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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi (US 2021/0229760) in view of Ball (US 10,710,678).
In re claims 1-2, Koizumi discloses a crawler traveling body comprising a crawler (11); an in-wheel motor (14) to apply a driving force to the crawler, the in-wheel motor having a rotation shaft (141); a drive wheel (13) in which the in-wheel motor is built; two wheels (15a, 15b) disposed below the drive wheel; a tensioner (25) that presses the drive wheel against the crawler wound around the drive wheel and the two wheels, to apply tension to the crawler; the tensioner is on an axis of the rotation shaft of the in- wheel motor (claim 2, as shown in Figure 3). Koizumi does not disclose a brake unit to restrict the driving force to stop rotation of the crawler.
Ball, however, does disclose a crawler with a motor (20) having a brake unit (26) mounted on the drive shaft (column 5, line 63 - column 6, line 5) (as shown in Figures 2, 7, and 13); the brake unit is on an axis of the rotation shaft of the motor (claim 2) to directly brake the drive shaft to stop the crawler.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crawler of Koizumi such that it comprised the brake unit of Ball to directly brake the drive shaft to stop the crawler.
In re claim 4, the combination of the tensioner and drive wheel of Koizumi with the brake unit of Ball mounted on the drive shaft results in the brake unit being disposed overlapping, at least partially, with the tensioner in a radial direction of the drive wheel.
In re claim 8, Koizumi further discloses the crawler traveling body including two crawler traveling bodies; and a main body (50) that supports the two crawler traveling bodies (as shown in Figure 1A).
In re claim 9, Koizumi further discloses wherein the two crawler traveling bodies are disposed one on each side of the main body in a width direction of the main body (as shown in Figure 1A), but does not disclose wherein the brake unit is disposed on a farther side of each of the two crawler traveling bodies from the main body in the width direction. Ball further discloses wherein the brake unit (226) is on the outer side of the drive wheels (76) (as shown in Figure 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crawler of Koizumi and Ball such that the brake unit was on the outer side of the crawler bodies as further taught by Ball so as to not interfere with the crawler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the in-wheel motor includes a rotator that is disposed around the rotation shaft and is to rotate, wherein the brake unit includes a coupling portion coupled with the rotator of the in-wheel motor, wherein the tensioner is coupled to the rotation shaft of the in-wheel motor, and wherein the coupling portion of the brake unit with the in-wheel motor is disposed between the in-wheel motor and the tensioner” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a crawler having a brake unit coupling portion coupled with a rotator of an in-wheel motor while being positioned between the motor and the tensioner.
Claims 5-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the brake unit includes a recessed portion that is recessed toward the in- wheel motor, the recessed portion including a coupling portion with the in-wheel motor, and wherein the tensioner is disposed in the recessed portion” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a crawler having a tensioner positioned in a recessed portion of a brake unit.
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the in-wheel motor includes a rotator, and the brake unit includes a coupling plate coupled to the rotator, and wherein the control mechanism is to control rotation of the coupling plate, to control rotation of the rotator” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a crawler wherein a control mechanism controls the rotation of a brake unit coupling plate to control the rotation of the in-wheel motor rotator.
Claim 10 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the two side plates are coupled by a hollow cylindrical member, and wherein a wire electrically connecting the brake unit to the control circuit is introduced through the hollow cylindrical member from the farther side of the crawler traveling body in the axial direction into the main body” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that Koizumi further discloses a control circuit (CPU 502 has circuit ASIC, see [0059]) configured to control driving of the traveling apparatus, wherein each of the two crawler traveling bodies includes two side plates (20a, 20b) that are disposed one on each side of the drive wheel and the two wheels in an axial direction of the drive wheel and support the drive wheel and the two wheels to rotate (as shown in Figure 14A), but does not disclose the plates being connected by a hollow cylindrical member, and wherein a wire electrically connecting the brake unit to the control circuit is routed through the hollow cylindrical member and into the main body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach tracked vehicles of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611