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 .
Claims 19-22, 24, and 25 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2, 12-18, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slawinski (PGPub 2015/0343644) in view of Furman et al. (PGPub 2024/0423851).
Slawinski teaches a system for controlling a pitch (forward/rear inclination, preventing overturning) of an endless track vehicle 100 comprising: one or more processors 162; a non-transitory computer readable memory (programmed memory) communicatively coupled to the processor of the drive system and comprising computer readable program instructions (control program 160) executable by the processor for: driving the endless track vehicle in a given direction; monitoring a pitch angle of the endless track vehicle while moving along the given direction (positional sensors 141 include pitch, roll and yaw angular rate sensors, para [0082])). Slawinski teaches a Ridge traversal Routine (para [0143]-[0151]) that limits the speed of movement, which consequently limits the rate of variation of pitch angle of the vehicle, at a point of pitch variation (as the vehicle traverses a ridge). Slawinski teaches that “if the vehicle travels too fast over a ridge, the rotational acceleration imparted to the vehicle may cause the vehicle to flip”, therefore, the routine “operates to limit the velocity of the vehicle when crossing a ridge” and “may include a velocity limit, preventing the vehicle from exceeding the velocity when traversing a ridge” (the ridge representing an area of changing pitch [para 0143]). This system is operable when traveling straight up an incline and, in Figure 4, appears to traverse the ridge 20 after traveling straight up the incline.
It appears that the Ridge Traversing Routine is responsive to range sensors, as the vehicle is moving forward, that anticipate a variation in pitch ahead of the vehicle rather than operating as or after the pitch angle of the vehicle is determined to be varying (using inclinometer data).
Furman teaches a system for controlling tracked vehicle drive in response to the determination that the vehicle is on or transitioning to or from a slope or stairway. The control system includes a “sensor 156 configured to be used by the controller 110 to determine the angle 84 at which the track is positioned” (para [0055]) and “the sensor 156 measures the angular position of part of the patient transfer apparatus (e.g., the track assembly 50) relative to the direction of gravity”, “Coupling the sensor 156 directly to the track assembly 50 allows the sensor 156 to provide a direct indication of the track angle 84 when traversing the set of stairs. The sensor 156 may be a track angle sensor configured to send a signal to the controller 110 indicative of the track angle 84.” It also teaches that sensor 156 can be used in place of or in addition to range sensors 160 when controlling drive on stairways and over transitions onto stairways (para [0066]; “when ascending the stairs, the controller 110 begins moving the motor 54 slowly in step 312. In some embodiments, the sensor 160 (FIG. 1) detects the proximity to the bottom of the set of stairs before starting the motor 54. Alternatively, the sensor 156 (FIG. 1) is used to detect that the track has been tilted back to meet the stairs, and the controller 110 starts moving the track 52 slowly.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range traversing routine of Slawinski to include a monitoring system including pitch angle for determining the presence of the vehicle at a crest or ridge by determining that the vehicle pitch is changing, in view of Furman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the vehicle based on actual change in pitch rather than anticipated change in pitch, or for redundancy, for greater reliability and precision in controlling travel on sloping ground.
Regarding claim 2, Slawinski teaches controlling the driving of the endless track vehicle which includes decelerating a velocity of the endless track vehicle in the given direction (decelerating to a stop, see para [0107]).
Regarding claims 12-14, Slawinski teaches monitoring a roll of the endless track vehicle while moving along the given direction (roll sensor 141, para [0082], [0094], [0109]) and, in response, controlling the driving of the endless track vehicle to decelerate the endless track vehicle (see para [0107], [0109]).
Regarding claim 15, Slawinski teaches the driving, the monitoring and the controlling of the driving are performed in an autonomous self-driving mode of the endless track vehicle (“autonomous mode”, see para [0109]).
Regarding claim 16, Slawinski teaches the driving, the monitoring and the controlling of the driving are performed in overriding mode of the endless track vehicle to override operator commands (see “emergency override condition” in manual mode, para [0107]).
Regarding claim 17, Slawinski teaches the driving, the monitoring and the controlling of the driving are performed automatically (para [0106[ and [0109]).
Regarding claim 18, Slawinski teaches at least one orientation sensor (pitch, roll and yaw sensors).
Regarding claim 23, Slawinski teaches an endless track vehicle 100 comprising: a body (chassis 112) defining a load bearing surface (upper surface of chassis portions 312B, shown in Figure 8); at least one track 16L, 16R, rotatably mounted to the body to move the body; a motorization unit (independently operable motors for the tracks, see para [0062], last three lines) to actuate the at least one track; a drive system to operate the motorization unit (motive system, shown in Figure 5, see para [0062[]-[0063]); and the system, described above, collaborating with the drive system.
