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 .
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13, last 3 lines recites controlling power delivered to the motor “to change orientation”. It is unclear what element changes orientation. Suggestion: Insert “of the machine” after “orientation”.
The remaining claims depend on claims 1 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 2019/0179307).
As to claim 1, Anderson includes a surface maintenance machine (Embodiment of Fig. 7) comprising:
a maintenance head assembly (701) supported by the machine and extending toward a surface, the maintenance head assembly comprising one or more surface maintenance tools (702, 704) for performing a surface maintenance operation (para 25);
first and second wheels (102, 104) for supporting a body (700) of the surface maintenance machine over a surface for movement in a direction of travel, the first and second wheels disposed on opposite sides of a longitudinal centerline (A line at the center point between 102 and 104) of the machine and each having a rotational axis, angles formed between the rotational axes and the longitudinal centerline of the machine being fixed such that the first and second wheels rotate about fixed rotational axes (Fig. 1c and para 26);
an operator grab handle (714a) positioned to the rear of a transverse centerline (A line at the center point between the front and rear of the machine) of the machine, the operator grab handle permitting the operator to apply a force on the grab handle urging the machine to change orientation towards a different direction of travel (para 29);
a first motor (108e) coupled to the first wheel to drive the first wheel;
a second motor (109e) coupled to the second wheel to drive the second wheel; and
one or more motor controllers (116) operatively connected to the first motor and the second motor, the one or more controllers configured to operate in a torque assist mode, in torque assist mode, the one or more controllers configured to:
sense a parameter indicative of an amount of motor load on the first motor and an amount of motor load on the second motor (Rotation sensors 114 and 115 sense motor load on both motors by sensing motor current; para 41 and 48),
control the power delivered to the first motor and the power delivered to the second motor to maintain a torque output setting (Torque is guided to a required level; para 29) in light of the motor load on the first motor and on the second motor and in light of the force applied on the grab handle urging the machine to change orientation (para 50), whereby the control of the power delivered to the first motor and the second motor to maintain the setting of torque output assists the force applied on the grab handle to change orientation (of the machine) [Cleaner orientation changes from power sent to each wheel to change their velocity plus torque; para 41].
As to claim 3, wherein the one or more controllers is configured to operate in a manual mode and in an autonomous mode, the manual mode adapted for a user to operate the machine and the autonomous mode adapted for the one or more controllers to operate the machine independent of a user (para 26).
As to claim 4, further comprising a user input (714b) for the user to select between the manual mode and the autonomous mode (para 26).
As to claim 5, wherein the one or more controllers operate in velocity control mode when operating in autonomous mode, and in the velocity control mode the one or more controllers controls the power delivered to the first motor and to the second motor to maintain desired rotational speeds of the first motor and to the second motor (Paragraph 44 and 46 discuss control of motor torque, and when torque is controlled, motor velocity and power also would be).
As to claim 6, further including one or more non-driven swivel caster wheels (708; para 26).
As to claim 9, further including one or more sensors operatively connected to the one or more controllers, the sensors being one or more of LIDAR sensors, laser beacons, ultrasound sensors, location sensors, and vision sensors (A vision sensor [camera 119] is included), and the one or more sensors detecting features of the environment surrounding the machine and providing sensed information for the machine to operate in an autonomous mode (para 79).
As to claim 10, wherein the setting of the torque output of the first motor and the torque output of the second motor is user-selectable (Control panel 714b is for controlling the torque; para 44 and 46). Also, the user selects the torque by choosing how high the steering strength is. Note: The claim never requires a control panel having torque choices.
As to claim 11, wherein the sensed parameter indicative of the amount of motor load is a sensed electrical current to the first motor and a sensed electrical current to the second motor (Current sensors measure current through each motor; para 48).
As to claim 12, wherein the torque assist mode employs a feedback loop where the one or more controllers compare the sensed parameter indicative of the amount of motor load for the first motor to the setting to maintain the torque output for the first motor and adjust the power provided to the first motor to maintain the setting of the torque output of the first motor (para 50 and 55 discuss a feedback loop used to guide torque/velocity of the wheels to a required amount).
As to claim 13, Anderson includes a method of providing a torque assist mode to a surface maintenance machine, the surface maintenance machine having the elements discussed in the claim 1 rejection and each feature seen in method form (See the claim 1 rejection above). The body is 700.
As to claim 15, further comprising receiving a selection to one of a manual mode (seen in blocks 226 and 228) and an autonomous mode (seen in block 224), the manual mode enabling the torque assist mode and being adapted for a user to operate the machine, the autonomous mode disabling the torque assist mode (in block 224, the machine is idle) and adapted for the one or more controllers to operate the machine independent of a user (Fig. 2E, and para 48 and 50).
Claim 16 is rejected in same way as claim 10.
Claim 17 is rejected in same way as claim 10. Paragraph 44 and 46 discuss control of torque, and when torque is controlled, motor velocity and power also would be.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2019/0179307) in view of Jung (US 2017/0156560).
As to claim 2, Anderson includes the ability to choose the forward speed of the machine, which the controller being in the torque assist mode (para 72), but the machine does not have an off mode in which the controller does not provide power to either motor (such as an off mode where the cleaner stops moving).
Anderson does not include: further including a bail operatively connected to the one or more controllers and positioned adjacent to the operator grab handle, the bail being movable to two positions, a first of the two positions causing the one or more controllers operate in the torque assist mode, the operation in torque assist mode causing the machine to move forward on the underlying surface via rotation of the first and second wheels, the second of the two positions being an off mode where the one or more controllers do not provide power to the first motor and to the second motor.
Jung includes a surface maintenance machine having a start/stop button 121b to start or stop the machine, which provides an off mode where the cleaner stops moving (para 135 and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to modify Anderson to have a start/stop button 121b to start or stop the machine, as taught by Jung, thereby providing the above claim features, in order to permit the cleaner to stop moving for maintenance work.
Claim 14 is rejected in same way as claim 2.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2019/0179307) in view of Ickes (US 10,405,723).
As to claim 8, Anderson does not include: wherein the one or more non-driven swivel caster wheels are positioned forward of the transverse centerline of the machine.
Ickes includes a surface maintenance machine having non-driven swivel caster wheels (140, 142; Fig. 2) positioned forward of a transverse centerline (A line at the center point between the front and rear of the machine) of the machine (column 5, lines 58-67 and column 6, lines 1-25). The machine includes both front (140, 142) and rear wheels (150) that are non-driven.
It would have been obvious to modify the set of wheels of Anderson to have both front and rear wheels, as taught by Ickes, in order to further stabilize the machine during travel, thereby preventing tipping of the machine more effectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-12, Applicant argued that Anderson does not include the controller configured to: control the power delivered to the first motor and the power delivered to the second motor to maintain a torque output setting in light of the motor load on the first motor and on the second motor and in light of the force applied on the grab handle urging the machine to change orientation, whereby the control of the power delivered to the first motor and the second motor to maintain the setting of torque output assists the force applied on the grab handle to change orientation.
The controller is configured to: control the power delivered to the first motor and the power delivered to the second motor to maintain (keep) a torque output setting (Torque is guided to a required level using steering torque mechanisms 108, 109 that provide positive torque to drive wheels 102, 104; para 29) in light of the motor load on the first motor and on the second motor and in light of the force applied on the grab handle urging the machine to change orientation (Application of lateral forces to handle 714A allows the user to easily steer the machine by increasing/decreasing the velocity of wheels 102, 104, which means the wheel torque would also be increased/decreased. That means additional force was provided to the wheels in order to supplement the force provided by the operator. If the velocity of the wheels increased, the wheel motor current could not have dropped to zero or near zero. Also, the term “freewheeling” has no nullifying effect on the information in the paragraph; para 50), whereby the control of the power delivered to the first motor and the second motor to maintain (keep) the setting of torque output assists the force applied on the grab handle to change orientation (of the machine) [Cleaner orientation changes because the left and right wheels 102, 104 are made to have a different velocity and torque; para 41].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723