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 § 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 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 111391934).
In re claim 1, Chen discloses a biaxially extensible and retractable wheel-leg mechanism (as shown in Figure 1) for a vehicle (as shown in Figures 5-7), comprising a pantograph coupling limb assembly (as shown in Figure 1) with multiple coupling limbs (3, 4, 9, 11, 12) which are coupled together in an articulated manner, wherein a wheel hub motor (7) and a steering actuator (6) operatively connected thereto are arranged on a first coupling limb (4 with 12), and the wheel hub motor is designed to rotate a vehicle wheel (8) drivingly connected to the wheel hub motor, and wherein the steering actuator is designed to set a steering angle of the wheel of the vehicle (see [0064]), the wheel-leg mechanism additionally comprising a rotary drive (2) for positioning (see [0063]) the coupling limbs, said rotary drive being drivingly arranged on a first joint between a second coupling limb (3) and a third coupling limb (9), wherein the rotary drive is designed to set a relative angular position between the coupling limbs coupled together in an articulated manner such that a position of the wheel hub motor relative to the rotary drive can be adjusted in the a longitudinal direction and/or in a vertical direction of the vehicle (as shown in Figures 1 and 3).
In re claim 2, Chen further discloses wherein the pantograph coupling limb assembly comprises at least four coupling limbs (3, 9, 11, and 4 with 12), wherein the first coupling limb (4 with 12) is articulatedly coupled to the second coupling limb (3) and a fourth coupling limb (11), and wherein the third coupling limb is articulatedly coupled to the second and fourth coupling limbs (as shown in Figures 1 and 3).
In re claim 3, Chen further discloses further comprising a chassis bracket (13) which is arranged on the fourth coupling limb and is designed to fasten the wheel-leg mechanism to a chassis of the vehicle.
In re claim 4, Chen further discloses wherein the wheel hub motor and the steering actuator are connected to one another via a stator element (504) which is radially and axially mounted on the first coupling limb (4 with 12) via a bearing element (502) (as shown in Figure 4).
In re claim 9, Chen further discloses vehicle comprising at least one biaxially extensible and retractable wheel-leg mechanism according to claim1, wherein the respective wheel-leg mechanism is arranged and supported on a common chassis (as shown in Figures 5-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
In re claim 5, Chen discloses the wheel-leg mechanism according to claim 4, but does not specifically disclose wherein the bearing element is a double-row angular contact ball bearing. As double-row angular contact ball bearings are known in the art to support radial loads and axial loads in both directions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bearing of Chen such that it comprised a double-row angular contact ball bearing to advantageously support both radial loads and axial loads.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Payne (US 2021/0094407).
In re claim 6, Chen discloses the wheel-leg mechanism according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein a brake is arranged on the wheel hub motor. Payne, however, does disclose a hub motor system (10) including a mechanical friction brake (98) to slow the vehicle when in motion (see [0044]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hub motor of Chen such that it further comprised the friction brake of Payne to advantageously provide each wheel with braking power to slow the vehicle when desired.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Gao (US 11,260,717).
In re claim 10, Chen discloses the vehicle according to claim 9, but does not specifically disclose comprising a control device which is designed to control multiple wheel-leg mechanisms separately such that a position of the wheel hub motor relative to the rotary drive of the respective wheel-leg mechanism can be adjusted in the longitudinal direction and/or in the vertical direction of the vehicle. Gao, however, does disclose a control device (10) which is designed to control multiple wheel-leg mechanisms (as shown in Figures 2 and 7) separately such that a position of the wheel hub motor relative to the rotary drive of the respective wheel-leg mechanism can be adjusted in the longitudinal direction and/or in the vertical direction of the vehicle (as shown in Figure 7) (see column 8, lines 17-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot of Chen such that it further comprised the controller of Gao to advantageously be able to control each leg individually to overcome obstacles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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 rotary drive comprises a crank which is drivingly connected to the first joint” 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 teach a rotary drive crank drivingly connected to the first joint between the second and thir coupling limbs.
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 wheel-leg mechanisms 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
/KEVIN HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights