5 ms·
The claims are reasonably specific actually[1] If your robot doesn't have these specific design choices, plus some others, it's not in violation. * Have a uni
by Bjartr 4y ago
The claims are reasonably specific actually[1]
If your robot doesn't have these specific design choices, plus some others, it's not in violation.
* Have a unibody base
* Have an arm that is raised and lowered along a trapezoidal rail by a belt-driven linear actuator
* Have a fisheye camera mounted on the center pole
[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US11230000B2/en?oq=11%2c230%2c000 https://patents.google.com/patent/US11230000B2/en?oq=11%2c23...
- amelius 4y agoAre these claims OR-ed or AND-ed? Anyway, a base that looks like a Roomba, with a pole and an arm attached to it doesn't strike me as novel.
- Bjartr 4y agoPatent claims are AND. IANAL, but my understanding is if what you built doesn't match the claims exactly, it's not infringing. So, in this case, using a non-belt-driven linear actuator, or using a square rail, or using a two piece base would all be ways of avoiding infringement.