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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains greater than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites, “wherein each of the pivoting element and the shaft rotating element is provided with at least one restoring element.” According to the disclosure, a restoring element is disposed on the pivoting element (Para.[0019]); however, there appears to be no mention of a restoring element provided to the shaft rotating element. Claim 1 recites, “the support restoring device comprising at least one support device and a shaft rotating element”. It is unclear to Examiner that if the at least one restoring element comprises the shaft rotating element, how a restoring element is provided to the shaft rotating element and what the relationship between the components is.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andress (WO 2023225431 A1) in view of Ewing (US 3064585 A).
Regarding claim 1: Andress teaches a track-type robot, mainly comprising: a body (102; Fig.1); at least one running mechanism (104; Fig.1), the running mechanism being used for traveling on a track (252; Fig.1), and the running mechanism being connected to the body by a pivoting element (axis of shaft of 104; Fig.1) such that the body and the running mechanism perform relative deflection motions in forward and reverse directions with an axis of the pivoting element when the running mechanism travels (relative movement of 102 and 104; Fig.1); a driving device (112; Fig.3A), the driving device being disposed on the body, and the driving device at least comprising a power source for driving the running mechanism to travel (Para.[0048], lines 1-9); and two positioning wheels (122; Fig.1), the two positioning wheels being disposed on two opposite sides of the body or the running mechanism (shown in Fig.1) by holding mechanisms (124; Fig.1) respectively, so that the positioning wheels clamp the track from two sides thereof by means of the holding mechanisms (122,124; Fig.1). Andress does not teach a support restoring device, the support restoring device comprising at least one support device and a shaft rotating element, the support device being connected between the body and the shaft rotating element, and the support device restoring the body to an original position through the shaft rotating element when the body is deflected.
However, Ewing teaches the use of a support restoring device (14; Fig.4), the support restoring device comprising at least one support device (cylinder of 14; Fig.4) and a shaft rotating element (top bearing connection of 14; Fig.4) , the support device being connected between the body (4; Fig.4) and the shaft rotating element, and the support device restoring the body to an original position through the shaft rotating element when the body is deflected (Col.4, lines 38-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the robot of Andress to include a support restoring device as taught within Ewing to maintain and restore the original position of the body during system use to maintain proper orientation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Andress further teaches the track-type robot of claim 1, wherein the driving device (112; Fig.3A) further comprises at least one drive wheel (116; Fig.1), the drive wheel is connected to the power source, and the drive wheel is driven by power provided by the power source to drive the running mechanism to travel on the track (Para.[0048], lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 3: Andress does not specifically teach a braking mechanism, the braking mechanism being disposed on at least one side of the drive wheel, and used for interfering in operation of the drive wheel.
However, Ewing teaches the use of a braking mechanism used for interfering in operation of the drive wheel (Col.6, lines 46-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the track-type robot of Andress with a braking mechanism that is disposed on at least one side of the drive wheel since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4: Andress further teaches the track-type robot of claim 2, wherein the power source is connected to the drive wheel through a power transmission unit (118; Fig.3A and Para.[0048], lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 5: Andress further teaches the track-type robot of claim 1, further comprising at least one sensing device, the sensing device being disposed on the body or an external platform provided by the body, and the sensing device being an image sensing device (Para.[0063]).
Regarding claim 6: Andress further teaches the track-type robot of claim 1, wherein a plurality of locating elements are disposed on at least any surface of the track (Para.[0064]), and at least one locator is provided at positions, corresponding to the locating elements of the track, of the body, so as to locate the body through the locator and the locating elements (Para.[0064]).
Regarding claim 7: Andress further teaches the track-type robot of claim 6, wherein the locating elements are a sensor (Para.[0064]).
Regarding claim 8: Andress further teaches pivoting elements of the track-type robot (axis of 104; Fig.1). Andress does not teach wherein each of the pivoting element and the shaft rotating element is provided with at least one restoring element.
However, Ewing teaches the use of the shaft rotating element (top bearing connection of 14; Fig.4) is provided with at least one restoring element (cylinder pressure of 14; Fig.4) and the use of a restoring element (25; Fig.6) for use with pivoting elements (Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the track-type robot of Andress to include restoring elements to bias components in a proper orientation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9: Andress does not teach herein the support device is a support spring, an oil pressure mechanism, a hydraulic mechanism, a telescopic cylinder structure, or other telescopic structure with a supportive force.
However, Ewing teaches wherein the support device (cylinder of 14; Fig.4) is a support spring, an oil pressure mechanism, a hydraulic mechanism a telescopic cylinder structure, or other telescopic structure with a supportive force (apparent hydraulic cylinder 14; Fig.4 and Col.4, lines 38-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the track-type robot of Andress with a support device as taught within Ewing since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights