DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-13 are pending examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley et al. (US2017/0120904) in view of Moore et al. (US20160084737) and herein after will be referred as Kentley and Moore.
Regarding Claim 1, Kentley teaches a system for controlling at least one electric motor for a self-guided vehicle (Figure 3 #301autonomous vehicle system; Fig.8 # 851 electric motors #100 autonomous vehicle), said system comprising:
- at least one electronic control interface each associated with an electric motor (Para [0079]:” Drive system 326 may communicate the drive system data 327 to a braking system 364, a steering system 366, a propulsion system 368, and a signal system 362 (e.g., turn signals, brake signals, head lights, and running lights). For example, drive system data 327 may include steering angle data for steering system 366 (e.g., a steering angle for a wheel), braking data for brake system 364 (e.g., brake force to be applied to a brake pad), and propulsion data (e.g., a Voltage, current.” Here #326 drive system is interface with propulsion system (i.e. electric motor) of the autonomous vehicle 100).
Kently does not expressly teach at least one operational-safety processor connected to a safety scanner via a link transmitting safety information and connected to at least one electronic control interface so as to control said at least one electric motor on the basis of safety information originating from a safety scanner and a navigation-monitoring processor which is configured to process environment information originating from the safety scanner.
Moore teaches at least one operational-safety processor connected to a safety scanner via a link transmitting safety information (Para [0027]: “Referring to FIG. 1, a schematic diagram of a system 100 for enabling auto safety verification is shown, according to an exemplary embodiment. As illustrated, AGV 101 may be communicatively coupled with network device 103 via network 102. AGV 101 may comprise a navigation sensor 104, a front bumper sensor 105, a left bumper sensor 106, a right bumper sensor 107 (not shown), object detection sensors 108, 109 (e.g., TiMS lasers), and a safety scanner 110 (e.g., a laser safety scanner such as SICK S300). Each of these exemplary sensors/scanners may be referred to as a safety sensor, or they may be referred to collectively as safety sensors. Each of the safety sensors is not required; however, the AGV preferably has at least a front bumper sensor 105. Front bumper sensor 105 views an area in front of the AGV in the direction of travel. Another sensor that performs the same function may be considered a “front bumper sensor” in embodiments of the present invention. The safety sensors may communicate with an onboard control module 111, which is shown in block diagram in FIG. 2. The safety sensors may have a 270 degree field of view and a range of 3 meters, for example.” Here operational safety processor is being interpreted as Onboard control module 111 and safety scanner 110)
Moore also teaches connected to at least one electronic control interface so as to control said at least one electric motor on the basis of safety information originating from a safety scanner (Para [0029] : “ An exemplary configuration file may specify that a warning field is to extend between five feet and fourteen feet in front of the AGV moving at maximum speed (e.g., 1500 mm/s), that a protective field is to extend from an end of the AGV up to five feet in front of the AGV moving at a maximum speed (e.g., 1500 mm/s), that the AGV is to slow down to a predetermined speed upon sensing an object in the warning field, and that the AGV is to stop upon sensing an object in the protective field (by applying brakes or coasting to a stop, for example). A configuration file may specify that a protective field is to envelop the AGV on all sides with a 6″ field. Whatever the precise parameters of the configuration file are, a processing module 204 on the AGV will process the configuration file and control the AGV accordingly. For example, if the configuration file specifies a protective field of 6″ around the AGV, and one or more sensors on the AGV sense an object within this field, then the AGV will immediately stop by applying brakes on the AGV. Similarly, if a configuration file specifies a warning field extending fourteen feet in front of the AGV, and one or more sensors on the AGV sense an object within this field, then the AGV will slow down to a predetermined speed. Different fields (e.g., both warning and protective fields) may be programmed into one sensor such that a single sensor may have both warning field parameters and protective field parameters.” Here sensors are connected to the onboard control module which in turn controls the AGV i.e. motors as necessary if they detect an object with the help of its safety scanner i.e. safety sensors)
Moore also teaches a navigation-monitoring processor which is configured to process environment information originating from the safety scanner (Para [0046]: “To run the auto safety verification test for test case 2, AGV 101 is navigated or placed into insert zone 405. AGV 101 may adjust its position such that AGV 101 is within a predetermined distance range to forward test object 401. Once AGV 101 is in insert zone 405, processing module 202 records the AGV's starting location using navigation sensor 104. Hence, before test case 2 begins, AGV 101 knows the AGV's starting position and the location of forward test object 401. In exemplary test case 2, the AGV may drive forward between 751 to 1000 mm/s towards forward test object 401. As AGV 101 travels toward forward test object 401, the warning field on the bottom front bumper sensor 105 will eventually be triggered because the front bumper sensor 105 will detect an object (in this case, forward test object 401) in its warning field. Once the warning field is triggered, processing module 202 records the location of AGV 101 and begins to slow AGV 101 down to a predetermined, constant speed. Alternatively, as front bumper sensor 105 continues to detect the forward test object 401 in its warning field, processing module 202 may receive an indication of such data from sensor module 204 and may dynamically adjust the speed of AGV 101. For example, as AGV 101 continues to move closer to forward test object 401, processing module 202 may slow AGV 101 down even further, but will not stop AGV 101. In either case, AGV 101 continues to move closer to forward test object 401, and when front bumper sensor 105 detects forward test object 401 in its the protective field, processing module 202 records the location of AGV 101 and stops AGV 101 from moving further. The final stop position of AGV 101 may or may not be recorded. Once the locations are recorded where the warning and protective fields are triggered, processing module 202 may analyze the results to determine whether AGV 101 passed the particular test case.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kentley to incorporate the teachings of Moore to include at least one operational-safety processor connected to a safety scanner via a link transmitting safety information and connected to at least one electronic control interface so as to control said at least one electric motor on the basis of safety information originating from a safety scanner and a navigation-monitoring processor which is configured to process environment information originating from the safety scanner. Doing so would optimize safety of AGV operations.
Regarding Claim 2, Kentley in view of Moore teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Kentley also teaches wherein the at least one control interface comprises two electronic control interfaces each associated with an electric motor, the safety processor being connected to the two electronic control interfaces so as to control the two motors on the basis of safety information transmitted by the scanner (Para [00148]: “Processor 1605 may communicate drive data 327 to specific drive systems, such as steering control data to the steering system 361, braking control data to the braking system 364, propulsion control data to the propulsion system 368 and signaling control data to the signaling system 362. The steering system 361 may be configured to process steering data to actuate wheel actuators WA-1 through WA-n. Vehicle 100 may be configured for multi-wheel independent steering (e.g., four wheel steering). Each wheel actuator WA-1 through WA-n may be configured to control a steering angle of a wheel coupled with the wheel actuator. Braking system 364 may be configured to process braking data to actuate brake actuators BA-1 through BA-n. Braking system 364 may be configured to implement differential braking and anti-lock braking, for example. Propulsion system 368 may be configured to process propulsion data to actuate drive motors DM-1 through DM-n (e.g., electric motors). Signaling system 362 may process signaling data to activate signal elements S-1 through S-n (e.g., brake lights, turn signals, headlights, running lights, etc.). In some examples, signaling system 362 may be configured to use one or more light emitters 1202 to implement a signaling function. For example, signaling system 362 may be configured to access all or a portion of one or more light emitters 1202 to implement a signaling function (e.g., brake lights, turn signals, headlights, running lights, etc.).” As shown in the figure below there are multiple motos and have drive systems 326 for all the motors 851)
PNG
media_image1.png
540
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kentley in view of Moore teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Kentley also teaches wherein the at least one control interface comprises two electronic control interfaces each associated with an electric motor and the at least one operational-safety processor comprises two operational-safety processors, each of the two operational-safety processors being connected to an electronic control interface so as to control the two motors on the basis of safety information transmitted by the scanner (Similarly like claim 2, now it claims two electric motors (electric motors #851) and two electric control interfaces (# 326 drive systems) and two operational safety processor (two controllers implicitly teaches ) also please refer to Para [00148]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kentley in view of Moore teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Moore also teaches wherein said at least one safety processor is configured to determine whether an obstacle is detected in a field of view of the safety scanner on the basis of safety information received and carry out at least one safety function from among the following safety functions: - an "STO" safety function corresponding to electrically disconnecting the motor so as to eliminate the torque; - an "SDI" safety function corresponding to preventing one of the two rotation directions of the motor; - an "SLS" safety function corresponding to limiting the rotation of the motor to a maximum speed;- an "SS1" safety function corresponding to braking the motor by controlled deceleration; and- an "SBC" safety function corresponding to stopping the motor by engaging a brake (Para [0029]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kentley in view of Moore teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Kentley also teaches wherein the navigation monitoring processor is configured to monitor the navigation of the vehicle by carrying out the following navigation functions:
- calculating at least one trajectory to be performed by the vehicle in an environment on the basis of information transmitted by a central monitoring unit (Para [0069-0070]);
- reading enhanced information about the environment, which enhanced information is acquired by said at least one safety scanner while the vehicle is moving in the environment (Para [0070]);
- reconstructing the environment and determining the position of the vehicle in said environment (Para [0070-0071]); and
- predicting at least one path to be followed by the vehicle and adapting the trajectory to the environment (Para [0072]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kentley teaches a self-drive assembly for a self-guided vehicle (Fig.8), comprising:
- at least one electric motor generating a rotation movement (Fig.8 #851);
- an energy source configured to store and return the energy needed for the autonomous operation of said assembly (Para [0048] #propulsion system 368); and
- a system for controlling said at least one electric motor as claimed in claim 1(See Claim 1 rejection Kentley in view of Moore).
Regarding Claim 7, Kentley in view of Moore teaches assembly as claimed in claim 6. Kentley also teaches comprising a base frame and an external profiled shell forming an external casing, the base frame comprising a receiving space for receiving the electric motor and keeping it in position, a first internal profiled shell and a second internal profiled shell assembled together to form a tight internal casing in which are received the energy source, the control system, said casing also being received in the receiving space of the external casing (See Fig.8).
Regarding Claim 11, Kentley in view of Moore teaches a self-guided vehicle comprising at least one drive wheel driven by a self-drive assembly as claimed in claim 6. Moore also teaches at least one safety scanner configured to acquire safety information and enhanced information about the environment in which said vehicle is moving (Para [0029] and [0046])
Regarding Claim 12, Kentley in view of Moore teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 11. Moore also teaches wherein said safety scanner is connected to the safety-monitoring processor to the navigation-monitoring processor via a bus for communicating safety information and a bus for communicating enhanced information about the environment, respectively (Para [0046]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kentley in view of Moore teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 11. Kentley also teaches wherein said at least one safety scanner is a lidar system (Fig.3B #371 Lidars).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley in view of Moore and in further view of Horie et al. (JPH 11249741A) and herein after will be referred as Horie.
Regarding Claim 8, Kentley in view of Moore teaches assembly as claimed in claim 7.
Horie teaches wherein the second internal profiled shell forms a user interface comprising communication connections, a recharging connection and a means for indicating the state of charge of the energy source, said user interface being positioned facing an opening made in the external profiled shell such that the recharging connection and the indicating means are accessible and visible from outside the casing (Para [0028-0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kentley and Moore to incorporate the teachings of Horie to include the second internal profiled shell forms a user interface comprising communication connections, a recharging connection and a means for indicating the state of charge of the energy source, said user interface being positioned facing an opening made in the external profiled shell such that the recharging connection and the indicating means are accessible and visible from outside the casing. Doing so would optimize the charging process of the AGV.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley in view of Moore and in further Sakai (US20190278281) and herein after will be referred as Sakai.
Regarding Claim 9, Kentley in view of Moore teaches assembly as claimed in claim 6.
Sakai teaches wherein the energy source comprises at least one accumulator of Ni-MH or Li-ion type (Para [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kentley and Moore to incorporate the teachings of Sakai to include the energy source comprises at least one accumulator of Ni-MH or Li-ion. Doing so would optimize the operation of the AGV.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley in view of Moore and in further view of Fischer et al. (DE 102011004191A) and herein after will be referred as Fischer.
Regarding Claim 10, Kentley teaches assembly as claimed in claim 6.
Fischer teaches wherein the electric motor is coupled to a drive wheel by way of an epicyclic reduction gear (Para [0027-0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kentley and Moore to incorporate the teachings of Fischer to include the electric motor is coupled to a drive wheel by way of an epicyclic reduction gear. Doing so would optimize the operation of the AGV.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights