Deformable Wheel for Overrunable Test Vehicle
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1-10 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trazkovich (US 20210048820; “Trazkovich”), in view of Thompson (US 20190375239; “Thompson”).
Regarding claim 1, Trazkovich discloses, in figures 1-13, an overrunable test vehicle (10) for use with a soft target (48), the overrunable test vehicle (10) comprising: a chassis (12) defining a cavity (¶ 0044, “components inside the chassis”) and having an external mounting area (44) for receiving the soft target (48); at least one non-driven wheel (18) supported by the chassis (12); at least one drive mechanism (14, 16) supported by the chassis (12) having an electric motor (16) and a drive wheel (14) operatively connected with the electric motor (16); and a control system (88, 92) disposed within the cavity (¶ 0059, Trazkovich’s platform includes a microcontroller and motor controllers) and coupled to (see fig. 9) the electric motor (16) for sending and receiving information (see fig. 9); wherein the springs (32) of the non-driven wheel (18) are deformable (examiner asserts springs are deformable) with the springs (32) of the non-driven wheel (18) having an initial state with a first height (see Trazkovich’s claim 16, examiner notes Trazkovich’s springs maintain a force sufficient to maintain the chassis above ground during operation) and a deformed state with a second height where the second height is less than the first height (see Trazkovich’s claim 16, examiner notes Trazkovich’s springs “compress to ground out the chassis when the chassis is subjected to a pre-determined load greater than the load when supporting the soft target”), and wherein the springs (32) of the non-driven wheel (18) is configured to enter the deformed state when a threshold force is applied to the chassis (see previous comment) to reduce an overall height (¶ 0040, Trazkovich’s suspension system allows the chassis to contact the ground when overrun allowing the chassis to distribute the load across a greater area) of the chassis (12), and transition towards the initial state when the force is lessened (while Trazkovich does not explicitly state a transition towards the initial state when the force is lessened, the examiner asserts it is an inherent function of Trazkovich’s suspension springs decompress by a restoring force when a load causes the compression is lessened) .
Trazkovich fails to disclose the non-driven wheel is deformable.
Thompson teaches, in figure 4, the non-driven wheel (20) is deformable (¶ 0054, “The non-pneumatic tire 34 is a compliant wheel structure that is not supported by gas (e.g., air) pressure and that is resiliently deformable (i.e., changeable in configuration) as the caster wheel 20.sub.i contacts the ground”) with the non-driven wheel (20) having an initial state with a first height (¶ 0064, examiner notes when Thompson’s wheel is loaded the lower support members of the annular support are compressed, the examiner asserts Thompson’s wheel is resilient therefor when it is unloaded, it returns to its uncompressed shape) and a deformed state with a second height where the second height is less than the first height (¶ 0064, Thompson’s loaded wheel includes lower support members that compress and bend, the examiner asserts Thompson’s wheel is lower due to the bending support members when the wheel is loaded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Thomson’s scheme of using a non-pneumatic, resiliently deformable wheel in place of Trazkovich’s non-driven wheels suspension system for an overrunnable, low-profile platform since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of grounding a chassis as it is overrun.
Regarding claim 2, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in the threshold force is at least 100 newtons applied to the chassis (Trazkovich, ¶ 0006, “configured to allow the chassis to contact the road surface when a high load (more than 50 pounds in some embodiments, but typically 200 pounds or more) is applied to the top surface”).
Regarding claim 3, Trazkovich and Thompson fail to disclose at what height the wheels enter a deformed state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the height parameter at which the non-driven wheel enters the deformed state from the initial state to be when the first height is reduced by 0.5 millimeters or more, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, to define the point at which the wheel behaves as a deformed wheel. Doing so allows operators to better predict the operation of the deformed wheel.
Regarding claim 4, Trazkovich and Thompson fail to disclose at what point the non-driven wheel is considered to have returned to the initial state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the height parameter at which the non-driven wheel returns to the initial state to be when the height of the non-driven wheel has a height that is 5 percent or less of the first height, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, to define the point at which the wheel behaves as a non-deformed wheel. Doing so allows operators to better predict the operation of the wheel.
Regarding claim 5, Trazkovich and Thompson fail to disclose at what load the non-driven wheel enters the deformed state and at what load it transitions to the initial state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the load at which the non-driven wheel enters the deformed state to be when at least 100 newtons of force is applied and subsequently transitions to the initial state to be when less than 100 newtons of force is applied, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, to define the loads at which the wheel enters and exists a deformed state. Doing so allows operators to better predict the operation of the wheel during overrunning operations.
Regarding claim 6, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in Thompson’s figures 4-5, the non-driven wheel (Thompson (20)) includes a plurality of fins (Thompson (42)).
Regarding claim 7, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in Thompson’s figures 4-5, each of the plurality of fins (Thompson (42)) has a curved profile (see Thompson’s fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 1 and Thompson’s figure 4, disclose the non-driven wheel (Thompson (20)) absorbs impact (Trazkovich, ¶ 0052, the wheel provides shock absorption) between the chassis (Trazkovich (12)) and a driving surface (Trazkovich (52)) when a force is applied to the chassis towards the driving surface (Trazkovich (52)) to reduce the overall height of the chassis (¶ 0062, Trazkovich’s platform collapses down when overrun by a test vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in Trazkovich’s figures 1-13 and Thompson’s figure 4, a wheel axle (Trazkovich (42)) supported by the chassis (Trazkovich (12)), and wherein the non-driven wheel (Thompson (20)) is connected to the wheel axle (Trazkovich (42)) with the wheel axle (Trazkovich (42)) remaining in the same plane relative to the chassis when a force is applied to the chassis (see the rejection of claim 1, Trazkovich’s suspension system includes springs, if the springs and standard wheel are replaced by Thompson’s deformable wheel, the axle remains fixed relative to the chassis).
Regarding claim 10, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in Trazkovich’s figures 1-13 and Thompson’s figure 4, the wheel axle (Trazkovich (42)) defines a wheel axis (see Trazkovich’s figs. 2-3), and wherein the non-driven wheel (Thompson (20)) is rotatably coupled to the chassis (Trazkovich (12)) through the wheel axis (Trazkovich (42)).
Regarding claim 14, Trazkovich and Thompson fail to disclose a period of time the non-driven wheel takes to transition from a deformed state to the initial state when the threshold force is removed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the non-driven wheel to return to the initial state from the deformed state in at least four minutes from removal of the threshold force, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, to define maximum time it takes for the wheel to return to an operable state. Doing so allows operators to better predict downtime of operation after an overrun occurrence.
Regarding claim 15, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 6, the chassis (12) includes a control section (see Trazkovich’s annotated fig. 6 below) and a carrier section (see Trazkovich’s annotated fig. 6 below) with the control section having a profile height (see Trazkovich’s annotated fig. 6 below), and the carrier section having a profile height different than the profile height of the control section (see Trazkovich’s annotated fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 6, the profile height of control section is at least 30 percent larger than the profile height of the carrier section (see Trazkovich’s annotated fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 17, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 13, a drive axle (Trazkovich (1115)) connected to the motor (Trazkovich (1160)) with the drive wheel (Trazkovich (1110)) connected to the drive axle (Trazkovich (1115)).
Regarding claim 18, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 13, a suspension (Trazkovich (1120, 1130) operatively coupled to the drive wheel (Trazkovich (1110)), wherein the drive wheel (Trazkovich (1110)) and the drive axle (Trazkovich (1115)) are configured to move a suspension height (see Trazkovich’s fig. 13, “A”) when a force is applied to the chassis to reduce the overall height (¶ 0047, Trazkovich’s suspension allows the chassis to move vertically as an overrun operation occurs) of the chassis (Trazkovich (12)).
Regarding claim 19, Trazkovich and Thompson disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 13, the suspension height (see Trazkovich’s fig. 13, “A”) of the drive wheel (Trazkovich (1110)) and drive axle (Trazkovich (1115)) are at least equal to the second height (see Trazkovich’s claim 16, examiner notes Trazkovich’s springs “compress to ground out the chassis when the chassis is subjected to a pre-determined load greater than the load when supporting the soft target”) of the non-driven wheel (Thompson (20)) in the deformed state to uniformly reduce the overall height of the chassis (Trazkovich, ¶ 0062, Trazkovich’s wheel fully retract under a heavy load, enabling the robotic platform to ground out).
Claims 1 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 207215465; “Li”), in view of Thompson (US 20190375239; “Thompson”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses, in figures 1-18, an overrunable test vehicle for use with a soft target (see Li’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 1, the unmanned vehicle provides a platform for conveying collision models), the overrunable test vehicle comprising: a chassis (12) defining a cavity (not enumerated, see figs. 2 and 14) and having an external mounting area for receiving the soft target (121); at least one non-driven wheel (221) supported by the chassis (12); at least one drive mechanism (211, 2122) supported by the chassis (12) having an electric motor (2122) and a drive wheel (211) operatively connected with the electric motor (2122); and a control system (see Li’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 1, the examiner construes Li’s AGV configuration to mean Li uses a control device controlling the vehicles motors) disposed within the cavity (see previous comment) and coupled to the electric motor (2122) for sending and receiving information; wherein the spring (223) of the non-driven wheel (221) is deformable with the spring (223) of the non-driven wheel (221) having an initial state with a first height (see fig. 17) and a deformed state with a second height (see fig. 18) where the second height is less than the first height (see figs. 17-18, examiner notes Li’s chassis is lower when the spring assembly is in the deformed state), and wherein the spring (223) of the non-driven wheel (221) is configured to enter the deformed state when a threshold force is applied to the chassis to reduce an overall height of the chassis (see Li’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 6, when the chassis experiences a high load state, the spring assembly deforms to ground the chassis), and transition towards the initial state when the force is lessened (see Li’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 9, when the high load state is withdrawn, the springs are restored to a natural length ungrounding the chassis).
Trazkovich fails to disclose the non-driven wheel is deformable.
Thompson teaches, in figure 4, the non-driven wheel (20) is deformable (¶ 0054, “The non-pneumatic tire 34 is a compliant wheel structure that is not supported by gas (e.g., air) pressure and that is resiliently deformable (i.e., changeable in configuration) as the caster wheel 20.sub.i contacts the ground”) with the non-driven wheel (20) having an initial state with a first height (¶ 0064, examiner notes when Thompson’s wheel is loaded the lower support members of the annular support are compressed, the examiner asserts Thompson’s wheel is resilient therefor when it is unloaded, it returns to its uncompressed shape) and a deformed state with a second height where the second height is less than the first height (¶ 0064, Thompson’s loaded wheel includes lower support members that compress and bend, the examiner asserts Thompson’s wheel is lower due to the bending support members when the wheel is loaded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Thompson’s scheme of using a non-pneumatic, resiliently deformable wheel in place of Li’s non-driven wheels suspension system for an overrunnable, low-profile platform since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of grounding a chassis as it is overrun.
Regarding claim 9, Li and Thompson disclose, in Li’s figures 1-18, a wheel axle (see fig. 13-14, Li depicts a fork connecting the wheel to the unit, the examiner construes the fork assembly is connected to the wheel via an axle) supported by the chassis (Li (12)), and wherein the non-driven wheel (Thompson (20)) is connected to the wheel axle (see previous comment) with the wheel axle remaining in the same plane relative to the chassis when a force is applied to the chassis (see Li’s fig. 14, the universal wheel axle remains parallel to the top of the chassis).
Regarding claim 10, Li and Thompson disclose, in Li’s figures 1-18, the wheel axle (see fig. 13-14, Li depicts a fork connecting the wheel to the unit, the examiner construes the fork assembly is connected to the wheel via an axle) defines a wheel axis (examiner notes on a fork supported wheel, the axle is the wheel rotational axis), and wherein the non-driven wheel (Thompson (20)) is rotatably coupled to the chassis through the wheel axis (see fig. 14).
Regarding claim 11, Li and Thompson, as combined in claim 10, fail to explicitly disclose a vertical axle.
Thompson further teaches, in figure 1, a vertical axle (30) rotatably mounted to the chassis (¶ 0048, “each of the caster wheels 201, 202 is pivotable about a steering axis 30 relative to the frame”) about a vertical axis (see fig. 1, “i”) with the non-driven wheel (20) rotatably connected to the chassis through the vertical axle (not enumerated, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Thompson’s scheme of providing a steering axle to implement a steering axis of Li’s universal wheel unit for an overrunnable, low-profile platform since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of accomplishing self-orientation.
Regarding claim 12, Li and Thompson disclose, in Thompson’s figure 1, the wheel axis (17) is perpendicular (see Thompson’s fig. 1) to the vertical axle (see Thompson’s fig. 1, “i”) to allow the non-driven wheel (Thompson (20)) to rotate in two degrees of freedom (see fig. 1, examiner notes Thompson’s caster wheel rotates about axis 17 and “i”).
Regarding claim 13, Li and Thompson disclose, in Li’s figures 1-18 and Thompson’s figure 1, a fork mounted to the vertical axle (see Li’s fig. 13-14, Li depicts a fork connecting the wheel to the unit, the examiner construes the fork assembly is connected to the wheel via an axle; see Thompson’s fig. 1, Thompson depicts a fork connecting the wheel to the frame via a steering axle) and supporting the wheel axle (Thompson (17)) to interconnect the vertical and wheel axles and support the non-driven wheel (Thompson (20)) on the chassis (Li (12)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855