Regarding claim 26, both references teach continuously monitoring pitch, including as the vehicle is being driven. Specifically, Slawinski teaches a control system that “includes a guidance routine that causes the vehicle to traverse the roof surface in a predetermined, manner using the onboard sensor systems to avoid collision with obstacles and to avoid falling off the roof edges” (para [0090]) and a ridge traversal routine that “operates to limit the velocity of the vehicle when crossing a ridge” (para [0143]) where the sensor systems are continuously operational while the vehicle is in motion.
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slawinski and Furman et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 12-18, 23, and 26 above, and further in view of Johnson ((USPN 5,577,567).
Regarding claim 3, the combination does not clearly teach driving the endless track vehicle in a direction opposite to the driven direction.
Johnson teaches a tracked vehicle for negotiating obstacles, including stairs. It includes a system for controlling the pitch of the vehicle including monitoring pitch and roll (pitch and roll sensors 87; see col. 13, lines 33-41), decreasing velocity to a transition speed during surface angle change (col. 14, lines 6-7), and reversing the motor direction to permit the device to proceed in the opposite direction until the pitch returns to safe parameters (col. 13, lines 36-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to control the vehicle to proceed in a direction opposite the given forward direction when the pitch sensors indicate an unsafe condition, as taught by Johnson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the safety of the vehicle and its payload while on a steep slope or an obstacle.
Regarding claim 4, Johnson teaches driving the vehicle on a stairway.
Regarding claim 5, Slawinski teaches using ultrasonic sensors to anticipate an obstacle. Johnson teaches using ultrasonic range sensors 140 (para [0085]) to monitor a position of the endless track vehicle relative to a transition between the stair case and the landing. It would have been obvious to use the ultrasonic sensors of Slawinski to monitor for stairs, in view of Johnson, in order to detect stairs, which are a typical obstacle in urban environments.
Regarding claim 6, Johnson teaches controlling the driving of the endless track vehicle to decelerate the endless track vehicle when a distance from the transition or obstacle is reached.
Regarding claim 7, monitoring the position of the endless track vehicle is performed by ultrasound sensing (both references teach ultrasonic sensors).
Regarding claim 8, Slawinski teaches monitoring a yaw of the endless track vehicle while moving forward (para [0082], lines 1-2) and both Johnson and JPS’620 teach measuring yaw along the given direction along the stair case.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slawinski and Furman et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 12-18, 23 and 26 above, and further in view of JPS60195620.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the combination does not explicitly teach, upon determining that the yaw is varying, controlling the differential driving of the endless track vehicle to adjust the yaw of the endless track vehicle.
JPS60195620 teaches a system for controlling pitch of a tracked vehicle including, upon determining that the yaw is varying (using yaw sensor 11), controlling the driving of the endless track vehicle to adjust the yaw of the endless track vehicle (automatic provision of correcting direction of a vehicle when on climbing or descending a stair including using yaw sensor 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the yaw of the combination vehicle in response to detected yaw, as taught by JPS60195620, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain a safe orientation of the vehicle on a slope or stairway.
Regarding claim 11, the combination is not explicit as to inducing a difference in direction of rotation between two tracks of the endless track vehicle. However, Slawinski teaches independently, differentially controlling track drive for tight radius turns and precise navigation (para [0062], last 3 lines). It is also well known that steered by driving vehicles, like track vehicles, make tight turns by rotating tracks on opposite sides of the vehicle is opposite directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate the tracks of the combination is opposite directions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to correct any yaw problem in the most expedient way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18, 23, and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Slawinski does not teach that control of variation of pitch angle is after a determination that the pitch angle is varying. The ridge traversal routine of Slawinski does make a determination that a ridge, which is a change in surface pitch, is present and then sets drive to at reduced speed for travel over the ridge. Also, Furman is now relied upon to teach that the determination of a change in slope is based on detected pitch angle using a pitch angle sensor 156 on the track frame, so it reflects the actual pitch angle of the vehicle frame, not a projected pitch angle. It also clearly indicates that a pitch or angle sensor 156 can be used in place of or in addition to a proximity sensor 160 to determine that the slope is different from flat ground. Using a pitch/angle sensor necessitates that the pitch change determination is during the pitch transition so the control is after the angle has begun to vary. Both references continuously monitor the ground to adjust for dangerous surface conditions and control operation after the determination of a dangerous condition has been made. Using an angle sensor in place of or in addition to the proximity sensor to determine angle is clearly taught by Furman. If both types of sensor are used then the combination offers redundancy with respect to angle detection, which promotes reliability and user safety. Using a pitch/angle sensor in place of a proximity sensor determines angle based on actual angle being traversed rather than a projected angle which, again, provides greater certainty and reliability in angle detection, thereby promoting user safety. Therefore, the combination of Slawinski and Fruman is believed to be appropriate and teaches the claimed combination.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
