DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore the following limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The chassis of claim 9
The fork of claim 11
The second toothed wheel of claim 11
The blade of said fork of claim 11
The first conical pinon of claim 12
The second conical pinon of claim 12
The axle of said first pinon of claim 12
The axle of said second pinon of claims 12 and 16
The four corners of said chassis of claim 15
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 9-16 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.
Regarding claim 9, “the chassis of the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Additionally, “the floor” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Further “to actuate the means for driving in rotation…” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, “one of said motors” is indefinite, it is unclear which “motor” is being referred to in the claim limitation, as the parent claim 9 introduces multiple motors. Further “the pivoting means” lacks antecedent basis in the parent claim. Additionally, “said wheel” is indefinite, it is unclear which “wheel” is being referred to in the claim limitation, since multiple wheels have been introduced in the parent claim. Further, “the blade of said fork” lacks antecedent basis in the claim, further “the axle of said drive wheel” is indefinite, it is unclear which “wheel” is being referred to in the claim limitation, since multiple drive wheels have been introduced in the parent claim, there is also a lack of antecedent basis for “the axle” in the parent claim.
Regarding claim 12, “the axle of said first pinon” and “the axle of the second pinion” lack antecedent basis within the claim.
Regarding claim 13, “said drive motor” is indefinite, it is unclear which “motor” is being referred to in the claim limitation, as the parent claim 9 introduces multiple motors.
Regarding claim 14, “substantially identical” is indefinite, it is unclear whether the pivoting and driving devices are identical or not.
Regarding claim 15, the term “attached substantially to the four corners” is indefinite, it is unclear whether the pivoting and driving devices are attached to each of the four corners or not. Additionally, “the four corners of said chassis” lacks antecedent basis in both the claim and parent claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, the term “the axle of the second pinon” lacks antecedent basis in parent claim 11. Additionally, “this device” is unclear and lacks antecedent basis in the parent claim. More specifically, It is unclear which “device” is being referred to in this limitation. Also, “the centre of the drive wheel” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 10 is also rejected as indefinite, as the claim is dependent from a rejected parent claim. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
(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.
Claims 9-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wiley (US 10207403).
Regarding claim 9, Wiley anticipates a motorized vehicle 100 (Fig 1) [intended to transport a load] (“In this example, platform 100 may enable the data center robot to move through aisles of a data center to install, remove, and/or service rack mount units and modules within the data center.” Col 9 lines 46-50 ) [comprising at least 3 drive wheels 101a,101b,101c and 101d (Fig 1, “The robotic platform 100 may include a chassis 120, a drive assembly 106 arranged on the chassis 120, a pair of fore wheel assemblies 101a, 101b disposed on the fore end of the chassis 120, and a pair of aft wheel assemblies 101c, 101d disposed on the aft end of the chassis 120.” Col 5 lines 1-5) intended to run along the floor] (“Robots are typically mounted to a robotic platform that may enable the robots to move along a floor or other surface.” abstract ), [capable of pivoting at least 90 degrees] (“…the driven caster wheel configurations disclosed herein may allow wheels to freely rotate 360 degrees about steering axes” Col 4 lines 55-57 and “As such, the wheel 102a may be able to freely rotate 360 degrees about the steering axis S” Col 6 lines 43-44), said drive wheels 101a,101b,101c and 101d (Fig 1) being mounted on pivoting and driving devices 104a,108a,130,132 (Figs 2 and 5, “…the rotation of the wheel 102a about the drive axis may be controlled by a drive assembly 106 that is located distally from the wheel 102a and on the chassis 120.” Col 5 lines 36-54) attached to the chassis 120 (Fig 1, “The robotic platform 100 may include a chassis 120, a drive assembly 106 arranged on the chassis 120, a pair of fore wheel assemblies 101a, 101b disposed on the fore end of the chassis 120, and a pair of aft wheel assemblies 101c, 101d disposed on the aft end of the chassis 120.” Col 5 lines 1-5) of the vehicle 100, each of the pivoting and driving devices 104a,108a,130,132,106 and 122 (Figs 2 and 5) comprising a motor 144 (Figs 1-5) [for actuating means for pivoting a drive wheel about a vertical axis S (Fig 5)] (“In one example the steer assembly 118 may include a steer motor 144, a steer belt 146, a steer motor pulley 148, and steer shaft pulleys 150a-150d, the operation of which may be similar to that of the drive assembly 106.” Col 7 lines 29-33 And “The drive shaft 108a may extend substantially vertically from the drive assembly 106 to the axle 104a and rotate about a substantially vertically steering axis S. The bevel gear 114a may connect the drive shaft 108a to the axle 104a to translate torque and power from the drive assembly 106 to the wheel 102a.” Col 5 lines 43-47 and “While FIGS. 1-5 shows one drive motor 122, one drive belt 124, one drive motor pulley 126, and four drive shaft pulleys 128a-128d, the robotic platform 100 may include other suitable numbers of motors, drive belts, and pulleys”, Col 8 lines 27-30) , [intended to make it possible to pivot a drive wheel 102a about itself] (“As such, the wheel 102a may be able to freely rotate 360 degrees about the steering axis S.” Col 6 lines 43-44), and a single motor 122 (Fig 1) [for driving in rotation said drive wheels 102a intended to actuate the means for driving in rotation said drive wheels housed in said pivoting and driving devices 104a,108a,130,132 (Figs 1-5)] (“…and the drive assembly 106 may include a drive motor 122 and a drive belt 124 that is controlled by the drive motor 122.” Col 5 lines 7-9 and “Drive motor pulley 126 may be mounted to the upper portion of the drive motor 122, and the drive shaft pulleys 128a-128d may be mounted to an upper portion of each of their respective drive shafts. The drive belt 124 may extend between the pulleys 126, 128a-128d and within a plane substantially perpendicular to the drive motor axis and steering axis. Thus, the drive motor 122 may cause the drive motor pulley 126 to move about the drive motor axis, which may in turn cause the drive belt 124 to move about the drive pulleys 126, 128a-128d, thereby causing the pulleys 128a-128d and their respective drive shafts to rotate about their respective steering axes.” Col 6 lines 3-14 ) .
Regarding claim 10, Wiley anticipates the vehicle of claim 9, characterizes in that said vehicle 100 (Fig 1) [is an automatic guided vehicle] (“For example, platform 100 may support an autonomous or semi-autonomous data center robot. In this example, platform 100 may enable the data center robot to move through aisles of a data center to install, remove, and/or service rack mount units and modules within the data center.” Col 9 lines 45-50 )
Regarding claim 13, Wiley anticipates said drive motor 122 (Fig 1) actuates said means for [driving in rotation said drive wheels 102a (Figs 1-5) of each of said pivoting and driving devices 104a,108a,130,132 (Figs 1-5) by means of a belt 124 (Figs 1-5) ] (“The drive belt 124 may extend between the pulleys 126, 128a-128d and within a plane substantially perpendicular to the drive motor axis and steering axis. Thus, the drive motor 122 may cause the drive motor pulley 126 to move about the drive motor axis, which may in turn cause the drive belt 124 to move about the drive pulleys 126, 128a-128d, thereby causing the pulleys 128a-128d and their respective drive shafts to rotate about their respective steering axes. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 4, the drive belt 124 may cause the drive shaft pulleys 128a-128d to all rotate synchronously with one another to thereby cause the drive shafts 108a-108d and the wheels 102a-102d to all rotate synchronously with one another.” Col 6 lines 6-18 ).
Regarding claim 14, Wiley anticipates said pivoting and driving devices 104a,108a,130,132 (Figs 1-5) [are substantially identical] (“…four caster wheel assemblies 101a-101d, any suitable number of caster wheel assemblies 101a-101d may be provided while remaining within the scope of this disclosure. Furthermore, while the following description at times refers to only one of the wheel assemblies (i.e., the fore, left wheel assembly 101a), it should be well understood that the description of wheel assembly 101a may also apply to some or all of the other wheel assemblies 101b, 101c, and 101d.” (Emphasis added) Col 5 lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 15, Wiley anticipates the vehicle 100 with four drive wheels 101a-101d (Fig 1) mounted on pivoting and driving devices 104a,108a,130,132 (Fig 1-5) [attached substantially to the four corners of said chassis 120 (Figs 1-5)] (“The robotic platform 100 may include a chassis 120, a drive assembly 106 arranged on the chassis 120, a pair of fore wheel assemblies 101a, 101b disposed on the fore end of the chassis 120, and a pair of aft wheel assemblies 101c, 101d disposed on the aft end of the chassis 120. The chassis 120 may have oppositely disposed top and bottom sides, and the drive assembly 106 may include a drive motor 122 and a drive belt 124 that is controlled by the drive motor 122.” Col 5 lines 1-9, Figure 1 of Wiley shows the four caster wheel assemblies 101a-101d attached to each of the four corners of the vehicle chassis).
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 11,12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiley in view of Holmberg et al (US 6491127 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Wiley teaches the vehicle of claim 9 wherein said means for pivoting a drive wheel comprise a first toothed wheel 128a (Figs 1 and 2) [driven in rotation by one of said motors 122 for actuating the pivoting means engaged with a second toothed wheel 150a (Fig 2) of vertical axis] (“The power of the wheel assemblies 101a-101d may be controlled by drive shaft pulleys 128a-128d that are mounted to or integral with their respective drive shafts.” Col 5 lines 64-66 and “The steer belt 146 and the steer pulleys 148, 150a-150b may rotate within a plane that is substantially parallel to and below the plane in which the drive motor 122, drive belt 124, and drive pulleys 126, 128a-128d rotate. The steer shaft pulley 150a that is arranged on the steer shaft 138a may be disposed beneath the drive shaft pulley 128a that arranged on the drive shaft 108a.” Col 7 lines 39-45 -the wheels of each of the drive and steering motors share the axis of the drive wheel 101a-101d ). Wiley further teaches a first conical pinon 130 (Fig 5) and a second conical pinon 132 (Fig 5) [arranged relative to one another so as to form an angular transmission] (“the torque and power from the drive motor 122 may be transferred from each drive shaft (e.g., drive shaft 108a) to the respective axle (e.g., axle 104a) via a bevel gear (e.g., bevel gear 114a)… Mating gears 130, 132 may be disposed on the lower portion of the drive shaft 108a and the axle 104a. Thus, the bevel gear 114a may transfer and change the direction of the power and torque from the drive shaft 108a to the wheel 102a.” Col 6 lines 21-31), the axle of said first pinion 130 (Fig 5) [being coaxial with that of said second toothed wheel] (“Mating gears 130, 132 may be disposed on the lower portion of the drive shaft 108a” Col 6 lines 26-27, Fig 5 shows the mating gear 130 is on a shared axis of 108a that supports the second toothed wheel 150a ) [and the axle of the second pinion 132 (Fig 5) being coaxial with the axle of one of said drive wheels 102a] (Fig 5 shows the second pinon gear 132 is coaxial with the drive wheel axle 104a, “the torque and power from the drive motor 122 may be transferred from each drive shaft (e.g., drive shaft 108a) to the respective axle (e.g., axle 104a) via a bevel gear (e.g., bevel gear 114a).” Col 6 lines 21-24).
Wiley does not teach said second toothed wheel being attached to a fork straddling said wheel, the axle of said drive wheel being mounted pivoting in relation to the blade of said fork extending on either side of said drive wheel.
Holmberg (US 6491127) teaches an equivalent system wherein said second toothed wheel 62 (Fig 2B) being attached to a fork 22 (Fig 2B, “Wheel 24 is vertically mounted in lower housing 22 to rotate about wheel shaft 30 and horizontal axis 32.” Col 4 lines 2-4 and “Offset gear 62 drives translation bevel gear pinion 64, as gears 62 and 64 are rigidly attached to opposite ends of translation driveshaft 66. Driveshaft 66 is rotably mounted within lower housing 22 by two bearings 68.” Col 4 lines 39-42) straddling said wheel 114 (Fig 2B) , the axle 30 (Fig 2B) of said drive wheel 114 (Fig 2B) [being mounted pivoting in relation to the blade of said fork extending on either side of said drive wheel] (Fig 2B shows the axle 30 extending between the two blades of the forked housing 22). Further, an axle of a second pinon 70 (Fig 2B) passes [through the centre of the drive wheel mounted on this device] (Fig 2B and Fig 6 show that the second pinon 70 interacts with bevel gear 62 to provide rotation to the wheel 114 and that the wheel 114 and the second pinon 70 share an axle 30 that fits inside the two blades of housing 22, “Wheel hub 36 and tread 114 are cast in place around bevel gear 70 to provide a wheel 24 that also rotates more precisely around the axis of rotation 32...” Col 6 lines 46-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fork shaped housing and bevel and wheel assembly of Holmberg with the wheel assembly of Wiley with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for additional support along the axle of the drive wheel while the wheel rotates. By using a fork shaped housing, additional axial support is provided on both sides of the wheel and the wheel gear components can be protected from outside elements and are less likely to fail due to dust and debris entering the gear system of the wheel. Additionally, the use of the second pinon provides a direct rotation path from the motor to the wheel hub, thus having a simple design that is more compact and saves space around the wheel hub and fork.
Regarding claim 12, Wiley and Holmberg fully teach said driving means comprise a first conical pinion and a second conical pinion arranged relative to one another so as to form an angular transmission, the axle of said first pinion being coaxial with that of said second toothed wheel and the axle of the second pinion being coaxial with the axle of one of said drive wheels (See modification of Wiley in view of Holmberg in claim 11 above) .
Regarding claim 16, Wiley and Holmberg fully teach at least one of said pivoting and driving devices is configured so that the axle of the second pinion of this device passes through the centre of the drive wheel mounted on this device (See modification of Wiley in view of Holmberg in claim 11 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prehn (US 20070095594 A1) teaches a driving unit for a floor conveyor having a driving motor, a gear and a driving wheel all mounted in a vertical axis in a vehicle-fixed frame of the floor conveyor.
Bauer-Nilsen (US 6354394 B1) teaches a steering mechanism for steering angular deflections carried out on a vehicle's/carriage's pivoted steering travelling wheels (10a, 12a; 10b, 12b) positioned in a row at each side of the carriage (16). During turning, the mechanism allots to each of the pivoted, steerable travelling wheels (10a, 10b, 12a, 12b) a correct deflection differing from that of each of the other steerable wheels.
SCHUETZENEDER (US 20190308860 A1) teaches a vehicle having cross members with a wheel pair wherein each of the individual wheels of the wheel pairs is mounted so as to rotate about an axis of rotation that is oriented vertically. The vehicle can be moved in a first travel direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and in a second travel direction transverse to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN M KNAUF whose telephone number is (703)756-4532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -4:30 PM.
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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611