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 Objections
Claims 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 discloses “the drive wheels”, however claim 14 one mentions “”the drive wheel”, claim 14 should be changed to have plural wheels so as to say “the drive wheels” for continuity.
Claim 15 discloses “the drive wheels”, however claim 16 one mentions “”the drive wheel”, claim 16 should be changed to have plural wheels so as to say “the drive wheels” for continuity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5,10-13,15,16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobata (JP 2018188013A). Kobata discloses a mobile object comprising:
a body (10),
a front left leg (20) having a front left wheel (21f, see figure 7a),
a front middle leg (20) having a front middle wheel (21a),
a front right leg (20) having a front right wheel (21e),
a rear left leg (20) having a rear left wheel (21b),
a rear middle leg (20) having a rear middle wheel (21d),
a rear right leg (20) having a rear right wheel (21c), and
an operation control unit –{{The omnidirectional mobile body 1 of the present embodiment preferably includes various control units (not shown) that control the movement of the omnidirectional mobile body 1 and various calculation units that calculate states, braking, and the like.}}--,
the mobile object further including at least one of: a combination in which the left and right front wheels are drive wheels driven by the operation control unit –{{each of the legs has a rotation mechanism 34, see Par. 0036 to 0043 and figures 2 and 3}}--, and the rear middle wheel is an omnidirectional wheel –{{the vehicle can be moved in all directions due to the omnidirectional wheels, see Par. 0018 and 0019}}--; or a combination in which the left and right rear wheels are drive wheels driven by the operation control unit, and the front middle wheel is an omnidirectional wheel –{{the wheels 21a and 21d are considered to be omnidirectional wheels as the wheels can move in any direction due to the motor 34b, see figure 5}}--.
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a plurality of joint mechanisms (33,34,20,34b,33b), see figure 2) that individually moves the legs away from a ground and moves the legs in a traveling direction (see figure 9 and 10), wherein the operation control unit controls the joint mechanisms.
Regarding claim 3, wherein each of the joint mechanisms includes: a vertical linear joint (33,33b) that extends and contracts corresponding one of the legs; and a pitch joint (34,34b) that rotates corresponding one of the legs in a pitch direction (see figures 2 and 3) –{{see Par. 0037}}--.
Regarding claim 4, wherein each of the joint mechanisms includes: a vertical linear joint (33,33b) that extends and contracts corresponding one of the legs; and a horizontal linear joint (34,34b) that translates corresponding one of the legs/body in a front-rear direction.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the operation control unit moves the mobile object by alternately moving a first set (group G2, see Par. 0046-0049 and 0058-0060 and figures 7 and 11) including the front left leg, the front right leg, and the rear middle leg and a second set (group G1, see Par. 0046-0049 and 0058-0060 and figures 7 and 11) including the front middle leg, the rear left leg, and the rear right leg away from the ground and moving the first set and the second set in the traveling direction.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, wherein the operation control unit rotates, during a free leg period (during a period in which the legs of one of the groups G1 and G2 are free) of one of the first set and the second set, the drive wheels (21) of the left and right legs included in another set in the traveling direction (see Par. 0046).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the operation control unit rotates at least one of a pair of the left and right front wheels or a pair of the left and right rear wheels differentially to turn the mobile object (see Par. 0046).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the left and right front wheels and the left and right rear wheels are the drive wheels (see figure 5 and Par. 0070, as all wheels include the motor 40).
Regarding claim 15, wherein one of a pair of the left and right front wheels and a pair of the left and right rear wheels is the drive wheel (as all wheels have a motor 40), and another pair is an omnidirectional wheel that passively rotates (as all legs include motors 34b to rotate the wheels, see figure 5).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the drive wheel is a steerable drive wheel (with motor 34b) with casters (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the omnidirectional passively rotates when the motor (40) is not actuated.
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) 14,17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobata in view of Zhang (US 2018/0185218). Regarding claim 14, Kobata does not mention mecanum wheels. However Zhang discloses a body with mecanum wheels (see figure 1 and Par. 0018). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Kobata by adding mecanum wheels, in order to allow the mobile object enhanced mobility as the mecanum wheels would add multiple degrees of movement freedom.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kobata and Zhang ends with a omnidirectional caster wheel, as the caster shown in figure 5 of Kobata when combined with Zhang can be seen as a caster wheel that is omnidirectional.
Regarding claim 18, Kobata further discloses, wherein the wheel with casters (see figure 5) has a caster portion that is rotationally driven by a motor (40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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. Regarding claim 6, the art of record did not include six legs with wheels, wherein the control unit makes the object to go upstairs by alternately moving the first set and the second set away from the ground and moving the first set and the second set to an upper step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/MARLON A ARCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611