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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. JP 2001097221 A in view of Kim ‘914 US 20230001914 A1 and Yasui et al. US 20100268420 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Yamashita et al. discloses [a trolley comprising:
a vehicle body 4;] (Fig. 1; Page 2, lines 13-20)
[left and right omnidirectional wheels 1 provided on the vehicle body for moving the vehicle body in all directions along a floor surface;] (Fig. 4-7; Page 2, lines 13-20)
[left and right drive units 2 for driving each of the omnidirectional wheels;] (Fig. 2; Page 2, lines 13-20)
[a handle 3 provided on the vehicle body for receiving an operation of a user;] (Fig. 5; Page 2, lines 13-20)
[a sensor 5 for detecting a longitudinal load, a lateral load, and a moment about a vertical axis applied to the handle; and] (Fig. 1 Page 4, lines 15-20)
[a control device 6 for controlling the drive units based on the longitudinal load, the lateral load, and the moment about the vertical axis detected by the sensor,] (Fig. 1; Abstract; “…a control means 6 loaded on the car body 4 optimizes a driving element value D of a driving system composed of a driving element D1 for longitudinally driving the car body 4, a driving element D2 for laterally driving the car body and a driving element D3 for revolving the car body on the basis of the operating force H detected by the operating force detecting means 5…”)
wherein [the control device:
sets a target longitudinal velocity of the vehicle body based on the longitudinal load, a target lateral velocity of the vehicle body based on the lateral load, and a target angular velocity about the vertical axis of the vehicle body based on the moment about the vertical axis,] (Page 23, lines 10-14) and
[controls the drive units based on the target longitudinal velocity, the corrected target lateral velocity, and the target angular velocity.] (Fig. 1; Abstract)
Yamashita et al. does not disclose wherein the control device corrects the target lateral velocity based on the target angular velocity so that an absolute value of the target lateral velocity decreases as an absolute value of the target angular velocity increases.
Kim ‘914 teaches [wherein the control device corrects the target lateral velocity based on the target angular velocity so that an absolute value of the target lateral velocity decreases as an absolute value of the target angular velocity increases.] (Paragraph 0081; Kim ‘914 discloses that when the roll angle estimated value of the vehicle exceeds a reference roll angle, the controller increases the target turning radius to decrease the lateral acceleration of the vehicle due to the risk of rollover. Because the roll angle increases with the vehicle’s angular velocity (i.e., a higher turning rate produces a greater roll angle), the controller’s operation effectively reduces the vehicle’s lateral motion as the angular velocity increases. Specifically, the system corrects/limits the lateral acceleration in response to an increase in angular motion, thereby decreasing the absolute value of lateral motion as the absolute value of angular velocity increases.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the correction of the target lateral velocity based on the target angular velocity of Kim ‘914 with the trolly of Yamashita et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the trolley to maintain stability during turning maneuvers while still responding to user input, thus improving safety and handling.
Yamashita et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the control device sets a lateral velocity upper limit based on the target angular velocity, wherein the lateral velocity upper limit is set so that an absolute value of the lateral velocity upper limit decreases as the absolute value of the target angular velocity increases, and corrects the target lateral velocity so that the absolute value of the target lateral velocity is less than or equal to the lateral velocity upper limit.
Yasui et al. teaches [wherein the control device sets a lateral velocity upper limit based on the target angular velocity, wherein the lateral velocity upper limit is set so that an absolute value of the lateral velocity upper limit decreases as the absolute value of the target angular velocity increases, and corrects the target lateral velocity so that the absolute value of the target lateral velocity is less than or equal to the lateral velocity upper limit.] (Paragraph 0198; Yasui et al. discloses that the movement control device includes a maximum steering angular velocity calculating means BC70 that determines a maximum steering angular velocity based on detected steering angular velocities, and a determining means BC40 that sets a reference lateral acceleration based on the calculated maximum steering angular velocity. The reference further teaches that as the maximum steering angular velocity increases, the reference lateral acceleration decreases, and conversely. Because lateral acceleration corresponds to the rate of change of lateral velocity, the reference effectively established a lateral motion upper limit that decreases as the angular velocity increases.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the controller function of having the lateral velocity upper limit relate to the target angular velocity of Yasui et al. with the trolley of Yamashita et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the trolley to maintain stability during turns while still responding to user input, thus improving handling and operation safety.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. in view of Kim ‘914, Yasui et al. and further in view of Kim et al. ‘977 US 20190126977 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the lateral velocity upper limit is set to a value greater than or equal to a predetermined lower limit.
Kim et al. ‘977 teaches [wherein the lateral velocity upper limit is set to a value greater than or equal to a predetermined lower limit.] (Paragraph 0020; Kim et al. ‘977 discloses that the controller determines whether the current lateral acceleration exceeds a second limit value that is lower than a first limit value. When the lateral acceleration is greater than the second limit value, steering torque is reduced, while if it is not greater, the torque is set to zero and control flags are updated. The use of both first and second limit values is constrained to remain above a defined lower limit value, thus setting the lateral acceleration (depending on the lateral velocity) upper limit to be greater than or equal to a predetermined lower limit.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the lateral velocity upper limit of Kim et al. ‘977 with the trolley of Yamashita et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for more stable and adaptive control of the vehicle by maintaining lateral velocity within defined upper and lower limits, thus improving driving stability and responsiveness under various road conditions.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. in view of Kim ‘914, Yasui et al. and further in view of Toko et al. US 20200010112 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the control device corrects the target angular velocity so that the absolute value of the target angular velocity becomes less than or equal to a predetermined angular velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target angular velocity instead of the target angular velocity.
Toko et al. teaches [wherein the control device corrects the target angular velocity so that the absolute value of the target angular velocity becomes less than or equal to a predetermined angular velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target angular velocity instead of the target angular velocity.] (Paragraph 0042-0043; Toko et al. discloses that when the absolute value of the control angular velocity exceeds a first upper limit angular velocity, a minimum value selection unit selects the smaller of the absolute values of the control angular velocity and the upper limit angular velocity, and outputs that value for processing. Therefore, Toko et al. teaches correcting the control angular velocity so that the absolute value of the control angular velocity does not exceed a predetermined upper limit value. The corrected angular velocity is then used for control of the system. Specifically, Toko et al. discloses the feature of correcting the target angular velocity such that is absolute value becomes less than or equal to a predetermined angular velocity upper limit, and controlling based on the corrected angular velocity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the target angular velocity correction of Toko et al. with the trolley of Yamashita et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the prevention of excessive rotational speeds that could result in vehicle damage or turning inconsistency, thus ensuring predicable and controlled rotation of the trolley.
Regarding claims 9, Yamashita et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the control device corrects the target lateral velocity based on a correction value of the target angular velocity so that the absolute value of the target lateral velocity decreases as an absolute value of the correction value of the target angular velocity increases.] (Paragraph 0081 of Kim ‘914; Kim ‘914 discloses that when the roll angle estimated value of the vehicle exceeds a reference roll angle, the controller increases the target turning radius to decrease the lateral acceleration of the vehicle due to the risk of rollover. Because the roll angle increases with the vehicle’s angular velocity (i.e., a higher turning rate produces a greater roll angle), the controller’s operation effectively reduces the vehicle’s lateral motion as the angular velocity increases. Specifically, the system corrects/limits the lateral acceleration in response to an increase in angular motion, thereby decreasing the absolute value of lateral motion as the absolute value of angular velocity increases.)
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. in view of Kim ‘914, Yasui et al., Kim et al. ‘977 and further in view of Toko et al. US 20200010112 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the control device corrects the target angular velocity so that the absolute value of the target angular velocity becomes less than or equal to a predetermined angular velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target angular velocity instead of the target angular velocity.
Toko et al. teaches [wherein the control device corrects the target angular velocity so that the absolute value of the target angular velocity becomes less than or equal to a predetermined angular velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target angular velocity instead of the target angular velocity.] (Paragraph 0042-0043; Toko et al. discloses that when the absolute value of the control angular velocity exceeds a first upper limit angular velocity, a minimum value selection unit selects the smaller of the absolute values of the control angular velocity and the upper limit angular velocity, and outputs that value for processing. Therefore, Toko et al. teaches correcting the control angular velocity so that the absolute value of the control angular velocity does not exceed a predetermined upper limit value. The corrected angular velocity is then used for control of the system. Specifically, Toko et al. discloses the feature of correcting the target angular velocity such that is absolute value becomes less than or equal to a predetermined angular velocity upper limit, and controlling based on the corrected angular velocity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the target angular velocity correction of Toko et al. with the trolley of Yamashita et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the prevention of excessive rotational speeds that could result in vehicle damage or turning inconsistency, thus ensuring predicable and controlled rotation of the trolley.
Regarding claims 11, Yamashita et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the control device corrects the target lateral velocity based on a correction value of the target angular velocity so that the absolute value of the target lateral velocity decreases as an absolute value of the correction value of the target angular velocity increases.] (Paragraph 0081 of Kim ‘914; Kim ‘914 discloses that when the roll angle estimated value of the vehicle exceeds a reference roll angle, the controller increases the target turning radius to decrease the lateral acceleration of the vehicle due to the risk of rollover. Because the roll angle increases with the vehicle’s angular velocity (i.e., a higher turning rate produces a greater roll angle), the controller’s operation effectively reduces the vehicle’s lateral motion as the angular velocity increases. Specifically, the system corrects/limits the lateral acceleration in response to an increase in angular motion, thereby decreasing the absolute value of lateral motion as the absolute value of angular velocity increases.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. in view of Kim ‘914, Yasui et al. and further in view of Arno et al. BR 112021005800 A2.
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the control device corrects the target longitudinal velocity so that an absolute value of the target longitudinal velocity is less than or equal to a predetermined longitudinal velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target longitudinal velocity instead of the target longitudinal velocity.
Arno et al. teaches [wherein the control device corrects the target longitudinal velocity so that an absolute value of the target longitudinal velocity is less than or equal to a predetermined longitudinal velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target longitudinal velocity instead of the target longitudinal velocity.] (Paragraph 0014; Arno discloses that the controller regulates the forward speed of the vehicle so that it remains below a maximum speed while maintaining performance targets. Specifically, the controller adjusts/limits the forward speed when it approaches the maximum allowable value to ensure operation within a safe optimal range. This correlates to correcting the target longitudinal velocity so that its absolute value does not exceed a predetermined upper limit, and controlling the drive system based on the corrected longitudinal velocity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the forward speed limiting function of Amo et al. with the trolley of Yamashita et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the trolley to prevent excessive forward speed that could cause collision or damage to the drive system, thus ensuring controlled forward motion under varying load conditions.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. in view of Kim ‘914, Yasui et al., Kim et al. ‘977 US 20190126977 A1 and further in view of Arno et al. BR 112021005800 A2.
Regarding claim 15, Yamashita et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the control device corrects the target longitudinal velocity so that an absolute value of the target longitudinal velocity is less than or equal to a predetermined longitudinal velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target longitudinal velocity instead of the target longitudinal velocity.
Arno et al. teaches [wherein the control device corrects the target longitudinal velocity so that an absolute value of the target longitudinal velocity is less than or equal to a predetermined longitudinal velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target longitudinal velocity instead of the target longitudinal velocity.] (Paragraph 0014; Arno discloses that the controller regulates the forward speed of the vehicle so that it remains below a maximum speed while maintaining performance targets. Specifically, the controller adjusts/limits the forward speed when it approaches the maximum allowable value to ensure operation within a safe optimal range. This correlates to correcting the target longitudinal velocity so that its absolute value does not exceed a predetermined upper limit, and controlling the drive system based on the corrected longitudinal velocity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the forward speed limiting function of Amo et al. with the trolley of Yamashita et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the trolley to prevent excessive forward speed that could cause collision or damage to the drive system, thus ensuring controlled forward motion under varying load conditions.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. in view of Kim ‘914, Yasui et al., Toko et al. US 20200010112 A1 and further in view of Arno et al. BR 112021005800 A2.
Regarding claim 17, Yamashita et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the control device corrects the target longitudinal velocity so that an absolute value of the target longitudinal velocity is less than or equal to a predetermined longitudinal velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target longitudinal velocity instead of the target longitudinal velocity.
Arno et al. teaches [wherein the control device corrects the target longitudinal velocity so that an absolute value of the target longitudinal velocity is less than or equal to a predetermined longitudinal velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target longitudinal velocity instead of the target longitudinal velocity.] (Paragraph 0014; Arno discloses that the controller regulates the forward speed of the vehicle so that it remains below a maximum speed while maintaining performance targets. Specifically, the controller adjusts/limits the forward speed when it approaches the maximum allowable value to ensure operation within a safe optimal range. This correlates to correcting the target longitudinal velocity so that its absolute value does not exceed a predetermined upper limit, and controlling the drive system based on the corrected longitudinal velocity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the forward speed limiting function of Amo et al. with the trolley of Yamashita et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the trolley to prevent excessive forward speed that could cause collision or damage to the drive system, thus ensuring controlled forward motion under varying load conditions.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. in view of Kim ‘914, Yasui et al., Kim et al. ‘977, Toko et al., and further in view of Arno et al. BR 112021005800 A2.
Regarding claim 18, Yamashita et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the control device corrects the target longitudinal velocity so that an absolute value of the target longitudinal velocity is less than or equal to a predetermined longitudinal velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target longitudinal velocity instead of the target longitudinal velocity.
Arno et al. teaches [wherein the control device corrects the target longitudinal velocity so that an absolute value of the target longitudinal velocity is less than or equal to a predetermined longitudinal velocity upper limit, and controls the drive units based on the corrected target longitudinal velocity instead of the target longitudinal velocity.] (Paragraph 0014; Arno discloses that the controller regulates the forward speed of the vehicle so that it remains below a maximum speed while maintaining performance targets. Specifically, the controller adjusts/limits the forward speed when it approaches the maximum allowable value to ensure operation within a safe optimal range. This correlates to correcting the target longitudinal velocity so that its absolute value does not exceed a predetermined upper limit, and controlling the drive system based on the corrected longitudinal velocity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the forward speed limiting function of Amo et al. with the trolley of Yamashita et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the trolley to prevent excessive forward speed that could cause collision or damage to the drive system, thus ensuring controlled forward motion under varying load conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 contains the limitation wherein the lateral velocity upper limit has a negative linear relationship with the target angular velocity in a region greater than or equal to the lower limit. The closest prior art, Yasui et al. US 20100268420 A1, discloses a lateral velocity upper limit but does not disclose the lateral velocity upper limit having a negative linear relationship with the target angular velocity in a region greater than or equal to the lower limit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Page 5, line 15 – Page 6, line 10 of Remarks) that Yasui merely adjusts lateral acceleration and does not disclose setting a lateral velocity upper limit. This argument is not persuasive. Yasui discloses determining a reference lateral acceleration (Grf) based on the maximum steering angular velocity (dSp), wherein the reference lateral acceleration decreases as the angular velocity increases (Paragraph [0198]). The reference lateral acceleration functions as a maximum allowable lateral motion parameter used by the control system. Because lateral acceleration is the rate of change of lateral velocity, limiting lateral acceleration naturally constrains the achievable lateral velocity. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Yasui’s disclosure of setting a reference lateral acceleration based on angular velocity corresponds to setting a lateral motion upper limit as claimed.
Applicant also argues (Page 5, line 15 – Page 6, line 10 of Remarks) that even if acceleration affects velocity, the resulting velocity depends on other variables (forward speed and vehicle properties) and is not a fixed upper limit. This argument is not persuasive. The claim does not require that the lateral velocity upper limit be a fixed or constant value independent of other system parameters. Rather, the claim recites that the upper limit is set based on the target angular velocity, which inherently allows for variation. Yasi discloses a control parameter (Grf) that varies based on angular velocity and constrains lateral motion accordingly. Therefore, the fact that the resulting lateral velocity may depend on additional factors does not negate that Yasui establishes a limit on lateral motion that varies as a function of angular velocity, as claimed.
Applicant argues (Page 5, line 15 – Page 6, line 10 of Remarks) that Yasui does not explicitly “set” a lateral velocity upper limit, but instead merely adjusts acceleration. This argument is not persuasive. Yasui explicitly determines a reference lateral acceleration (Grf) that serves as a threshold for controlling lateral motion. Establishing such a threshold constitutes “setting” a limit within the meaning of the claim. The claim does not require that the limit be explicitly labeled as a “velocity upper limit,” but only that the control device set a limit on lateral motion based on angular velocity. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Yasui’s determination of a maximum allowable lateral acceleration satisfies this limitation.
Applicant argues (Page 6, line 11-14 of Remarks) that because Yasui does not disclose the disputed limitation, the combination fails. This argument is not persuasive because as discussed above, Yasui does teach or at least render obvious the disputed limitation. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yasui’s known control of lateral motion based on angular velocity into the system of Yamashita as modified by Kim, because doing so would apply a known technique for regulating vehicle motion to improve control performance, yielding predictable results. Therefore, the combination is proper under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights