DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt of the preliminary amendment filed 08/10/2016 is acknowledged. This amendment amended the specification and claim 4 and added claims 5-6.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiga et al. (JP 2012-229931 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’) in view of Troy et al. (US 2014/0278221) and Sonura (JP 2010-076630; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claim 1, Chiga et al. discloses an underground exploration apparatus (1) configured to explore underground using electromagnetic waves (MTD paragraph 7), the underground exploration apparatus comprising: a radar unit (2, 5, 6, 53) for underground exploration including an antenna (53) and a transceiver (5, 6); encoders configured to measure an amount of rotation of each of the three wheels (MTD paragraph 55 discloses “(t)he means for measuring the moving speed is, for example, an encoder that measures the rotation of the wheels or axles of the radar main body 2”); a gyroscopic sensor (MTD paragraph discloses using a gyroscope to measure the vibration and tilt but is silent regarding the angular velocity); a terminal configured to control the radar unit (MTD paragraph 13); a second communication unit (6) configured to receive measurement data of underground exploration measured by the radar unit, and a second control unit (8) configured to store the measurement data of underground exploration in a second storage unit in association with the amount of movement of the underground exploration apparatus. (Figs. 1-17, MTD paragraphs 11-62.) Chiga et al. is silent regarding using sensors to obtain measurement data and control the motors in response. Sonura teaches of three torque sensors (17a) configured to measure a torque of each of the three wheels; an acceleration sensor (12b; MTD paragraph 36) configured to measure an acceleration of the underground exploration apparatus; a gyroscopic sensor (MTD paragraphs 35 describing a gyro sensor and measuring tilt and angular velocity) configured to measure a tilt angle and an angular velocity of the underground exploration apparatus; configured to control the three motors individually (MTD paragraph 25); a calculation unit (11) configured to calculate an external force applied to the underground exploration apparatus using the measurement data and calculate an amount of movement of the underground exploration apparatus using the measurement data, a first control unit (18) configured to rotate the three motors individually in response to the external force (MTD paragraph 46-47, 51-53). (Figs. 1-12, MTD paragraph 18-52.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Sonura into the invention of Chiga et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to move in any direction on a floor surface by rotating omnidirectional wheels and freely rotating multiple small rotating bodies provided around the omnidirectional wheels while maintaining the attitude of the cart body at any attitude angle by driving the joint axes of each leg. (MTD paragraph 13.) Chiga et al. does not teach three omni-directional movement type wheels rotatably fixed to three wheel shafts arranged at 120 degrees intervals and configured to move the underground exploration apparatus in any direction by changing a rotation direction and rotation speed of each of the three wheels; three motors configured to rotate the three wheels in a predetermined direction at a predetermined speed; three encoders configured to measure an amount of rotation of each of the three wheels. Troy teaches three omni-directional movement type wheels rotatably fixed to three wheel shafts arranged at 120 degrees intervals and configured to move the underground exploration apparatus in any direction by changing a rotation direction and rotation speed of each of the three wheels ([0011]: “In accordance with a second embodiment, the plurality of omni wheels comprises three omni wheels equidistant from a common center point with axes of rotations at 120 degree angles with respect to each other. ”) and three encoders configured to measure an amount of rotation of each of the three wheels ([0035]: “Omni wheel 22ais attached toa shaft of a rotational encoder 8a, which is mounted to one arm of carriage 18a, while omni wheel 22bis attached to a shaft of a rotational encoder 8b, which is mounted to the other arm of carriage 18a.”) of the respective three omnidirectional wheels ([0028]: “Respective encoders 8a-8d measure rotation of the omni wheel 4a-4d.”) inside of a housing of the manually operable ground penetrating radar device (figures 3 and 4 and paragraph 0031). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiga’s device with Troy’s three wheels to allow the device to rotate freely in all directions while conserving the number of wheels, and with encoders attached to the wheels to record rotation of the wheels for further analysis leading to positional and directional information about the device. Chiga et al., as modified, discloses the terminal includes a first communication unit configured to receive measurement data ([0020]: “The storage section 8, in the search area by moving the radar unit 2, and A-scope data based on the electromagnetic wave received by the wave reception unit 6, a two-dimensional position data acquired by the position measuring unit 3, a direction measuring unit and moving direction information acquired by the 4 is a survey data of one unit, and is configured to store each of the search data for each search position.”) measured by the three encoders, the three torque sensors, the acceleration sensor, and the gyroscopic sensor (data measured taught by Sonura), and store the measurement data in a first storage unit (8). (Figs. 1-17, MTD paragraphs 11-62.) Chiga et al., as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the having separate storage units. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have separate storage units, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With respect to claim 2-3, Chiga et al. is silent regarding different modes. Sonura teaches of a third storage unit (35) configured to store movement mode information indicating a plurality of movement modes with different movement directions (MTD paragraph 61 ‘normal operation mode’ and ‘special operation mode’), wherein the first control unit (11) controls a rotation direction and a rotation speed of each of the three motors to move the underground exploration apparatus in one direction that is a movement direction of one movement mode selected from the plurality of movement modes (MTD paragraph 61); wherein the first control unit performs torque assist control that controls the rotation direction and the rotation speed of each of the three motors to match a direction of the external force applied to the underground exploration apparatus with the movement direction of the one movement mode selected (MTD paragraph 61; MTD paragraphs 52-71 describing driving operation). (Figs. 1-12, MTD paragraph 18-71.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Sonura into the invention of Chiga et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to escape from the current situation. (MTD paragraph 61.)
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiga et al., Troy et al. and Sonura, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (CN 103713603 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claims 4-6, Chiga et al., as modified, is silent regarding an upper speed limit. Yao et al. teaches of when a movement speed of the underground exploration apparatus approaches an upper limit movement speed, the calculation unit outputs warning information indicating that the underground exploration apparatus approaches the upper limit movement speed (MTD paragraph 109). (Fig. 1, MTD paragraphs 20-25, 35-38, 55-56, 109-110.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Yao et al. into the invention of Chiga et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the occurrence of mine logistics accidents and improve the working efficiency of the mine logistics system. (MTD paragraph 14.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614