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, 20-22, 24, and 25 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Recitation of computer readable program instructions to drive the vehicle in a given direction where “the given direction being a straight-line upward trajectory along an incline” associated with monitoring a pitch angle of the vehicle while moving in that direction is not taught by applicant’s original disclosure. Discussion of a straight-line trajectory is only discussed in association with yaw and roll control. Also, applicant’s detailed disclosure discusses a control step of controlling pitch rate “upon determining the pitch angle is varying”, not “after determining that the pitch angle is varying”.
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 Stratton et al (USPN 8,706,363).
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).
Stratton teaches a system for controlling tracked vehicle drive in response to the determination that the vehicle is approaching a crest or ridge. The control system includes “a process [that] may be used once the machine 10 enters the crest zone 103 to determine whether the machine has encountered a change in terrain such as that adjacent crest 102 and automatically reverse movement of the machine away from the crest” (col. 5, lines 40-44). Crest or ridge detection is made using crest detection systems 34 that can include pitch sensor 41 and pitch rate sensor 42 (col. 7, lines 39-51). Stratton also teaches that the crest or ridge detection using pitch angle and pitch rate sensors is an obvious alternative to, or used in conjunction with, a monitoring system using range sensors (vision, laser, radar, or sonar systems; col. 7, lines 51-59).
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 and pitch rate sensors for determining the presence of the vehicle at a crest or ridge by determining that the vehicle pitch is changing, in view of Stratton, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the vehicle based on actual change in pitch rather than anticipated change in pitch 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 [000107]).
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 Stratton 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 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 Stratton 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. It is noted that applicant’s disclosure describes controlling the drive to control a rate of variation of pitch angle “upon determination that the pitch angle is varying”, not “after” determining 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 a reduced speed for travel over the ridge. Also, Stratton is now relied upon to teach that the determination of a change in slope is based on detected pitch angle and pitch rate using pitch angle and pitch rate sensors, so it reflects the actual pitch angle of the vehicle, not a projected pitch angle. Both references continuously monitor the ground to adjust for dangerous surface conditions. The combination of Slawinski and Stratton is believed to teach the claimed combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coulter teaches drive control that is responsive to detected pitch angle and pitch rate (para [0457]-[460]; Fig. 27A)) and is designed to prevent the vehicle from tipping over on inclines.
JP3502335 teaches limiting drive speed based on pitch measured by an inclination sensor 15.
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/