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 .
This is a Final Action on the Merits. Claim 69 currently pending and is addressed below.
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filed on March 13th, 2026 has been considered and entered. Claim 69 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection of claim 69 under 36 USC 101 has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments
The previous interpretation of claim 69 under 35 USC 112(f)has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of claim 69 under 35 USC 112(b) has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 69 has been considered but is moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20200384645 A1) (“Griffiths”) in view of Berntorp (US 20180120843 A1) (‘Berntorp”).
With respect to claim 69, Griffiths teaches a load handling device comprising
a wheel assembly including a first and second pair of wheels; a drive mechanism for driving the wheel assembly; and a controller connected to the drive mechanism and configured to drive the wheel assembly according to a motion control profile generated by (See at least Griffiths Paragraph 74 “According to another aspect, there is provided a controller for planning a trajectory for an object that is capable of controlled movement in one or more degrees of freedom, the controller comprising:” | Paragraph 88 “The output of the controller may output the trajectory to an actuator that is configured to move the object, so that the object follows the planned trajectory.”):
i) receiving a specification of the trajectory, the specification including a commanded position to be reached in a shortest possible time, wherein a length of travel to the commanded position is such that the load handling device cannot reach a maximum velocity defined by a received velocity constraint (See at least Griffiths FIG. 2 and Paragraph 133 “The method of FIG. 2 may be implemented by the computer system 100 of FIG. 1. In this context, the computer system 100 operate as a controller for planning a trajectory. In step 210, a starting state of motion is obtained by the computer system 100 via the one or more interfaces 108. The starting state of motion may be received from the one or more sensors 112, which measure the current position, velocity, and acceleration of the object. The starting state therefore comprises a starting position, starting velocity, and starting acceleration of the object. In step 220, the computer system 100 obtains a target state of motion. The target state of motion may be received via the one or more interfaces 108—for example, from a user via a user interface, or as a command input received via a control interface. Like the starting state, the target state typically comprises a target position, velocity and acceleration for the object. In the examples below, it will be assumed that the target acceleration is zero; however, the methods described are applicable more generally to nonzero target accelerations. The target velocity can also be nonzero. This can lead to inoperative time periods—ranges of travelling time in which no movement profile can achieve the target state. Methods according to the embodiments described herein can correctly identify these inoperative periods, as well as finding the shortest time solution.”),
ii) receiving at least one jerk constraint (See at least Griffiths FIG. 2 and Paragraph 134 “In step 230, the processor 106 obtains motion constraints. In the present example, the motion constraints include a positive velocity limit, negative velocity limit, positive acceleration limit, negative acceleration limit, positive jerk limit, and negative jerk limit (where jerk is the derivative of acceleration with respect to time). These constraints may be based on physical limitations of the robotic system or they may be limits that have been imposed for a particular task, operation, or application. If the constraints are based on physical limitations of the robotic system, the processor 106 may obtain them from the storage medium 102. If they are task-specific, then they may be obtained together with the target state of motion, for example.”); and
iii) using the at least one jerk constraint to generate a sequence of one or more trajectory segments, each of the one or more trajectory segments being respective portions of the trajectory prescribing a jerk reference, an acceleration reference, a velocity reference and a position reference as a function of time (See at least Griffiths FIG. 15 and Paragraph 202-203 “In addition to this motion profile, there are other possible motion profiles but with fewer than 7 phases or with different signs for jerk across the phases that can possibly transfer the motion of the object between the starting and target states in minimum time. Which one is the correct one depends on the values of the starting and ending conditions and the values of the constraints. Different phase numbers can be present or absent, but the trajectory must be continuous and it must follow the Pontryagin maximum principle—with jerk in phases 2, 4 & 6 being zero and the sign of jerk in phases 1, 3, 5 & 7 following a pattern of alternating signs. Suitable constraints must be added to make a soluble set of simultaneous equations. All valid combinations of phases must be considered during the repeated solving, but only one will yield a valid profile that transfers the state of motion. For example, for a trajectory with no phase 4, we set the constraints listed in Equations 25, 26, 27. These provide the additional constraints needed to be able to solve the system of simultaneous equations … This yields a set of soluble equations for the “ThreeThree” movement profile (PosThreeNegThree) shown in FIG. 15. Eliminating and solving the equations in the domain of Real numbers will yield a set of values for the parameters shown in Equations 28-31”);
wherein the one or more trajectory segments of the sequence of trajectory segments are generated based on predicting a value of a parameter using a root finding algorithm to find a root of an objective function (See at least Griffiths Paragraph 54 “The method may further comprise numerically solving the final position function in the first range, to calculate the at least one solution. The solving may comprise using the Newton-Raphson method, for example. The solving may be expressed as finding the travelling time for which the position achieved is equal to the target position. Likewise, the solving may be expressed as finding the travelling time for which a difference between the position achieved and the target position is zero.”),
the objective function being an amount of positional deviation of a magnitude of the position reference from the commanded position when the velocity reference is zero defining a desired final velocity reference and the acceleration reference is zero (See at least Griffiths Paragraph 21 “The starting state of motion may comprise, for each degree of freedom, a starting position, a starting velocity, and a starting acceleration. The target state of motion may comprise, for each degree of freedom, a target position, a target velocity, and a target acceleration. The target acceleration may be zero. The target velocity may be nonzero” | Paragraph 70 “The method may comprise defining a position-difference function, describing a difference between the time varying function and the final position achieved by the movement profile as a function of the travelling time. The method may comprise determining whether a given movement profile can provide one or more solutions for achieving the target state of motion, based on the position-difference function.”) and
the root corresponding to a value of the parameter where the positional deviation from the commanded position is less than a predetermined threshold, wherein the parameter includes a peak velocity that does not exceed the maximum velocity (See at least Griffiths Paragraphs 54-55 “The method may further comprise numerically solving the final position function in the first range, to calculate the at least one solution. The solving may comprise using the Newton-Raphson method, for example. The solving may be expressed as finding the travelling time for which the position achieved is equal to the target position. Likewise, the solving may be expressed as finding the travelling time for which a difference between the position achieved and the target position is zero. The determining may comprise: defining a final position function, describing the final position achieved by the movement profile as a function of the travelling time; defining a gradient function, based on the gradient of the final position function with respect to travelling time; calculating a first gradient value, being the value of the gradient function corresponding to the shortest travelling time; calculating a second gradient value, being the value of the gradient function corresponding to the longest travelling time; and checking whether the respective movement profile can provide one or more solutions for achieving the target state of motion, based on the first gradient value, the second gradient value, the first final position, the second final position, and the target position.”).
Griffiths, however, fails to explicitly disclose that the drive mechanism comprises at least one motor mechanically coupled to at least one wheel of the wheel assembly; and that the controller is further configured to (a) periodically advance the motion control profile in time, and (b) output one or more command signals to the drive mechanism based on the advanced motion control profile to drive the wheel assembly to the commanded position.
Berntorp teaches that the drive mechanism comprises at least one motor mechanically coupled to at least one wheel of the wheel assembly (See at least Berntorp Paragraph 41 “The system can include a human operator 110, and in such a case the system is semi-autonomous and includes possibilities of overriding and allowing, respectively, the action of the driver 110. As one example, the system 100 can be a four-wheel passenger car. Another example of a possible system is a differential-drive mobile robot. A third example is an industrial robot manipulator. In the detailed description, an automotive vehicle will be used throughout to illustrate the invention.” | Paragraph 59 “For example, in some embodiments of the invention, the controllers 150 of the vehicle are steering 351 and brake/throttle controllers 352 that control different entities associated with the motion of the vehicle. For example, the steering control 351 can map a reference trajectory from the path-planning system 330 to a motion trajectory of a vehicle, which includes a sequence of angles of the steering wheel of the vehicle. For example, the brake control module 352 can map a reference trajectory of the velocity to a brake pressure and engine throttle command trajectory of the vehicle.”); and that the controller is further configured to (a) periodically advance the motion control profile in time, and (b) output one or more command signals to the drive mechanism based on the advanced motion control profile to drive the wheel assembly to the commanded position (See at least Berntorp FIG. 1E and Paragraphs 48-53 “FIG. 1E shows a flowchart of a method for controlling a motion of a vehicle according to some embodiments of the invention. The method generates 170 a time-series signal 171 indicative of a variation of the environment in vicinity of the vehicle with respect to a motion of the vehicle. A sequence of measurements of at least one sensor is used 170 to produce a time-series signal 171. The time-series signal 171 can be generated from measurements of various sensors of the vehicle and can include information about objects and environment surrounding the vehicle. The time-series signal can be also refines using position and velocity of the vehicle … The method determines 180 a motion trajectory 181 tracking the reference trajectory 176 while satisfying constraints on the motion of the vehicle 173. As referred herein, the constraints on the motion of the vehicle are requirements that the motion of the vehicle should fulfill in order to provide a safe and smooth ride of the users of the vehicle and the environment. While the spatial constraints on the vehicle make sure that the vehicle behaves as desired at certain combinations of time and place, the constraints on the motion of the vehicle concerns the motion used to reach the different positions of the vehicle. Examples of the constraints on the motion of the vehicle include a bound on a change from a current acceleration and a heading angle and heading rate of the vehicle, a bound on a deviation from a desired velocity profile of the vehicle, a bound on the lateral velocity of the vehicle, a bound on the velocity deviations from surrounding vehicles, and the velocity and heading profile when completing a lane change or when passing another vehicle. The motion trajectory can be determined in several ways, but the general principle is to map the reference trajectory to a motion trajectory, where the motion trajectory can be, but does not have to be, a lower-level representation of the reference trajectory. For example, the reference trajectory can include a position profile of the vehicle, but the controllers that are responsible for the actuation of the vehicle cannot take a position profile as an input, but rather other entities such as wheel slip, speed profile, steering angle of the wheels, or some other representation … In some embodiments, the motion trajectory is determined using a model predictive controller that maps the reference trajectory to a motion of the steering trajectory of the wheels of the vehicle and to a motion of the velocity trajectory of the wheels of the vehicle while considering the measurements on the motion of the vehicle, that is, the controller can be a feedback controller … The method controls the motion of the vehicle to follow the motion trajectory. For example, the method maps 185 the motion trajectory 181 to a control command 182, and control 190 the motion of the vehicle according to the control command. The steps of the method are performed by a processor of the vehicle, operatively connected to the memory 140 and at least one sensor 120. Furthermore, the determining 180 can be viewed as determining a motion trajectory 181 that includes a set of commands for actuators of the vehicle to move the vehicle according the objective.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Griffiths to include that the drive mechanism comprises at least one motor mechanically coupled to at least one wheel of the wheel assembly; and that the controller is further configured to (a) periodically advance the motion control profile in time, and (b) output one or more command signals to the drive mechanism based on the advanced motion control profile to drive the wheel assembly to the commanded position, as taught by Berntorp as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate vehicle control (Berntorp Paragraph 4 “Therefore, it is desirable to streamline the process for determining and controlling the motion of the vehicle.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights