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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “relatively” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the term “relatively rotatable”, is indefinite as it is not clear what is meant by it, as to what degree or measure of rotation is to be considered relatively rotatable.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-9073399-B1 to Richter (“Richter”).
Regarding Claim 1, Richter discloses a wheel device (10 “wheelchair”, Fig 1) for a mobile robot capable of driving on rough terrain and overcoming an obstacle (Italicized limits intended use, not limiting, Col 1, lines 54-57), the wheel device comprising: a first omni wheel (two sets [i.e. one on each side of the 10], of double 26a, 26b “front caster wheels”, having lateral rollers, [i.e. 26 is an omni wheel], Col 5, lines 3-Col 6 line 6, Fig 3-4) provided in the mobile robot; a second omni wheel (two sets [i.e. one on each side of the 10], of double 30a, 30b “rear caster wheels”, having lateral rollers, [i.e. 30 is an omni wheel], Col 5, lines 3-Col 6 line 6, Fig 3-4) provided in the mobile robot; a middle wheel (two [i.e. one on each side of the 10], 34 “center drive wheel”, Col 4, lines 42-60, Fig 1-4) provided between (Col 4, lines 50-52, Figs 1-4) the first omni wheel and the second omni wheel; wheel links (right and left 18 “base assembly” of 22 chassis, Fig 3) connecting (18 spans laterally between 26 and 30 Fig 3) the first omni wheel and the middle wheel a first suspension (86 “actuator” shown rearmost in Fig 3, Col 5, lines 23-25, Fig 1, 3) connected between the mobile robot (at 84 bottom of base 46 of seat assembly 14, Col 5 lines 26-28, Fig 1, 3) and the wheel links; and a second suspension (86 “actuator” shown central near 34 on 18 in Fig 3, Col 5, lines 23-25, Fig 1, 3) connected between the mobile robot (at 84 bottom of base 46 of seat assembly 14, Col 5 lines 26-28, Fig 1, 3) and the wheel links in the vicinity of (adjacent to rearmost 86) the first suspension.
Regarding Claim 2, Richter discloses the wheel device according to claim 1, wherein the first omni wheel and the second omni wheel have a plurality of omni wheel segments (each of 30a, 30b have ten 38 “lateral rollers”, Col 5 lines 41-61, Fig 3 ) which are arranged in a circumferential direction (Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Richter discloses the wheel device according to claim 2 wherein, of the omni wheel segments, five to ten segments are arranged in the circumferential direction (Richter discloses specifically ten segments on each 30a, b are arranged circumferentially as described in paragraph 8 and 9 of this document).
Regarding Claim 5, Richter discloses the wheel device according to claim 1 wherein the middle wheel is a driving wheel (as described in paragraph 8 of this document).
Regarding Claim 6, Richter discloses the wheel device according to claim 1, wherein the first and second suspensions are installed to be relatively rotatable (pivotable about ball joint 94, as described in paragraph 8 of this document) with respect to the mobile robot and the wheel link .
Regarding Claim 7, Richter discloses the wheel device according to claim 1, wherein the first and second omni wheels, the wheel links), and the first and second suspensions are provided on both respective sides of the mobile robot (as described in paragraph 8 of this document)
Regarding Claim 8, Richter discloses a mobile robot (10 Fig 1, patient transport/ wheelchair controlled by 110 computer system and 130 joystick able to change orientation of base assembly, [i.e. a mobile robot capable of driving on rough terrain and overcoming an obstacle], Col 1, lines 54-57, Col 6 lines 18-52, Col 9 lines 29-49, Figs 1, 11-16) including the wheel device according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Richter discloses the wheel device for the mobile robot according to claim 8, wherein the mobile robot is one of: a logistics robot, an electric cart, an automated guided vehicle, and a wheelchair. Specifically Richter discloses a wheelchair that can be considered: a logistics robot, and an electric cart, and an automated guided vehicle, and a wheelchair (as described in previous paragraph, and Richter Col 1-10).
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.
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20180250178-A1 to Paul (“Paul”).
Regarding Claim 4, Richter discloses the wheel device for a mobile robot according to claim 1, including a first omni wheel but does not disclose wherein the first omni wheel is a driving wheel.
Paul discloses a wheel device (30 patient transport apparatus, Fig 1) having a first omni wheel (70 [Fig 4a], 470, 472 [Fig 9] “omni-directional wheel”, Pare 62, Fig 4a, 470, 472 shown in Fig 9 in a frontward position of 30, Fig 9), wherein the first omni wheel is a driving wheel (70/470, 472 where 80 lateral wheels of 70 are driven by motor 84, Para 66, Fig 4a, 9).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel device and the driven first omni wheels in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel device of Richter and teaching of the driven first omni wheels of Paul, to modify the first omni wheels of Richter such that they are driven wheels, with the motivation to reduce dog tracking and provide more stable movement around corners (Paul Para 65), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nakamura (JP-2014172427-A, JP-2017121822-A), Hong (KR 101565945-B1), Ward (GB-2427597-A) DMG MORI (JP-6779398-B1), Lee (KR-20090103357-A, KR 20200025102-A), Yang (KR-20090089713-A), Xu (CN-103349598-A), Takahata (US-10266097-B2) disclose one or more of : first and center wheels mounted on a link, having suspensions attaching link to frame of a hospital bed, wheel chair, robot, and having omni directional wheels, and being capable of overcoming obstacles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615