DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 12/02/2024 and 06/27/2025 have been reviewed and considered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 is considered to encompass a human organism because the claim positively recites a human (“on which a person is carried”, claim 1). The examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite a person-carrying function of the main body. For example, “a main body configured to carry a person”.
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 (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 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 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Peel (US 20150120089 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Peel discloses A robot (60, Fig. 2) comprising: a main body on which a person (D1) is carried; a handle (see annotated figure below) to be gripped by the person on the main body; a moving device configured to move the main body; an operation terminal (110, Fig. 12) attachable to and detachable from the robot and configured to receive an input of a command ("record and/or detect relative movement of the instrument 10 by a user.", paragraph [0034]) related to an operation of the robot; and a control device (20, Fig. 2) configured to control the robot in accordance with the command received from the operation terminal (see paragraph [0034]), wherein in a state where the operation terminal is attached to the robot, the operation terminal is disposed at a position where the operation terminal is operated while the handle is gripped by the person (see "driver D1 can operate the braking and acceleration of the vehicle using the instrument 10 while it is installed in the vehicle and while the driver D1 is in the driver space DS.", paragraph [0048]).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note, Peel discloses using the embodiment of the operation element (110, Fig. 12) in a manner identical to the embodiment of the operation element (10, Fig. 1) shown in Figure 1 (see paragraph [0066]). Accordingly, descriptions of the operation of operation element (10, Fig. 1) also apply to operation element (110, Fig. 12)
With respect to claim 2, Peel discloses the robot according to claim 1, wherein the operation terminal (110, Fig. 12) includes a display (112) and an operation element (113, Fig. 12) to be operated by the person, and in the state where the operation terminal is attached to the robot, the operation element is disposed at a position where the operation element is operated while the handle is gripped by the person (see paragraph [0047]-[0048]).
Note, since an operator is capable of reaching the operation element in the “direct vehicle operation mode” in order to operate the “functional controls” (paragraph [0048]), and since the handles are attached to the operating element, the operation element is considered to be disposed at a position where the operation element is operated while the handle is gripped by the person.
With respect to claim 4, Peel discloses the robot according to claim 1, wherein the operation terminal (110, Fig. 12) includes a display (112), and the operation terminal selectively displays a first screen used when the person is on the main body and a second screen used when the person is away from the robot.
Regarding the “first screen”, Peel discloses that when the operation element is used by a person on the main body (“direct vehicle operation mode”, paragraph [0046]), the display can act as a digital cluster gauge (see paragraph [0046]). Regarding the “second screen”, Peel discloses that when an operator operates the operation terminal away from the vehicle (“remote control mode”, paragraph [0051]), the display can display images transmitted from a vehicle-onboard camera (see paragraph [0054]). Accordingly, the operation terminal, “selectively displays a first screen used when the person is on the main body and a second screen used when the person is away from the robot” as claimed.
With respect to claim 5, Peel discloses the robot according to claim 4, wherein the operation terminal (110, Fig. 12) displays the first screen in the state of being attached to the robot (“in a direct vehicle operation mode”, paragraph [0046]), and displays the second screen in a state of being detached from the robot (see “removed from the vehicle and used in a remote-control mode”, paragraph [0054]).
With respect to claim 6, Peel discloses the root according to claim 4, wherein the robot further includes a camera (30, Fig. 2), and the operation terminal displays, on the second screen (“in a remote control mode”, paragraph [0054]), one or both of an image acquired by the camera (“transmit images to the display 12”, paragraph [0054]) and an image after image processing of the image.
With respect to claim 7, Peel discloses he robot according to claim 1, wherein the operation terminal includes a wireless communication device (21) configured to wirelessly communicate with the control device and a terminal (“plugs or connectors”, paragraph [0036]) connected to the control device by wired connection (“direct electrical connection with the vehicle control system 20”, paragraph [0036]), and the operation terminal operates the robot by sending a command to the control device via either wireless communication or wired communication.
With respect to claim 9, Peel discloses the robot according to claim 7, wherein the operation terminal (110, Fig. 12) includes a display (112), and the operation terminal displays different screens on the display between a state where the wireless communication device and the control device are wirelessly connected and a state where the terminal and the control device are connected by the wired connection.
As described above in the rejection of claim 4, the display selectively displays a first screen used when the person is on the main body and a second screen used when the person is away from the robot. Since, when the person is away from the robot (“remote control mode”, paragraph [0054]), communication between the operation terminal and vehicle control system happens via a wireless connection, and when the person is on the main body (“direct vehicle operation mode”, paragraph [0046]), communication between the operation terminal and vehicle control system happens via wired connection, the operation terminal displays different screens on the display between a state where the wireless communication device and the control device are wirelessly connected and a state where the terminal and the control device are connected by the wired connection.
With respect to claim 10, Peel discloses The robot according to claim 7, wherein the robot further includes a battery as a power source (“power supply of a vehicle, such as a battery”, paragraph [0036]), the operation terminal further includes a secondary battery (“portable self-contained battery”, paragraph [0036]) as a power source, and the operation terminal receives power supply from the battery of the robot via the wired connection between the terminal and the control device (see “to charge the instrument 10 and optionally recharge a portable self-contained battery 11B disposed in the housing 11 of the instrument 10”, paragraph [0036]).
With respect to claim 11, Peel discloses the robot according to claim 10, wherein the operation terminal communicates with the control device (“in direct electrical connection with the vehicle control system 20”, paragraph [0036]) while receiving the power supply from the battery of the robot via the wired connection between the terminal and the control device (“enable a power supply of a vehicle, such as a battery, to charge the instrument 10”, paragraph [0036]).
With respect to claim 14, Peel discloses the robot according to claim 1, wherein the moving device includes: one or more wheels (see annotated figure below) which are rotatable; and one or more wheel actuators (“engine control module”) configured to drive the one or more wheels, and the control device (20) controls the one or more wheel actuators (“By touching the display image "speed", a user can adjust the speed of the vehicle 60”, paragraph [0043]). Note, when the user operates the operation element to affect the vehicle, a command is sent to vehicle control system (20) (see paragraph [0034]).
PNG
media_image2.png
490
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 3, 8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peel (US 20150120089 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Peel discloses the robot according to claim 2, wherein the operation element includes a joystick (113, Fig. 12).
Peel is silent in teaching a plurality of joysticks arranged on both sides of the display, and
in the state where the operation terminal is attached to the robot, the plurality of joysticks are arranged at positions where the plurality of joysticks are operated while the handle is gripped by the person.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Peel to have an additional joystick to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would have been obvious as it could be made by a simple substitution of one known element (D-pad 114) for another known element (a joystick such as joystick 113, Fig. 12) to achieve predictable results. Since D-pads and joysticks are both known for providing directional inputs, such a person would expect the modified device to perform substantially similar to the original. It would have been obvious to such a person to further modify Peel to have one of the joysticks on an opposite side of the operation element to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would have been obvious as it is a rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2114.04 VI. C.). When making the modification to have an additional joystick, such a person would have been motivated to dispose the additional joystick on a side of the operation element opposite the first joystick so that a user can differentiate between the joysticks more easily.
With respect to claim 8, Peel discloses the robot according to claim 7 but is silent in teaching that the control device prioritizes communications transmitted via the wired connection.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Peel to prioritize communications transmitted via the wired connection because wired connections are known to provide faster data transmission than wireless connections. Such a person would have been further motivated to make such a modification to reduce latency and to improve security by obviating security concerns associated with wireless data transmission.
With respect to claim 12, Peel discloses the robot according to claim 10, but is silent in teaching that the operation terminal communicates with the control device via wireless connection between the wireless communication device and the control device while receiving the power supply from the battery of the robot via the wired connection between the terminal and the control device. The operational terminal disclosed by Peel communicates with the control device via a wired connection when the operational terminal is in the “direct vehicle operation mode”. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Peel to have the operation terminal capable of communicating with the vehicle control system via a wireless connection when in the direct vehicle operation mode (while receiving power) in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a person would have been motivated to make such a modification to allow an operator to continue to operate the operation terminal in the direct vehicle operation mode in the event that the wired communication fails.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peel (US 20150120089 A1) in view of Scruggs (WO 2007081452 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Peel discloses the robot of claim 1 but is silent in teaching that the moving device includes two or more leg portions coupled to the main body and configured to perform a bending operation, each of the two or more leg portions including two or more joints; and a plurality of joint actuators configured to drive the plurality of joints, and the control device controls the plurality of joint actuators.
Scruggs teaches a vehicle comprising a moving device, wherein the moving device includes two or more leg portions (101/104, Fig. 1) coupled to a main body (100) and configured to perform a bending operation, each of the two or more leg portions including two or more joints (see annotated figure below); and a plurality of joint actuators (116) configured to drive the plurality of joints, and a control device controls the plurality of joint actuators. Scruggs further teaches that the leg arrangement allows the vehicle to operate in snow, sand, mud, and water (see “…snow, sand, mud and water”, pg. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
632
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Peel in view of Scruggs to arrive at the claimed invention and to allow the vehicle disclosed by Peel to operate across a wider variety of terrain types.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and discloses robots in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 EST).
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571) 272-2706. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights