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 .
Drawings
The drawings: Figures 1-3 are objected to because elements are labelled. The examiner advises the applicant to label the components when permissible. For example, Fig.1 #5 should be labelled as safety scanner, similarly other components need to be labeled for ease of understanding.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an energy source configured to store in claim 6.
Safety scanner configured to acquire safety information in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For compact prosecution, “an energy source” is being interpreted as disclosed in Para [0095] as Ni-MH battery and “safety scanner” is being interpreted as disclosed in Para [0055] as camera.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 1-7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kentley et al. (US2017/0120904) and herein after will be referred as Kentley.
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),
at least one operational-safety processor 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 [0074] : “Vehicle controller(s) 350 may be configured to receive the control and data 317, and based on the control and data 317, communicate interior data 323, exterior data 325 and drive data 327 to the interior safety system 322, the exterior safety system 324, and the drive system 326, respectively as determined by the control and data 317,” # safety processor ; Para [0070]: “Perception system 340 may process sensor data 334 to generate object data 349 that may be received by a planner system 310. Object data 349 may include data associated with objects detected in environment 390 and the data may include but is not limited to data representing object classification, object type, object track, object location, predicted object path, predicted object trajectory, and object Velocity, for example.” #safety scanner)
and a navigation-monitoring processor which is configured to process environment information originating from the safety scanner (Para [0072]: “Planner system 310 may process the object data 349 and the local pose data 339 to compute a path (e.g., a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle) for the autonomous vehicle through the environment 390. The computed path being determined in part by objects in the environment 390 that may create an obstacle to the autonomous vehicle and/or may pose a collision threat to the autonomous vehicle”).
PNG
media_image1.png
965
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kentley 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_image2.png
540
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kentley 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 teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Kentley 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 [0079]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kentley 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).
Regarding Claim 7, Kentley 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 teaches a self-guided vehicle comprising at least one drive wheel driven by a self-drive assembly as claimed in claim 6. Kentley also teaches at least one safety scanner configured to acquire safety information and enhanced information about the environment in which said vehicle is moving (Fig.8 and Para [0070] Perception system 340 may process sensor data 334 to generate object data 349 that may be received by a planner system 310. Object data 349 may include data associated with objects detected in environment 390 and the data may include but is not limited to data representing object classification, object type, object track, object location, predicted object path, predicted object trajectory, and object Velocity, for example.)
Regarding Claim 12, Kentley teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 11. Kentley 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 (Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 13, Kentley 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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley in view of Horie et al. (JPH 11249741A) and herein after will be referred as Horie.
Regarding Claim 8, Kentley 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 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 Sakai (US20190278281) and herein after will be referred as Sakai.
Regarding Claim 9, Kentley 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 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 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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8965615 discloses the invention relates to a method of operating a floor-bound heavy-duty transport vehicle, in particular a heavy-duty automated guided vehicle, having an electric travel drive which comprises at least two electric motors.
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