a
critical function of the robot, such as voice, and is not merely
decorative (Claim 3).
Look about half way down the page, under Software:
http://www.robotgallery.com/robotgallery/rb5x/
Life sucks.
-- Gordon
dttw...@aol.com
<_REMOVE_discard3@_REMOVE_THIS_waycoolgear.com> wrote:
> <dttwo...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1172019014.7...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
In a nutshell, a design patent is based on the "look" of a product and
a utility patent is based on the "function" of a product.
robotworkshop
wrote:
Hello,
There is a LOT of prior art which would negate a many if not most of
the
claims. The claim of the drive bay alone has been on the HERO 2000
since day one, there were room for two on the Hubot, the Newton has
a single floppy bay, the Gemini had it's removable wafer drive, etc.
For the actual off the shelf PC components the Newton would probably
be
the best Prior art for that one. They started with the XT based 8088
PC
but since it was a standard form factor many people yanked out the
original motherboard and upgraded it to newer motherboards like 486
based ones. Going much faster posed a problem with some of the hard
coded software delays but that is another story...
The BOB/XA would have been a close second with an industry standard
type bus on it's motherboard which had standard expansion slots.
I suppose I should go and review all those claims and see how they
match
up to my HERO robots. Some of those claims would sound like HERO
Jr since it uses removable cartridges, and the head panel itself has
wing nuts so it is easily removable for access to the main electronics
in the Head. Does anyone have the # of the design patent? It would
be interesting to see how it looks compared to a HERO 1 or HERO Jr
since that is based more on the appearance of the robot.
While a few of the older robots sold well, some of the other robots
were
sold in small numbers and many people forgot about them. They were
still there first and I have a lot of respect for all the people that
created them!
Best Regards,
Robert
Gordon McComb
> There is a LOT of prior art which would negate a many if not most of
> the
> claims. The claim of the drive bay alone has been on the HERO 2000
> since day one, there were room for two on the Hubot, the Newton has
> a single floppy bay, the Gemini had it's removable wafer drive, etc.
>
> For the actual off the shelf PC components the Newton would probably
> be
> the best Prior art for that one. They started with the XT based 8088
> PC
> but since it was a standard form factor many people yanked out the
> original motherboard and upgraded it to newer motherboards like 486
> based ones. Going much faster posed a problem with some of the hard
> coded software delays but that is another story...
I'm not as familiar with the Newton, but of course any commercially
available or publicly demonstrated design could serve as prior art.
NoteL Danh talked about the WB patent covering a PC motherboard inside,
and that's not what this patent is about. The patent is basically for
adding and removing components through the outer shell without taking
the robot apart. With the HERO and the RB5X, for example, you had to at
least partially disassemble it -- including removing all or part of the
outer shell -- in order to gain access to the internals. The fact that
the RB5X or whatever used a PC board with a backplane is not relevent.
What would be relevent is any prior art where you can take a critical
components things off the robot and put other things on, WITHOUT
dissassembly of anything, particularly the outer decorative shell. If
you have to take the robot apart to remove or replace the drive it
doesn't count. The patent is not trying to claim this.
IMO, the RB5X and its PROM is the closest example of prior art that I
could remember for the things raised in Claim 1.
-- Gordon
dttw...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the info. I also like looking at the industrial design of
the vintage robots in your gallery.
dttw...@aol.com
wrote:
I don't see where claim 1 implies that you don't have to take the
robot apart. Claim one sounds like a robot shell place around a
standard PC case. He makes reference to that in his summary of
invention "The support structure is modeled after current industry
standard personal computer cases"
Seems obvious to me. If I put a mini itx motherboard in a robot I need
to have a mounting struture for the board along with mounts for PCI
cards, etc. That's all I'm looking to do.
If you're correct and his patent is about not having to disassemble
the bot then it's no big deal. It would be a narrow claim with easy
work arounds.
Danh
Gordon McComb
> I don't see where claim 1 implies that you don't have to take the
> robot apart. Claim one sounds like a robot shell place around a
> standard PC case. He makes reference to that in his summary of
> invention "The support structure is modeled after current industry
> standard personal computer cases"
This is pretty common in patents. They don't really say what they mean,
at least not directly. As you read through the claims you can see the
common thread is about inserting components in and out, sometimes
through trays, through openings in the shell. Since a patent doesn't
cover implied claims, and the patent never discusses dissassembly of the
shell to get to the support structure where the mechanics actually are,
the only other conclusion (IMO) is that the claims cover
inserting/removing components without disassembly.
*That*, actually, is somewhat novel, and it is not something you
commonly see. However (IMO), there is prior art, as I previously noted,
that renders the claim moot.
> Seems obvious to me. If I put a mini itx motherboard in a robot I need
> to have a mounting struture for the board along with mounts for PCI
> cards, etc. That's all I'm looking to do.
This part is clearly old-hat, and no patent could cover simply fastening
a computer into a robot. As that notion seems rather silly, it's what
should give rise that the WB patent is about something else.
> If you're correct and his patent is about not having to disassemble
> the bot then it's no big deal. It would be a narrow claim with easy
> work arounds.
Bear in mind I don't mean to speak with authority, and I'm just stating
an opinion. If you are bringing a product to market, it might be wise to
consult with an attorney to get his/her judgement. You are now on record
that you are aware of the patent (though you can infringe either way).
-- Gordon
dttw...@aol.com
wrote:
The main intention was to look for leads on prior art. I'm not
impressed with what I've seen so far with the personal robotics
industry. Too much imitation and not enough innovation and this
becomes even more evident looking at the robotgallery website. Let's
all step it up a notch and build something usefull. I'm also guilty of
building useless 6 legged robots that end up costing way too much
money and time. It's what Colin Angle termed "demo bots" at one of the
robot conferences. By the way, if you go to youtube and type in Colin
Angle you can see his keynote at CED.
Danh
Gordon McComb
> The main intention was to look for leads on prior art. I'm not
> impressed with what I've seen so far with the personal robotics
> industry. Too much imitation and not enough innovation and this
> becomes even more evident looking at the robotgallery website. Let's
> all step it up a notch and build something usefull. I'm also guilty of
> building useless 6 legged robots that end up costing way too much
> money and time. It's what Colin Angle termed "demo bots" at one of the
> robot conferences. By the way, if you go to youtube and type in Colin
> Angle you can see his keynote at CED.
I think it all depends on how you define "useful." Many people build
robots because it is a personal challenge for them. It doesn't matter
that the same thing has been built a thousand times before. What matters
is it's the first time for that person.
No one faults amateur radio enthusiasts for getting excited about
talking to someone on the other side of the globe when anyone can do the
same thing with a $5 telephone. What makes it special is that the ham
studied and learned and figured out how to do the transmission himself.
And certainly few suggest running marathons ("been there, done that") or
climbing mountains ("that again?") is not useful. Well, maybe not to
them...
Most of the times these "demos" do not advance the art, but that doesn't
detract from their usefulness for personal improvement.
If industry has not yet come up with a truly "useful" personal robot
that's not more hassle than just doing the work ourselves, perhaps we
don't need one. That's the other way of looking at it.
-- Gordon