Overrunnable Small Platform Test Vehicle with Soft Target Mount
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 and 06/14/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 and 18-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,122,363. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, this claim is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,122,363 because it explicitly contains all the limitations of the instant claim except that the instant claim asserts the control system is configured to operate each electric motor to provide propulsion and the Patent claim asserts the control system is configured to operate each electric motor independently to control steering by adjusting the power output and direction of rotation of the electric motors. The examiner believes the Patent inherently operates each motor to provide propulsion because powering the motors at any power output and direction will provide propulsion.
Regarding claims 2-14 and 18-21, these claims are anticipated by claims 2-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,122,363 because they contain all the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the second profile height of the control section” is unclear since the second profile height is associated with the carrier section. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as ““the second profile height of the carrier section”. Dependent claim 14 is likewise rejected and interpreted.
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 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 1-14 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trazkovich (US 20210048820; “Trazkovich”), in view of Simader (DE 102016112341; “Simader”).
Regarding claim 1, Trazkovich discloses, in figures 1-12, an overrunable test vehicle (see fig. 6) for dynamic vehicle testing of advanced driver assistant systems (¶ 0004, “low-profile, over-runnable platform… advanced driver-assistance systems”), the overrunable test vehicle (10) comprising: a chassis (12) comprising: a control section defining a cavity (see fig. 2 and 9, examiner notes fig. 2 illustrates Trazkovich’s interior components and fig. 9 illustrates control components located within the platform), the control section (see previous comment) having a first profile height (see fig. 6, examiner notes Trazkovich’s platform is higher than Trazkovich’s extension assembly); and a carrier section (42) having a second profile height less than the first profile height of the control section (see previous comment), the carrier section (42) including a mounting area (not enumerated, see fig. 6) configured to receive a soft target (48); two or more drive mechanisms ((14, 16, 92) see fig.2, examiner notes Trazkovich’s platform has two rear wheels coupled to independent drive motors) at least partially disposed within the cavity (see fig. 2) of the control section (see previous comment), with each of the two or more drive mechanisms (14, 16, 92) having an electric motor (16) and a drive wheel (14) coupled to the electric motor (16); and a control system (92, 98) disposed within the cavity (see fig. 2) of the control section (see previous comment) and in communication (see fig. 9) with each electric motor (14), wherein the control system (92, 98) is configured to operate each electric motor to provide propulsion (¶ 0042-0043, examiner notes Trazkovich asserts multiple propulsion and steering embodiments including skid steering, and conventional rear wheel drive with front wheel steering) to the overrunable test vehicle (see fig. 6).
Trazkovich fails to disclose a caster in the carrier section.
Simader teaches one or more unpowered casters supported by the chassis in the carrier section (see Simader’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 7, examiner notes Simader teaches it is known to support a soft target on a flat structure with wheels and further attach the structure to a drive vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Simader’s known scheme of constructing a soft target support with wheels into Trazkovich’s extension assembly design. Doing so would prevent the extension from contracting the ground during normal movement.
Regarding claim 2, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 6, discloses the control section first profile height is at least 50 percent greater than the carrier section second profile height (the examiner asserts Trazkovich depicts the chassis containing platform electronics is more than 50 percent greater in height than the extension).
Regarding claim 3, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, Trazkovich’s figure 6 and Simader’s figure 1, the carrier section (Trazkovich (42), see Simader’s fig. 1) and the control section (Trazkovich (12), see Simader’s fig. 1) each include a ramped side wall (Trazkovich (46), Simader (17)).
Trazkovich and Simader fail to disclose the ramped sidewall of the carrier section having a different slope than the ramped sidewall of the control section.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having differently sloped sidewalls for carrier and control sections is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design Trazkovich and Simader’s platform with a ramped sidewall of the carrier section having a different slope than the ramped sidewall of the control section as a matter of design choice to provide an optimize sidewall durability and manufacturability. Do so reduces system cost.
Regarding claim 4, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 6, the carrier section (Trazkovich (42)) and the control section (Trazkovich (12)) each include a ramped side wall (Trazkovich (46)), the ramped sidewall (Trazkovich (46)) of the carrier section (Trazkovich (42)) having a same slope (examiner notes Trazkovich’s extension and chassis are connected at common sidewalls via common ramped braces therefore the slope is the same) as the ramped sidewall (Trazkovich (46)) of the control section (Trazkovich (12)).
Regarding claim 5, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, Trazkovich’s figure 6 and Simader’s figure 1, the carrier section (Trazkovich (42), see Simader’s fig. 1) and the control section (Trazkovich (12), see Simader’s fig. 1) each include a ramped side wall (Trazkovich (46), Simader (17)), the ramped sidewalls having a slope configured to assist a vehicle to overrun the test vehicle during operation (examiner notes that the limitation, “configured to assist” is a functional language type limitation. Applicant is reminded that functionality must be distinguished from the prior art structure's inherent functionality. In the instant case, Trazkovich and Simader’s inclined side wall is capable of assisting a vehicle overrun the platform, See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 6, Trazkovich and Simader disclose the height and profile of the control section (12) and the height and profile of the carrier section (42) minimize a radar cross section of the chassis (¶ 0054, “The radar cross section of a low-profile robotic platform, extension assembly… lies within the bounds specified by the relevant ACEA”).
Regarding claim 7, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 6, the chassis (see Trazkovich’s figure 6) is a unitary structure (the examiner exerts Trazkovich’s platform and extension form a single entity).
Regarding claim 8, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 6, the control section (Trazkovich (12)) and the carrier section (Trazkovich (42)) are modular components connected together (¶ 0053, Trazkovich’s low plate is attached to the platform via support braces) to form the chassis (see Trazkovich’s figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 6, the carrier section (Trazkovich (42)) includes a planar surface (Trazkovich (44)), the mounting area (Trazkovich, ¶ 0053, “the low plate 44 may include magnets and other mounting hardware points”) is located on the planar surface (Trazkovich (44)).
Regarding claim 10, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 6, the mounting area (Trazkovich, ¶ 0053, “the low plate 44 may include magnets and other mounting hardware points”) is moveably positionable (¶ 0053, Trazkovich’s mounting points include a removable pole) about the planar surface (Trazkovich (44)) of the carrier section (Trazkovich (42)).
Regarding claim 11, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 2, the first profile height of the control section (Trazkovich (12)) between 25 mm and 200 mm (¶ 0016-0017, examiner notes Trazkovich’s chassis may be 1.88” high or 47.75mm).
Regarding claim 12, Trazkovich and Simader, in Trazkovich’s figure 2, the first profile height of the control section (Trazkovich (12)) of 75 mm or less (¶ 0016-0017, examiner notes Trazkovich’s chassis may be 1.88” high or 47.75mm).
Regarding claim 13, Trazkovich and Simader fail to disclose the second profile height of the carrier section is between 5 mm and 35 mm.
However, applicant has not disclosed that the carrier section first profile height produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design Trazkovich and Simader’s chassis with a profile height of between 5 mm and 35 mm. Doing so would increase overrunability.
Regarding claim 14, Trazkovich and Simader fail to disclose the second profile height of the carrier section is 25 mm or less.
However, applicant has not disclosed that the thickness of the control section produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design Trazkovich and Simader’s carrier section with a thickness of 25 mm or less. Do so would increase overrunability.
Regarding claim 18, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, in Trazkovich’s figures 2 and 9, the control system (98, 92) is configured to operate the electric motors (14) independently to control steering of the overrunable test vehicle by adjusting at least one of power output and direction of rotation of the electric motors (¶ 0042, “It may be further appreciated that the steering of the platform 10 may be performed by way of a skid-steer mechanism and/or control (which may be accomplished by turning left and right wheel pairs at different speeds”).
Regarding claim 19, Trazkovich and Simader fail to explicitly disclose a swivel caster.
The Examiner takes official notice that a swivel caster is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known swivel caster to support Trazkovich and Simader’s carrier section. Doing so would improve mobility of the robotic platform, as taught by evidentiary reference iRobot (4:40-5:00).
Regarding claim 20, Trazkovich and Simader fail to explicitly disclose two unpowered casters connected by a caster axle.
However, applicant has not disclosed that two unpowered casters connected by a caster axle disposed within the carrier section is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design a carrier support with two unpowered casters connected by a caster axle disposed within the carrier section as a matter of design choice to provide a contrasting color to the outside pack housing color. Do so would increase carrier stability.
Regarding claim 21, Trazkovich and Simader disclose, in Trazkovich’s figure 3, the two or more drive mechanisms (Trazkovich (14, 16, 92)) each further comprise a transaxle (Trazkovich (40)) arranged between the electric motor (Trazkovich (16)) and the drive wheel (Trazkovich (14)) for translating rotational movement (¶ 0052, examiner notes the wheel shaft is supported by Trazkovich’s bearing housing, the examiner construes a motor shaft to input power to the bearing housing) from the electric motor (Trazkovich (16)) into rotational movement of the drive wheel (Trazkovich (14)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
iRobot Education (YouTube, Take Apart a Robot: Roomba i7 Robot Vacuum, 4:40-5:00, 2020; "iRobot") teaches using swivel casters to improve mobility of an autonomous robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights