DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-17 of application 18/285,166, filed on 29-September-2023, are presented for examination. The IDS received on the same date has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
2.1 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)(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.
2.2 Claims 1-3, 9, 10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conner, USP Publication 2013/0081885.
2.3 Conner discloses:
Claim 1: a robot [¶0086 (wheelchair/vehicle automatically activates shape-changing wheels based on input from on-board sensors)] comprising:
a body [0103; Fig. 3 (support structure 301)];
a wheel assembly [Figs. 1 and 2 (show the combined wheel assembly in a closed and open position) coupled to the body); Figs. 3 and 4 (show the wheel assembly
coupled to the support structure 301)], the wheel assembly comprising:
a central hub [Fig. 2 (inner hub 101)];
a central gear coupled to the central hub [Fig. 2 (gear is shown attached to inner hub 101 and is the rotation center on which each rotating member rotates)];
a plurality of legs coupled to the central hub [Fig. 2 (comma-shaped rotating members 103, are shown coupled to the inner hub 101)], the plurality of legs operatively coupled to the central gear such that the central gear drives the plurality of legs between a closed position and
an open position [Figs. 1 and 2 (show how each central gear 105 is coupled to motor 107, which drives each rotating member 103 between open and closed positions)];
a motor coupled to the body and coupled to the wheel [Figs. 3 and 4 (show the
motor-containing based member 303 coupled to the body 301 and wheel assemblies)];
a suspension system coupled to the wheel assembly [0083 (describes how the rotating members 103 can be used to controllably lower the device down a flight of stairs, in
which case, the rotating members act as the vehicle suspension to help reduce harsh
movements)]; and
an autonomous guidance system coupled to the motor [0107 (describes how the system uses GPS guidance to anticipate upcoming changes in terrain, to automatically activate the shape-changing wheels)].
Claim 2: wherein the wheel assembly comprises two legs [0076 (discusses
various configurations including a wheel assembly comprising, "the rotating members
can have one or more shapes selected from the group consisting of one part of a two-or-more-part "yin yang" symbol")].
Claim 3: wherein the wheel assembly comprises three legs [Figs. 1 and 2 (show three
rotating members 103)].
Claim 9: wherein the autonomous guidance system comprises: a microcontroller; a
power source [0086 (a controller and power source are inherent in the system because a
motorized wheelchair could not operate without a power source and controllers)]; and a sensor suite [0086 (describes the use of several possible sensors to automatically control the system, such as a visual sensor, an accelerometer, infrared emissions (e.g. LIDAR), map data and GPS)].
Claim 10: Connor discloses the robot of claim 9, wherein the sensor suite further comprises: a LIDAR device; a GPS receiver; and a camera [0086 (describes the use of several possible sensors to automatically control the system, such as a visual sensor/camera, an accelerometer, infrared emissions (e.g. LIDAR), map data and GPS)].
Claim 13: Connor discloses the robot of claim 1, wherein the central gear passively drives the plurality of legs between the closed position and the open position [Figs. 1 and 2 (show that the central gears 105 are passive because they are driven by motors 107, which are attached to gears 106)].
Claim 14: Connor discloses the robot of claim 1, comprising a locking mechanism that secures the plurality of legs in at least one of the closed position and the open position [Since, according to the present specification, the locks are actually motors 106, as shown in Applicant's Fig. 7, it then follows that Connor's motors 107 will also “lock" the rotating members between the open and closed positions as shown in Figs. 1 and 2].
Claim 15: Connor discloses the robot of claim 14, wherein the locking mechanism is configured to be selectively released responsive to input from a user [0085 (the person being transported by the device may manually activate rotation of these members to change the shape of the wheel from the first shape shown in Fig. 1, to the second shape shown in Fig. 2.)].
Claim 16: Connor discloses the robot of claim 14, wherein the locking mechanism is configured to be selectively released responsive to a signal from the autonomous guidance system [0086 (the rotating members shown in Figs. 1 and 2 can be automatically activated based on input from a variety of possible sensors, including visual sensors, GPS and infrared emissions (LiDAR))].
Claim 17: Connor discloses the robot of claim 14, comprising an actuator coupled to a leg of the plurality of legs to selectively move the leg between the closed position and the open position in response a signal from the autonomous guidance system [0086 (the rotating members shown in Figs. 1 and 2 can be automatically activated based on input from a variety of possible sensors, including visual sensors, GPS and infrared emissions (LiDAR))].
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
3.1 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 the objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
3.2.1 Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Conner, USP Publication 2013/0081885.
3.2.2 Conner discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically disclose all of the features of claims 4-6. However, Connor reasonably describes these features, including:
Claim 4: Connor discloses the robot of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the wheel assembly may comprise various numbers of legs [0076 (discusses alternate configurations of Connor's device, including a wheel assembly comprising rotating members that can have one or more shapes selected from the group consisting of one part of a two-or-more-part "yin yang symbol, tear-drop shape, comma shape. etc.; and further discloses wheel assembly configurations comprising N-number of rotating projections, and explaining that there are various advantages to having a small number of rotating members as well as a large number of rotating members and that the number of rotating members should be selected based on the anticipated terrain to be encountered; Figs. 9 and 10 also show a configuration of 8 rotating members as an example)].
Connor fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wheel assembly comprises four legs.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of
invention, to alter Connor's wheel assembly to include four rotating members, since a mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, and doing so would give the vehicle a smoother ride across flat surfaces with a reasonably predictable expectation of success.
3.2.3 In regard to claim 5 (five legs) and claim 6 (six legs), the limitations of these claims were discussed in the rejection of claim 4, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
3.3.1 Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Conner, USP Publication 2013/0081885, in view of Shenyang University of Chemical Technology (hereinafter, "Shenyang"), CN104057990.
3.3.2 Conner discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically disclose all of the features of claims 7 and 8. However, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved, Shenyang describes these features, including:
Claim 7: Connor discloses the robot of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the suspension system comprises a torsion spring coupled to each leg of the plurality of legs.
Shenyang teaches a suspension system comprising a torsion spring coupled to each leg
of the plurality of legs [Fig. 2 (shows a stair-climbing wheel assembly including wheel disk 8, three telescopic legs 4 and a central torsion spring 7)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to modify Connor with the torsion springs taught by Shenyang, because doing so would provide a reduction in vibration and unwanted movement [Shenyang: 0017], and thereby confer
the benefit of a smoother and more pleasant ride to the passenger with a reasonably predictable expectation of success.
3.3.3 In regard to claim 8 (a torsion spring coupled to the plurality of legs), the limitations of this claim were discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
3.4.1 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Conner, USP Publication 2013/0081885, in view of Gong, USP Publication 2011/0155484.
3.4.2 Conner discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically disclose all of the features of claim 11. However, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved, Gong describes these features, including:
Claim 11: Connor discloses the robot of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the suspension system comprises a spring-and-damper suspension system coupled between the body and the motor. Gong is in the art of personal transportation devices [0056] [(and teaches a body (frame 12, Fig. 3), a motor (motor 18, Fig. 3), and a suspension system (leaf spring 16 and jounce bumper 68, Fig. 3), wherein the suspension system comprises a spring-and-damper suspension system coupled between the body and the motor (leaf spring 16 and jounce bumper 68 are coupled between frame 12 and motor 18, Fig. 3), jounce bumper 68 can be provided for each leaf spring 16. As understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, a jounce bumper 68, or bump stop, is an elastic cushion used to soften the suspension gradually as it reaches the upper end of its jounce travel) [0049]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to modify Connor with the spring-and-damper suspension system coupled between the body and the motor as taught by Gong, because doing so would provide improved performance
and handling [Gong: 0049], with a reasonably predictable expectation of success.
3.5.1 Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Conner, USP Publication 2013/0081885, in view of Gong, USP Publication 2011/0155484, and further in view of Shenyang University of Chemical Technology (hereinafter, "Shenyang"), CN104057990.
3.5.2 In regard to Claim 12, Connor discloses the robot of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the suspension system comprises: a spring-and-damper suspension system coupled between the body and the motor; a spring coupled to each leg of the plurality of legs; and a spring-and-damper coupled to each leg of the plurality of legs.
Gong is in the art of personal transportation devices [0056 (and teaches a body (frame 12, Fig. 3), a motor (motor 18, Fig. 3), and a suspension system (leaf spring 16 and jounce bumper 68, Fig. 3), wherein the suspension system comprises a spring-and-damper suspension system coupled between the body and the motor (leaf spring 16 and jounce bumper 68 are coupled between frame 12 and motor 18, Fig. 3), jounce bumper 68 can be provided for each leaf spring 16. As understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, a jounce bumper 68, or bump stop, is an elastic cushion used to soften the suspension gradually as it reaches the upper end of its jounce travel) [0049]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to modify Connor with the spring-and-damper suspension system coupled between the body and the motor as taught by Gong, because doing so would provide improved performance
and handling [Gong: 0049], with a reasonably predictable expectation of success.
Shenyang is in the art of a stair climbing wheelchair [0004 (and teaches a spring coupled to each leg of the plurality of legs (torsion springs 7, Fig. 2; three torsion springs are used to connect the swinging legs [0019]); and a spring-and-damper is coupled to each leg
of the plurality of legs (tension and compression springs 5 coupled to each leg 4, Fig. 2;
the tension and compression spring is installed at the connection, so that the telescopic leg can be stretched and retracted, to buffer vibration absorption, reduce vibration, and buffer the
impact when the legs fall and contact the step surface [0010]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to modify Connor to include the spring-and-damper coupled to each leg as taught by Shenyang, because doing so would further improve the damping ability of the wheel assembly and improve ride performance and reduce noise [Shenyang: 0017], with a reasonably predictable expectation of success.
Prior Art of Record
4. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Freda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Response Guidelines
5.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed (see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned (see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)).
5.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (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.
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.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661