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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 states “the pair of wheels”, which should be “the pair of wheel units”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 10, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stelman (US 2021/0309060).
In re claim 1, Stelman discloses a driving module comprising: a frame (102) supporting a robot body (as shown in Figure 1); and a pair of wheel units (106) respectively coupled to left and right areas of the frame to tilt in front and rear directions about a virtual axis line extending in left and right directions (as shown in Figures 1-3), wherein each of the pair of wheel units comprise: a base member (110) rotatably coupled to the frame about the virtual axis line (as shown in Figures 9-10); a front-wheel (front wheel 106) rotatably coupled to the front portion of the base member based on the virtual axis line about an axis line parallel to the virtual axis line; a rear-wheel (rear wheel 106) rotatably coupled to the rear portion of the base member based on the virtual axis line about an axis line parallel to the virtual axis line; and a driving unit (hub motors in wheels 106; see [0066]) providing a rotational driving force to at least one of the front-wheel and the rear-wheel.
In re claim 2, Stelman further discloses wherein the frame comprises: a first support unit (1402) to which the pair of wheel units is rotatably coupled about the virtual axis line (dotted line in Figure 11); and a second support unit (1400) supporting the robot body with respect to the first support unit.
In re claim 3, Stelman further discloses wherein the first support unit comprises a rotating shaft (1402) disposed on the virtual axis line and to which the pair of wheel units are rotatably coupled.
In re claim 4, Stelman further discloses wherein the rotating shaft is provided as a single member extending in the left and right directions (as shown in Figure 14).
In re claim 5, Stelman further discloses wherein a pair of rotating shafts (axle/shaft through which each wheel 106 rotates) is provided, the pair of rotating shafts are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in left and right directions, the pair of wheel units are rotatably coupled to the pair of rotating shafts, and wherein the first support unit further comprises a coupling support member (portion labeled 110 in Figure 11) that couples the pair of rotating shafts in an aligned state on the virtual axis line.
In re claim 10, Stelman further discloses further comprising: a pair of restoring force providing unit (1100) providing a restoring force to restore each of the pair of wheel units to its original state before the tilting operation when each of the pair of wheel units tilts with respect to the frame about the virtual axis line (as shown in Figure 11).
In re claim 13, Stelman further discloses wherein the driving unit comprises: a driving motor (hub motor) supported on the base member; and a power transmission unit (components of hub motor that transmit power to the wheel) that transmits the rotational driving force generated by the driving motor to at least one of the front-wheel and the rear-wheel.
In re claim 20, Stelman further discloses a mobile robot comprising: a driving module according to claim 1; and the robot body supported on the frame of the driving module (as shown in Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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: The specific limitations of “wherein the second support unit comprises: a support member extending up and down and supported by the first support unit; and a ball joint interposed between the support member and the robot body and providing a degree of freedom of rotation between the support member and the robot body, and coupling the support member and the robot body” and “wherein the second support unit comprises: a support member supported on the first support unit and extending up and down; and a thrust bearing interposed between the support member and the robot body and providing a degree of freedom of rotation between the support member and the robot body and coupling the support member and the robot body” are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose wherein the second support unit comprises a ball joint or thrust bearing providing a degree of freedom between the support member and body as claimed.
Claim 11 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 and addressing the claim objection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the frame comprises a rotating shaft to which the pair of wheels are rotatably coupled about the virtual axis line, and wherein each of the pair of restoring force providing units comprise: a first plate coupled to the rotating shaft and extending radially from the rotating shaft; a second plate coupled to the base member to be spaced apart from the first plate to face the first plate; and a resilient body interposed between the first plate and the second plate and providing an elastic force to restore the first plate to its original state before a gap change when there is the gap change between the first plate and the second plate” are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a restoring force structure in the combination as claimed.
Claim 12 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 and addressing the claim objection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the frame comprises a rotating shaft to which the pair of wheels are rotatably coupled about the virtual axis line, and wherein each of the pair of restoring force providing units each comprise: a hub structure comprising a hub having a hollow shape and coupled to the rotating shaft, and a first plate having one end coupled to the hub and extending radially from the hub; a second plate coupled to the base member to be spaced apart from the first plate while facing the first plate; and a resilient body interposed between the first plate and the second plate and providing an elastic force to restore the first plate to its original state before a gap change when there is the gap change between the first plate and the second plate” are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a restoring force structure in the combination as claimed.
Claims 14-18 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: The specific limitations of “wherein the power transmission unit comprises: a driving pulley coupled to the driving motor and rotating about an axis line parallel to the virtual axis line; a driven pulley having the same axis line as a selected wheel among the front-wheel and the rear-wheel, and rotatably supported on the base member; a main belt that connects the driving pulley and the driven pulley to transmit power; a first pulley having the same axis as the selected wheel and the driven pulley, and rotatably supported on the base member; a second pulley having the same axis as an unselected wheel among the front-wheel and the rear-wheel, and rotatably supported on the base member; and a sub-belt that connects the first pulley and the second pulley to transmit power, wherein the selected wheel, the driven pulley, and the first pulley are coupled to the rotating shaft of the selected wheel, which is rotatably supported on the base member, and the unselected wheel and the second pulley are coupled to the rotating shaft of the unselected wheel, which is rotatably supported on the base member” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a belt and pulley powered power transmission in the combination as claimed.
Claim 19 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: The specific limitations of “wherein the power transmission unit transmits the rotational driving force generated by the driving motor to both the front-wheel and the rear-wheel, and wherein the driving module implements four-wheel drive” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art discloses single wheel hub motors, not a transmission that is capable of powering all four wheels as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach wheeled structures of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights