14DETAILED 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-19 are 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.
Claim 14-19 recites the limitation "“the position of the plurality of leg-wheel components”" in the last line of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4,11-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gillett (US 2021/0276642).
Regarding claim 1, Gillett discloses a hybrid vehicle (see Par. 0046 or claim 6), comprising:
a processor (106,300);
a chassis (101, see figure 2A); and
a plurality of leg-wheel components (200) coupled to the chassis,
wherein:
the plurality of leg-wheel components (200) are configured to be collectively operable to provide wheeled locomotion and walking locomotion (see Par. 0002 and 0004), the processor is configured to cause the hybrid vehicle to function in one or more of a plurality of modes of operation (see Par. 0026), and
one or more modes of operation, in the plurality of modes of operation, is configured to delegate control of an operation of at least one aspect (such as actuating the wheels or using the leg components to walk) of the hybrid vehicle between an operator and the processor (see Par. 0026, 0030 and 0075)—{{delegate control is going to be seen as communication between the operator and the processor/controller, wherein the operator enables/delegates the processor to run the wheel or walking modes}}--.
Regarding claim 2, wherein two or more modes of operation are configured to delegate control of an operation of at least one aspect of the hybrid vehicle between an operator and the processor (see Par. 0075 or 0084).
Regarding claim 3, wherein each mode of operation is configured to delegate control of an operation of at least one aspect of the hybrid vehicle between an operator and the processor (see Par. 0026,0075).
Regarding claim 4, wherein one of the aspects of the hybrid vehicle comprises a destination of the hybrid vehicle (as the hybrid vehicle and processor deal with a GPS, see Par. 0064).
Regarding claim 11, A system for controlling a hybrid vehicle (Par. 0046), comprising: a hybrid vehicle (see Par. 0046), comprising: a chassis (101, see figure 2A); and a plurality of leg-wheel components (200) coupled to the chassis, wherein the plurality of leg-wheel components are configured to be collectively operable to provide wheeled locomotion and walking locomotion (see Par. 0002 and 0004); and a computing device comprising a processor (106,300) and a memory (302), wherein the memory is configured to store programming instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause the hybrid vehicle to function in one or more of a plurality of modes of operation (see Par. 0026), wherein one or more modes of operation, in the plurality of modes of operation, delegate control of an operation of at least one aspect of the hybrid vehicle between an operator and the hybrid vehicle (see Par. 0026, 0030 and 0075)—{{delegate control is going to be seen as communication between the operator and the processor/controller, wherein the operator enables/delegates the processor to run the wheel or walking modes}}--.
Regarding claim 12, wherein each mode of operation is configured to delegate control of an operation of at least one aspect of the hybrid vehicle between an operator and the processor (see Par. 0075 or 0084).
Regarding claim 13, wherein one of the aspects of the hybrid vehicle comprises a destination of the hybrid vehicle (as the hybrid vehicle and processor deal with a GPS, see Par. 0064).
Regarding claim 20, the use of the apparatus disclosed by Gillett ends with the method as claimed being performed. A method for controlling a hybrid vehicle (see Par. 0046), comprising: setting, using a processor (106,300), a mode of operation, of a plurality of modes of operation (the walking mode and the wheeled mode), wherein: each mode of operation, in the plurality of modes of operation, is configured to delegate control of an operation of at least one aspect of a hybrid vehicle between an operator and the hybrid vehicle (see Par. 0026, 0030 and 0075), and the hybrid vehicle comprises: a chassis (101, see figure 2A); and a plurality of leg-wheel components (200) coupled to the chassis, wherein the plurality of leg-wheel components are configured to be collectively operable to provide wheeled locomotion and walking locomotion (see Par. 0002 and 0004); and causing the hybrid vehicle to function in one or more of the plurality of modes of operation.
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) 5-9 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillett. Regarding claims 5-9 and 14-18, Gillett only mentions a walking and wheel actuation modes. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can found multiple more modes of operation within the walking and wheel actuation modes to include, a first mode of operation can be considered to be a wheel actuation mode; a second mode of operation can be considered to be a walking actuation mode; a third mode of operation can be considered to be a motion forward while on wheel actuation mode; a fourth mode of operation can be considered to be a reverse motion while on wheel actuation mode; a fifth mode of operation can be considered to be a forward motion while on walking actuation mode; a sixth mode of operation can be considered to be a crab drive (see Par. 0003); wherein all the modes of operation can be performed while utilizing the GPS aspect of the hybrid vehicle might need to walk or use the wheels, reverse or go forward while driving towards a destination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 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 claims 10, the art of record did not disclose a sixth mode of operation that includes “a fleet operator controls: a plurality of hybrid vehicles, wherein each of the plurality of hybrid vehicles are configured to be capable of wheeled and walking motion” and “the plurality of hybrid vehicles, controls: the destination of the hybrid vehicle; the speed of the hybrid vehicle; the direction of travel of the hybrid vehicle; the type of locomotion of the hybrid vehicle; and the position of the plurality of leg-wheel components of the hybrid vehicle”.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claims 19, the art of record did not disclose a sixth mode of operation that includes “a fleet operator controls: a plurality of hybrid vehicles, wherein each of the plurality of hybrid vehicles are configured to be capable of wheeled and walking motion” and “the plurality of hybrid vehicles, controls: the destination of the hybrid vehicle; the speed of the hybrid vehicle; the direction of travel of the hybrid vehicle; the type of locomotion of the hybrid vehicle; and the position of the plurality of leg-wheel components of the hybrid vehicle”.
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