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 .
Claim Interpretation
All claims were analyzed for antecedent basis and found to be definite, i.e. as circles inherently have their centers and or radiuses/diameters so does a vehicle have the lateral sides, see MPEP 2173.05(e)
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,10-12,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passot et al US 2017/0329333 in view of Anderson et al US 2019/0179307.
In Re 1, Passot teaches:
1. A vehicle (title robot, 102), comprising:
a chassis (fig 4a, para 107, “frame”);
a drive shaft (the wheeled vehicles of fig 4a are self driven per para 107 and the driven wheels must have an axis or shaft as pictured) mounted to the chassis, wherein the drive shaft is connected to a drive wheel (see drive wheels of fig 4a);
an steering column (steering wheel 910 inherently has a column) mounted to the chassis, wherein the steering column is operably connected to the drive shaft for steering the drive wheel (para 149); and
a set of proximity sensors (300 and 700B satisfy opposing lateral side orientation, see fig 7) mounted to the steering column, the set being configured to scan an ambient environment (para 129 and or extreroceptive sensors and proprioceptive sensors), wherein the set includes a first proximity sensor and a second proximity sensor respectively oriented towards each of the opposing lateral sides of the chassis (300 and 700B satisfy opposing lateral side orientation, see fig 7).
Passot does not teach however Anderson teaches integrated retro fit system including a set of sensors (paras 26-27, sensors 119,121, fig 7 driveshaft 106, steering 100B figs 1-2, para 39). Anderson further teaches integrated retrofit kid adds further capabilities to existing work vehicles/machines, abstract paras 6,16). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to modify Passot’s vehicle with Anderson’s integrated retrofit steering to add further capabilities to existing work vehicles/machines.
In Re 2-3, Passot as modified by Anderson, Passot further teaches:
2. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the set includes a third proximity sensor oriented in a direction orthogonal (700C fig 7) to a direction of orientation of at least one of the first proximity sensor and the second proximity sensor.
3. The vehicle of claim 2, wherein the integrated steering column further comprises a presence sensor (700A) configured to detect a change (para 129) in a neutral state of the preset surface of the vehicle, the neutral state corresponding to at least one of a stationary object (initialization object 150) and an absence of motion (150 is read as a still frame, see fig 8 and para 129) proximate to the preset surface, wherein the presence sensor (700C) is located opposite to the third proximity sensor (700C is opposite 700A fig 7).
In Re 10, Passot teaches
10. A use on a vehicle comprising: an integrated steering column mountable on a chassis of the vehicle and configured to assist in steering the vehicle, including a set of proximity sensors configured to scan an ambient environment, wherein the set includes a first proximity sensor and a second proximity sensor respectively oriented towards each of the opposing lateral sides of the vehicle; and a coupler configured to mechanically connect the integrated steering column with a drive shaft mounted to the chassis, the drive shaft being connected to a drive wheel of the vehicle, wherein the coupler enables a transfer of torque from the integrated steering column to the drive shaft for steering the vehicle (see in re 1 above over Passot in view of Anderson).
Passot does not teach however Anderson teaches integrated retro fit system including a set of sensors (paras 26-27, sensors 119,121, fig 7 driveshaft 106, steering 100B figs 1-2, para 39). Anderson further teaches integrated retrofit kid adds further capabilities to existing work vehicles/machines, abstract paras 6,16). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to modify Passot’s vehicle with Anderson’s integrated retrofit steering to add further capabilities to existing work vehicles/machines.
In Re 11-12, claims 11-12 rejected over in re 2-3 as taught by Passot in view of Anderson as described above.
In Re 15, Passot in view of Anderson teaches a scrubber actuator (Passot para 84 “scrubber” actuator construed as “gesticulating” and or “raising/lowering”) configured to electronically control a brush unit (Passot “brushes”) movably connected to the vehicle, the brush unit including brushes, wherein the scrubber actuator operates to raise or lower actuator (Passot para 84 “scrubber” actuator construed as “gesticulating” and or “raising/lowering”) the brushes with respect to a floor; and a brake actuator configured to electronically actuate brakes (Anderson paras 24,29-30) mounted to a drive wheel of the vehicle, wherein the brake actuator and the scrubber actuator are adapted to operate in communication with a control unit mounted on the integrated steering column.
Claim(s) 4-6,13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passot et al US 2017/0329333 in view of Anderson et al US 2019/0179307 and Afrouai et al US 11,199,853.
In Re 4,13 Passot in view of Anderson teaches sensors mounted to the chassis and surface proximate to the vehicle as in re 1 above.
Passot does not teach however Afourai teaches a cleaning sensor (col 26 ll 16-25), the cleaning sensor being oriented towards a surface proximate to the vehicle, wherein the cleaning sensor is configured to detect a contamination on the surface (col 26 ll 17-20). Afourai further teaches cleaning dirty surfaces col 26 ll 17-20. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Afourai’s cleaning sensor to Passot’s vehicle to clean dirty surfaces.
In Re 5, Passot further teaches the surface comprises at least one of a floor (see fig 9b) and a portion of a non-drive wheel (figs 4 show numerous non driven wheels, see fig 9B detected portions including floor and non driven wheel embodiments of figs 4) of the vehicle.
In Re 6,14 Passot as modified with Afourai further teaches the cleaning sensor is oriented at an angle of 45 degrees (Passot see fig 9B items 960A and 960C shown relatively 45 degrees to floor, wherein Afourai’s added cleaning sensor would also be oriented in 45 degree fashion) with respect to a horizontal axis of the chassis.
Claim(s) 7-8,16,17,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passot et al US 2017/0329333 in view of Anderson et al US 2019/0179307 and Braverman et al US 2022/0113736.
In Re 7,16 Passot further teaches:
a steering handle (910 fig 9b) rotatable from a neutral position for manual steering of the vehicle;
a steering encoder (paras 149-150) operably connected to the steering handle, wherein the steering encoder is configured to generate a steering signal based on a rotation of the steering handle;
a motor (para 149 “motorized power”) operably connected, wherein the motor is configured to provide a torque for rotating;
a control unit (304 fig 3) for driving the vehicle based on predefined modes of operation including a training mode (user demonstrate route para 149, 974 fig 9a teach route) and an autonomous mode (autonomously navigating), wherein the control unit is configured to:
in the training mode, record a starting position (104 figs 1a-b) of the vehicle for navigation, wherein the starting position corresponds to a position where the training mode is activated (para 85);
drive the motor based on the steering signal for rotating the local shaft, wherein the local shaft in turn rotates the drive shaft for steering (para 86) the drive wheel during navigation of the vehicle from the starting position;
calculate motor data based on the motor signal generated upon a rotation shaft, wherein the motor data includes at least one of (Markush) an angle of rotation (angle paras 94-96) and a duration of rotation (timer para 96);
calculate wheel data using a wheel signal generated by a wheel encoder based on a spin of the drive wheel during navigation of the vehicle, the wheel encoder being mounted to a measuring wheel in contact with the drive wheel, wherein the wheel data includes at least one of a number of wheel spins and a speed of rotation of the drive wheel (distances timer speedometers paras 94-96);
record an ending position of the vehicle (114 figs 1a-b), wherein the ending position corresponds to a position where the training mode is deactivated; and
record a route (116) travelled by the vehicle from the starting position to the ending position, wherein the route is recorded in terms of the motor data and the wheel data (paras 149-151); and
in the autonomous mode, spin the drive wheel based on the calculated wheel data for autonomously driving the vehicle from the recorded starting position to the recorded ending position along the recorded route (paras 157-161); and
rotate based on the calculated motor data for autonomously steering the vehicle via the drive shaft connected to the drive wheel (paras 157-161).
Passot does not teach however Braverman teaches a local shaft (gearbox21 with inherent shaft para 53) coupled with the drive shaft (22) for a conjoint rotation (para 53, fig 7); encoder of local shaft (para 53); a motor encoder operably connected to the local shaft, wherein the motor encoder is configured to generate a motor signal based on a rotation of the local shaft (para 53, construed as clutch encoder connected to gearbox which is dependent on fixed ratio to gearbox). Braverman further teaches driving with gearbox para 53. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Braverman’s local shaft gearbox to Passot to drive wheels.
In Re 8, Passot teaches the steering handle is set at an angle ranging from 0 degree to 5 degrees with respect to a vertical axis of the integrated steering column in the neutral position (wheel centered is 0 degree).
In Re 17, claim 17 rejected over in re 1 and 7 as taught by Passot in view of Anderson and Braverman as described above.
In Re 19-20, claims 19-20 rejected over in re 2-3 as taught by Passot in view of Anderson as described above.
Claim(s) 9,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passot et al US 2017/0329333 in view of Anderson et al US 2019/0179307 and Braverman et al US 2022/0113736 and Nishikawa US 5,913,375.
In Re 9, Passot does not teach however Nishikawa teaches a centering mechanism operably connected to the steering handle, the centering mechanism being configured to bias the steering handle towards the neutral position based on a rotation of the steering handle with respect to a vertical axis of the integrated steering column, wherein the centering mechanism is non-motorized (col 11 ll 30-40). Nishikawa further teaches centering to zero degrees or straight ahead position col 11 ll 30-40. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Nishikawa’s centering mechanism to Passot’s steering wheel to center wheel to straight ahead position.
In Re 18, claim 18 rejected over in 7,9 as taught by Passot in view of Anderson and Braverman and Nishikawa as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record on PTO-892 form not used in prior art rejection teaches teachable autonomous vehicles especially cleaning bots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights