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 .
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 10 and 11 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 10, line 4 recites the limitation "the rod" in lines . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, line 6 recites the limitation "the rod" in lines . 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ide JP 2000142449 A (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding independent claim 2, Ide discloses [a four-wheeled traveling device that performs steering by converting extension and contraction motion of one linear actuator 9 into rotational motion of a first front wheel 7, a second front wheel 7, a first rear wheel 8, and a second rear wheel 8 in a horizontal plane via a link.] (Fig. 2-4 and 6-8; Page 3, lines 14-20; Page 4, lines 37-38; Page 5, lines 1-6) wherein
[at least two of a link 4 for the first front wheel 7, a link 4 for the second front wheel 7, a link 5 for the first rear wheel 8, and a link 5 for the second rear 8 wheel have an identical shape.] (Fig. 5; As shown in Fig. 5, Ide illustrates wherein at least two of a link 4 for the first front wheel 7, a link 4 for the second front wheel 7, a link 5 for the first rear wheel 8, and a link 5 for the second rear 8 wheel have an identical shape.)
Regarding claim 3, Ide further discloses [wherein the link 4 for the first front wheel 7, the link 4 for the second front wheel 7, the link 5 for the first rear wheel 8, and the link 5 for the second rear wheel 8 all have an identical shape.] (Fig. 5; As shown in Fig. 5, Ide illustrates wherein at least two of a link 4 for the first front wheel 7, a link 4 for the second front wheel 7, a link 5 for the first rear wheel 8, and a link 5 for the second rear 8 wheel have an identical shape.)
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide in view of Hayashida et al. US 5366035 A.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ide discloses [a four-wheeled traveling device that performs steering by converting extension and contraction motion of one linear actuator 9 into rotational motion of a first front wheel 7, a second front wheel 7, a first rear wheel 8, and a second rear wheel 8 in a horizontal plane via a link 4, 5.] (Fig. 2-4 and 6-8; Page 3, lines 14-20; Page 4, lines 37-38; Page 5, lines 1-6)
Ide does not disclose wherein the linear actuator extends and contracts in parallel with a line connecting the first front wheel and the second front wheel.
Hayashida et al. teaches wherein [the linear actuator extends and contracts in parallel with a line connecting the first front wheel and the second front wheel.] (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 65-68; Col. 5, lines 1-9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the linear actuator of Hayashida with the four-wheeled traveling device of Ide with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for more direct transmission of actuator movement to the steering linkage and a more compact arrangement of steering components within the vehicle frame, thus simplifying the steering mechanism and improving space utilization while maintaining steering functionality.
Regarding claim 5, Ide, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitation above, including [the first front wheel 7;
the second front wheel 7;
the first rear wheel 8 located behind the first front wheel;
the second rear wheel 8 located behind the second front wheel;] (Fig. 2 and 5-8 of Ide; Page 3, lines 2-6 of Ide)
[the linear actuator 9; and
the link 4, 5, wherein
the link includes a first link 4 for the first front wheel, a second link 4 for the second front wheel, a third link 5 for the first rear wheel, and a fourth link 5 for the second rear wheel.] (Fig. 2-4 and 6-8 of Ide; Page 3, lines 14-20 of Ide; Page 4, lines 37-38 of Ide; Page 5, lines 1-6 of Ide)
Regarding claim 11, Ide, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein when the rod of the linear actuator is at a reference position, the four-wheeled traveling device travels straight, when the rod of the linear actuator extends from the reference position, the four-wheeled traveling device bends toward the second front wheel and the second rear wheel, and when the rod of the linear actuator contracts from the reference position, the four-wheeled traveling device bends toward the first front wheel and the first rear wheel.] (Fig. 5-8 of Ide; Page 3, lines 8-13; Page 4, lines 37-38; Page 5, lines 1-6; Ide discloses that hydraulic cylinder 9 functions as the steering actuator and that expansion and contraction of the cylinder rod rotates shifter case 18, which in turn changes direction of the front and rear wheels 7, 8. Since steering is accomplished by movement of rod 10 away from a straight-travel condition, it is disclosed that a position of the rod 10 corresponds to straight travel. In particular, Ide teaches that the directions of the wheels are changed by expansion and contraction of the rod 10, thus indicating that when cylinder rod 10 is not displaced to effect a steering change, the wheels remain in their straight traveling orientation. Accordingly, Ide discloses a reference position of the rod 10 at which the vehicle travels straight, while movement of rod 10 from that position causes the vehicle to turn.)
Ide, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the linear actuator is disposed closer to the first front wheel and the first rear wheel than a line connecting centers of the first front wheel and the second front wheel and centers of the first rear wheel and the second rear wheel. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, rearranging the linear actuator of Ide to a position closer to the first front wheel and the first rear wheel than a line connecting centers of the first front wheel and the second front wheel and centers of the first rear wheel and the second rear wheel would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art is it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide in view of Hayashida et al. and further in view of Matsunaga et al. JP 2020140424 A (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Ide, as modified, further discloses [a controller 47 that controls the extension and contraction of the linear actuator 9.] (Fig. 9 of Ide; Page 5, lines 1-6; Page 6, lines 33-36; Page 7, lines 1-6)
Ide, as modified, does not a camera; and a controller that automatically controls the linear actuator based on an image of the camera.
Matsunaga et al. teaches [a camera 4; and a controller 10 that automatically controls the linear actuator based on an image of the camera.] (Fig. 2; Page 3, lines 22-29; Page 4, lines 5-12; Page 8, lines 14-16; Matsunaga et al. discloses that guide sensor 4 may be replaced with an optical sensor, such as a camera, for detecting the position of a guide. Matsunaga et al. further teaches calculating a steering angle based on information detected by the sensor and controlling steering through a steering drive device 3e. Accordingly, it is disclosed that a camera and a controller 10 that automatically controls steering based on images obtained by the camera.)
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 camera and controller configuration of Matsunaga et al. with the four-wheeled traveling device of Ide, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for automatic detection of a travel path and corresponding automatic control of the steering actuator without requiring manual steering input, thus enabling autonomous guidance of the traveling device along a desired path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 contains the limitation of a four-wheeled traveling device that performs steering by converting extension and contraction motion of one linear actuator into rotational motion of a first front wheel, a second front wheel, a first rear wheel, and a second rear wheel in a horizontal plane via a link, wherein a link for the first front wheel and a link for the first rear wheel are located substantially on a first horizontal plane and rotate in the first horizontal plane, a link for the second front wheel and a link for the second rear wheel are located substantially on a second horizontal plane and rotate in the second horizontal plane, and the first horizontal plane and the second horizontal plane are different from each other. The closest prior art, Ide JP 2000142449 A, discloses a four-wheeled traveling device that performs steering by converting extension and contraction motion of one linear actuator into rotational motion of a first front wheel, a second front wheel, a first rear wheel, and a second rear wheel in a horizontal plane via a link, but does not disclose wherein a link for the first front wheel and a link for the first rear wheel are located substantially on a first horizontal plane and rotate in the first horizontal plane, a link for the second front wheel and a link for the second rear wheel are located substantially on a second horizontal plane and rotate in the second horizontal plane, and the first horizontal plane and the second horizontal plane are different from each other.
Claim 6-9 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:
Claim 6 contains the limitation wherein the linear actuator has a rod that extends and contracts in a first direction, the four-wheeled traveling device comprises a bridge that moves in the first direction in conjunction with the rod, the first link and the third link rotate in a horizontal plane in conjunction with the extension and contraction of the linear actuator by a first shaft provided in the rod, and the second link and the fourth link rotate in a horizontal plane in conjunction with the extension and contraction of the linear actuator by a second shaft provided in the bridge. The closest prior art, Ide JP 2000142449 A, discloses wherein the linear actuator has a rod that extends and contracts in a first direction, but does not disclose the four-wheeled traveling device comprises a bridge that moves in the first direction in conjunction with the rod, the first link and the third link rotate in a horizontal plane in conjunction with the extension and contraction of the linear actuator by a first shaft provided in the rod, and the second link and the fourth link rotate in a horizontal plane in conjunction with the extension and contraction of the linear actuator by a second shaft provided in the bridge.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 contains the limitation wherein each of the first to fourth links is provided with a small hole into which a third shaft that does not interlock with the rod is fitted, and each of the first to fourth links rotates in a horizontal plane about the small hole. The closest prior art, Ide JP 2000142449 A, discloses four links but does not disclose wherein each of the first to fourth links is provided with a small hole into which a third shaft that does not interlock with the rod is fitted, and each of the first to fourth links rotates in a horizontal plane about the small hole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qian et al. CN 205044811 U – comprises a low beyond half hanging car axle rotating to device, comprising front axle, tackle and front axle, two end is set with translational and rotating to wheel shaft, front axle, middle part corresponding to translational and rotating to front arm, rear rotating to hinged arm, front arm rotating to vertical two end respectively hinged and two of drive oil cylinder output end, before rotating to back lengthways end and front arm middle part hinged pull rod, front transverse pull rod two end are hinged and connected with front arm one end, front arm connected with the other end and rotating to wheel shaft corresponding to the hinge joint of front arm rotating to pass zong pull rod and rear arm connected with rotating to the back after rotating to arm end and back tie middle part hinged, rear tie rod end are hinged and two rear connecting arm one end, after connecting the other end arm and rotating to corresponding wheel shaft hinged.
Kusakabe et al. JP 2018024284 A – comprises a steer-by-wire type steering device, a tire hub unit that is supported by a suspension arm. The tire hub unit may rotate around a steering rotation axis. Further, the linear actuator is formed including an arm support part and a tire support part which changes a distance from the arm support part by expansion and contraction of the linear actuator. The arm support part of these components is supported by the suspension arm so as to rotate. On the other hand, the tire support part is supported by the tire hub unit 30 so as to rotate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:30 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights