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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 9/5/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending and considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. However, applicant has not filed a certified copy as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application failed on 5/13/2025.
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.
Claims 1-5 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 limitation “information acquisition part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
Claim 1: a driving part; wherein the driving part rotates at least one of the plurality of wheels with respect to the body part so that the reference rotation axis revolves with respect to an eccentric rotation axis.
Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
Claims 6: wherein a driving part rotates at least one of the plurality of wheels with respect to the body part so that the reference rotation axis revolves with respect to an eccentric rotation axis.
Claims 7-10 depend on claim 6.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “control the posture of the moving body”. Claim 6 includes the limitation “controlling a traveling posture of the moving body”. The claims do not indicate the element and step required to perform this function. Applicant’s specification illustrates a state in which the moving body is seated in a current posture that deviates from a reference posture in FIG. 4; and illustrates a state in which the moving body is seated on the reference posture in FIG. 5 (paragraph [0042] (PGPub)). Paragraph [0043] states: “Further, the driving part 300 may rotate the wheel 200 with respect to the body part 100 so that the reference rotation axis revolves with respect to the eccentric rotation axis. The driving part 300 may include a link, a revolution motor, and a rotation motor.” This provides an explanation of how the robot controls the traveling posture of the moving body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Artes et al. (US-2021/0001480-A1) is the closest prior art to the applicant’s invention. Artes discloses an autonomous mobile robot with a security module which classifies an actual movement of the autonomous mobile robot as dangerous on the basis of predetermined criteria (Abstract). FIG. 1E shows a transport robot. The transport robot has a transport platform, on which objects to be transported can be placed. On the underside, the transport robot has wheels. A slow acceleration is ensured in order that objects placed on the transport platform do not tip over or become misplaced (paragraph [0016]). A sensor module of the transport robot detects whether, and if so what objects, the transport robot is transporting. Acceleration and speed are adjusted based on this information (paragraph [0057]). A safety module ensures that a control module does not send any control commands to a drive module that endanger the stability of the transport robot. The safety module determines the maximum allowable acceleration rates based on an analysis of the transport robot’s stability. The maximum allowable acceleration rates depend on a position of the transport robot, the direction of the acceleration, and the transport robot’s center of gravity (paragraph [0060]).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beck et al. (U.S. Patent Number 6,374,934) discloses a single-seater motor vehicle with a plurality of wheels. Each wheel is arranged adjustably or pivotably on a supporting arm (Abstract). FIG. 1 shows that a vehicle length can be reduced in a folded-up state (col. 3, lines 56-60).
Hutcheson et al. (US-2008/0105481-A1) discloses a reconfigurable balancing robot. Robotic controls allow an unbalanced pendulum robot to raise its Center of Mass and balance on two motorized wheels (Abstract).
Biggerstaff (US-2010/0204891-A1) discloses an acceleration control system for vehicles having a loader arm (Abstract). An electronic controller combines the load weight and height to dynamically calculate the static center of gravity and acceleration necessary to cause the dynamic center of gravity of the combined vehicle and load to extend exterior of an edge of a stability polygon for the vehicle; and generates an allowable acceleration signal (paragraph [0053]).
Zarrouk (US-2021/0009219-A1) discloses a robot device comprising a main body portion and two elongated legs, wherein each of the legs is connected to the main body portion by a four-bar extension mechanism; and each of the legs is rotatable around a corresponding axis positioned along the distal-proximal direction (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights