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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “platform” is missing from the phrase “the first utility {platform}” in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Boe (US-11364959-B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Boe teaches a modular continuous track system (Track Assemblies 104 and 106, Fig. 1, described as modular in the Abstract) comprising:
a first crawler unit (Left Track Assembly 106, Fig. 1) comprising a first electric motor (Motor 154, Fig. 16) and a first track mounting system (Attachment Mechanism 120, Fig. 4) configured to couple the first crawler unit (106) to a first utility platform (Central Unit 101, Figs. 1 and 4);
a second crawler unit (Right Track Assembly 104, Fig. 1; comprising the similar but mirrored components as Left Track Assembly 106, Col. 5, Lines 1-7) comprising a second electric motor (154) and a second track mounting system (120) configured to couple the second crawler unit (104) to the first utility platform (101); and
a control system (Operating Unit 112, Fig. 1) configured to control operation of the first crawler unit (106) and the second crawler unit (Operating Unit 112 controlling Left and Right Track Assemblies 106 and 104; Col. 7, Lines 26-27), the control system (112) comprising:
a main controller (Operating Unit 112 having software and hardware for driving the Left and Right Track Assemblies 106 and 104; Col. 7, Lines 8-12);
a first motor controller (Motor Controller 192, Fig. 13) electrically coupled to the main controller and the first electric motor (Col. 7, Lines 19-27);
a second motor controller (a separate instance of Motor Controller 192, Fig. 13) electrically coupled to the main controller and the second electric motor (Col. 7, Lines 19-27).
Regarding Claim 4, Boe further teaches an attachment control system (a part of the circuitry and software of Operating Unit 112, Col. 4, Lines 21-28) communicatively coupled to the main controller (112) and one or more electronic components (Cameras 111 and Lights 113, Col. 4, Lines 25-29) of the first utility platform (101).
Regarding Claim 5, Boe further teaches that the first crawler unit (106) and the second crawler unit (104) are operated independently from each other (each having a dedicated Motor Controller 192; Col. 5, Lines 1-7), wherein movement of the first crawler unit and the second crawler unit are coordinated by the main controller (as understood by the teaching of “software and hardware for operating Robotic Vehicle 100” of Operating Unit 112, Col. 7, Lines 8-12 ).
Regarding Claim 10, Boe further teaches that the first crawler unit (106) comprises a set of brackets (Tubes 122, Fig. 19) coupled to a frame (Track Frame 123, Fig. 4) of the first crawler unit (106) and couplable to the first utility platform (as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Boe teaches a utility vehicle (Robotic Vehicle 100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a utility platform (Central Unit 101); and
a modular continuous track system (Track Assemblies 104 and 106) coupled to the utility platform (Fig. 1), the modular continuous track system (104 and 106) comprising substantially similar features to that of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boe.
Regarding Claim 2, Boe further teaches an electronic enclosure (112) coupled to the first utility platform (101) and configured to store the main controller (Operating Unit 112 having software and hardware for driving the Left and Right Track Assemblies 106 and 104; Col. 7, Lines 8-12).
Boe teaches that the first and second motor controllers (192) are stored respectively in the first and second crawler units (106 and 104; see Col. 6, Line 65- Col. 7, Line 7) instead of in the first utility platform (101) as claimed.
Boe further teaches an alternative embodiment in which a single motor controller is positioned in a first utility platform (Col. 7, Lines 28-40 teach combining the controllers into a single controller that is located in Central Unit 101).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the first and second motor controllers such that they were stored in the first utility platform, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boe’s track system such that the first and second motor controllers were stored in the first utility platform as suggested by Boe’s alternate embodiment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of simplifying the assembly by arranging the controllers together that would beneficially make a more compact and easier to maintain system.
Regarding Claims 8 and 14, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), Boe does not teach a specific overall crawler width of less than 30 inches.
Boe further teaches varying the track-to-track width in order to advantageously accommodate varying crop row widths (Col. 5, Lines 31-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boe’s track system such that it had an overall crawler width of less than 30 inches {when coupled to the first utility platform [claim 8 only]}, since it has been held that changes in size and/ or proportion of an invention involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boe’s track system such that the track-to-track width was variable as suggested by Boe. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of accommodating varying crop row widths as taught by Boe and discussed above that would beneficially make a more versatile system.
Claims 3, 6-7, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boe in view of Buchner (US-20220402116-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Boe further teaches a remote controller communicatively coupled to the main controller wherein the remote controller is configured to control a movement of the modular continuous track system based on a remote controller input (Col. 4, Lines 7-17 teaches that the vehicle is remotely operable, and means for remote communication between the main controller circuitry and remote operator control is considered to be taught).
Boe does not specifically teach a remote control that is wireless, however, wireless remotes are old and well known in the art. Buchner teaches a modular vehicle (Abstract) having a wireless remote control (Para. [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a wireless remote control as is old and well known in the art and taught by Buchner, in order to remotely control the tracks of the combination.
Regarding Claim 6, Boe does not teach a second utility platform.
Buchner teaches a modular system (Modular Robot 10, Fig. 1) that is swappable between a first utility platform (Crossmember Modules 16 and 18, Para. [0027]) and a second utility platform (Para. [0027] teaches the use of different Crossmember Modules 16 and 18).
The modular system (10) of Buchner is configured with different overall widths when coupled to the first utility platform and the second utility platform (Para. [0027] teaches that instances of Crossmember Modules 16 and 18 of differing lengths may be used to create different width configurations) (note: these teachings relate to claim 7 as discussed below).
Boe further teaches that such an arrangement is particularly advantageous for use in agriculture since the track width can be adapted without complex mechanical adjustment options such as displacement devices (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Boe and Buchner in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boe’s track system to include a second utility platform as suggested by Buchner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantages taught by Buchner and discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, Boe, as modified by Buchner, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 6 above for the teachings of Buchner and motivation to combine them with the Boe’s track system).
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), Boe does not teach a control profile with operation parameters for the utility platform.
Buchner teaches a main controller (Control Unit 20, Fig. 1) which includes one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to receive a control profile for a first utility platform (Crossmember Module 16, Fig. 1), wherein the control profile comprises a set of operational parameters for the first utility {platform} (Para. [0015] teaches Control Unit 20 recognizing and loading appropriate software components- i.e. operational parameters when it recognizes that a particular module is assembled).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Boe and Buchner in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boe’s track system to include a control profile for the utility platform as suggested by Buchner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing appropriate software parameters that would beneficially make a more reliably operating system.
Claims 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boe in view of Blackwell (US-20200170169-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Boe does not teach a stowage section.
Blackwell, in another modular tracked vehicle (Tug Unit 60, Fig. 28), teaches a utility vehicle platform (Frame 63, Fig. 28) comprising a stowage section (Flatbed Portion 66, Fig. 28).
The stowage section (66) of Blackwell is configured such that it is capable of stowing a wheel of an irrigation pivot system (Flatbed Portion 66 being considered capable of holding/ stowing a wheel) (note: these teachings relate to claim 13 as discussed below).
Further, the examiner notes that the clause “configured to stow a wheel of an irrigation pivot system” is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and – although fully considered – is not understood to affect the scope of the claim because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114. In this case the modular tracked vehicle (60) of Blackwell teaches all of the claimed structural limitations as discussed above and, because a flatbed of a vehicle, such as it taught by Blackwell, would be capable of transporting/ stowing a wheel of an irrigation pivot system, it is understood to be structurally capable of the claimed use.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Boe and Blackwell in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boe’s utility vehicle to include a stowage section as suggested by Blackwell. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a useful attachment to the vehicle that would beneficially increase the vehicle’s functionality.
Regarding Claim 13, Boe, as modified by Blackwell, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 12 above for the teachings of Blackwell and motivation to combine them with the Boe’s utility vehicle).
Regarding Claim 16, Boe does not teach a mower platform.
Blackwell teaches a utility platform (Tug Unit 10, Fig. 1) that comprises a mower platform (Para. [0124] teaches attaching Tug Unit 10 to a mower).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Boe and Blackwell in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boe’s utility vehicle to include a mower platform as suggested by Blackwell. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a useful attachment to the vehicle that would beneficially increase the vehicle’s functionality.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boe in view of MechBadger (www.mechbadger.com).
Regarding Claim 17, Boe does not teach a dump bucket platform
MechBadger teaches a utility vehicle (“UV”, Fig. 5 Annotated) configured to accommodate a utility platform (“UP”, Fig. 5 Annotated) that comprises a dump bucket platform (“DB”, Fig. 5 Annotated).
The utility vehicle (UV) of MechBadger is further configured to accommodate a utility platform (UP) that comprises a livestock monitoring platform (note: these teachings relate to claim 18 as discussed below).
The utility vehicle (UV) of MechBadger is further configured to accommodate a utility platform (UP) that comprises a loader platform (“LDR”, Fig. 5 Annotated) (note: these teachings relate to claim 19 as discussed below).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
1078
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
708
1242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
704
1236
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Boe, as modified by MechBadger, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 17 above for the teachings of MechBadger and motivation to combine them with the Boe’s utility vehicle).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MechBadger in view of Boe.
Regarding Claim 20, MechBadger teaches a method (demonstrated in Video 1) for exchanging a first utility platform (“UP1”, Time 1:31 Annotated) with a second utility platform (“UP2”, Time 1:50 Annotated) on a modular continuous track system (“MCTS”, Time 1:31 Annotated) comprising:
decoupling a first track mounting system (“TMS1”, Times 1:31 and 1:50 Annotated) of a first crawler unit (“CU1”, Times 1:31 and 1:50 Annotated) from the first utility platform (Time 1:00- 1:35);
decoupling a second track mounting system (“TMS2”, Times 1:31 and 1:50 Annotated) of a second crawler unit (“CU2”, Times 1:31 and 1:50 Annotated) from the first utility platform (Time 1:00- 1:35);
removing a {control enclosure} (“CE”, Times 1:31 and 1:50 Annotated) from the first utility platform (Time 1:00- 1:35);
coupling the track mounting system (TMS1) of the first crawler unit (CU1) to the second utility platform (UP2; Time 1:48- 2:25);
coupling the second track mounting system (TMS2) to the second utility platform (Time 1:48- 2:25); and
coupling the {control enclosure} (CE) to the second utility platform (Time 1:48- 2:25).
MechBadger does not teach that the enclosure includes a main controller and first and second motor controllers, but Boe teaches such controllers (see the 102/103 rejections of claim 1 and 2 above for the teachings of Boe).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MechBadger and Boe in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MechBadger’s method to include various controllers as suggested by Boe. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing controllers for coordinating machine movements that would beneficially make a more versatile vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. can be reached at (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 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights