DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites in part: “control motions of the support frames”. This is recited several times.
Claim 17 recites in part:
wherein the controller is configured to control the movement parts so that speeds of the front and rear wheels are different from one another in response to any one of the contraction signal and the expansion signal being provided.
Claim 18 recites in part: “control the movement parts”.
Claim 20 recites in part:
controlling speeds of the front wheels and the rear wheels at different speeds from one another during the controlling motions in response to the contraction signal or during the controlling motions in response to the expansion signal.
Claim 21 recites in part:
orienting a long-distance wheel in a first rolling direction intersecting a second rolling direction of a short-distance wheel in response to the avoidance signal being provided to the controller,
The disclosure does not provide written description for how these phrases are accomplished. Paragraph 0066 discuss “the drive part 600 may be configured as a motor, a hydraulic actuator, or the like.” It can include an encoder 610 and a brake 620. Paragraph 0036 recites that the parts listed in the paragraph include the drive part 600 “may be in plural or may include plural components thereof.” That is fine, but the disclosure does not provide written description how motors are connected to the wheels. Fig. 1 shows parts 610 and 620 floating in midair.
Does each wheel of the vehicle have an individual drive motor for each wheel along its rotating axis, as in Zhang (CN219536786U), Fig. 8, attached later in this detailed action? Do the wheels also have another drive motor mounted with its axis normal to the ground and perpendicular to the drive axis of the wheel, as in Zhou et al. (CN116573049A), Fig. 6, item 3, also attached later in this detailed action? No drawings or written description is provided to disclose how one or more motors or actuators move the wheels and / or the support frames.
The examiner is willing to accept Fig. 1 as providing written description for a single drive motor mounted axially (along axis X1) and therefore able to rotate the support frames. Therefore, claim 19 is not rejected for reciting “controlling motions of the support frames”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected for being indefinite about whether the claim is independent or dependent. The claim recites in part:
“A method of controlling the mobility vehicle of claim 15, the method comprising:”
The fee worksheet received October 23, 2024 lists two independent claims, apparently referring to claims 1 and 13. But claim 19 is ambiguous regarding whether it is independent or dependent. By reciting at the beginning of the claim: “A method of controlling the mobility vehicle”, the claim implies it is independent. But by then adding “of claim 15” the claim implies it is dependent. The conflicting structure and referencing another claim make the claim unclear regarding its dependency.
If the applicant wishes to make claim 19 a clearly independent claim, the examiner recommends cutting and pasting claims 13-15 into claim 19 in a way to reference those items and remove the phrase “of claim 15”. For examination purposes, that is how claim 19 will be interpreted. The fee worksheet should also be redone if three independent claims are recited.
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 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 13-16 and claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN116573049A).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou discloses:
A mobility vehicle (see paragraph “n0010” for an piece of “agricultural machinery”. See Figs. 1 and 2 for the machine having a variable chassis.) comprising:
a body part (see Zhou paragraph n0029 the “mounting grooves 11” are for “mounting agricultural machinery”. The agricultural machine is the body part. It is not shown in the drawings.);
support frames configured to support the body part and pivot about a first rotation axis relative to the body part (see Fig. 2 and paragraph n0026 for “platform plate 1”. Note that in Fig. 2, one platform plate goes over the top of the other.);
movement parts respectively connected to the support frames (see Fig. 2 for wheels 53.),
wherein the movement parts are configured to move the body part and the support frames (see paragraph n0030 for a stepper motor 13 that is controlled by controller 54. See paragraph n0026 for the plates 1 and shaft 12 being “driven to open and close by a stepper motor 13”.); and
a controller configured to control motions of the support frames to adjust a horizontal width of the mobility vehicle (see paragraph n0030 for a stepper motor 13 that is controlled by controller 54.).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou discloses the mobility vehicle of claim 13.
Zhou further discloses:
The mobility vehicle of claim 13, wherein
the support frames comprise:
a first support frame extending in a first direction, wherein the first support frame has a first central portion (see Zhou Fig. 2 for first support frame 1 that goes over the top of what the examiner will call here the second support frame that goes under the first support frame. The second support frame is the one with item 6 labeled on it in Fig. 2.); and
a second support frame having a second central portion disposed to intersect the first central portion of the first support frame (see Fig. 2 for where the motor axis intersects the support frames.),
wherein the second support frame extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction (see Fig. 2. These limitations define the second direction not so much a particular part.).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou discloses the mobility vehicle of claim 14.
Zhou further discloses:
The mobility vehicle of claim 14, wherein
the first support frame comprises:
a first-first frame region including a first-first end of the first support frame and extending from the first central portion of the first support frame to a first-first side of the first support frame based on the first direction (in the present disclosure, Fig. 1 shows two separate support frames 310 and 320 apparently at 180 degrees from each other. This is not in fact their relative angle. Rather, as shown in the table in Fig. 2, item 311 and 312 make up item 310, while item 321 and 322 make up item 320. As is clear from Fig. 2, items 311 and 312 are 180 degrees from each other. Same with 321 and 322. How can Fig. 1 conform to Fig. 2? The only way is if Fig. 1 is a sectional view that essentially goes along one frame and then turns at some angle to go along another frame. The examiner notes here that in a broad reasonably interpretation, items 311 and 312 are one single straight piece. Same with 321 and 322. With all that in mind, see Zhou Fig. 2. There are obviously pieces of each frame on each side of the axis formed by the motor rotor.), and
a first-second frame region including a first-second end of the first support frame and extending from the first central portion of the first support frame to a first-second side of the first support frame based on the first direction (see Zhou Fig. 2. There are obviously pieces of each frame on each side of the axis formed by the motor rotor. );
wherein the second support frame comprises:
a second-first frame region including a second-first end of the second support frame and extending from the second central portion of the second support frame to a second-first side of the second support frame based on the second direction (see Zhou Fig. 2. There are obviously pieces of each frame on each side of the axis formed by the motor rotor.); and
a second-second frame region including a second-second end of the second support frame and extending from the second central portion of the second support frame to a second-second side of the second support frame based on the second direction (see Zhou Fig. 2. There are obviously pieces of each frame on each side of the axis formed by the motor rotor.); and
wherein the first-first frame region, the second-first frame region, the first-second frame region, and the second-second frame region are disposed along a circumferential direction (see Zhou Fig. 2. There are obviously pieces of each frame on each side of the axis formed by the motor rotor.).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou discloses the mobility vehicle of claim 15.
Zhou further discloses:
The mobility vehicle of claim 15, wherein
the controller is configured to:
control motions of the support frames so that the first-first end of the first-first frame region and second-first end of the second-first frame region become closer to each other when a contraction signal in provided (see paragraph n0002 for the chassis being adjusted through a “pull-out action”, which reasonably means the chassis gets wider and therefore narrower as well in some cases. See paragraph n0005 for an “adjustable wheelbase”. See paragraphs n0035-n0036 for “adjusting the wheelbase” by using the stepping motor 13 using controller 54),
wherein the contraction signal indicates that the horizontal width of the mobility vehicle is to be decreased (see paragraphs n0035-n0036 for “adjusting the wheelbase” by using the stepping motor 13 using controller 54), and
control motions of the support frames so that the first-first end of the first-first frame region and second-first end of the second-first frame region become more distant from each other when an expansion signal is provided (see Fig. 2 and paragraph n0005 for an “adjustable wheelbase”. See paragraphs n0035-n0036 for “adjusting the wheelbase” by using the stepping motor 13 using controller 54),
wherein the expansion signal indicates that the horizontal width of the mobility vehicle is to be increased (see Fig. 2 and paragraph n0005 for an “adjustable wheelbase”. See paragraphs n0035-n0036 for “adjusting the wheelbase” by using the stepping motor 13 using controller 54).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou discloses:
A method of controlling the mobility vehicle of claim 15 (see the rejection of claim 15 in this detailed action), the method comprising:
receiving a contraction signal indicating that the horizontal width of the mobility vehicle is to be decreased (see paragraph n0002 for the chassis being adjusted through a “pull-out action”, which reasonably means the chassis gets wider and therefore narrower as well in some cases. See paragraph n0005 for an “adjustable wheelbase”. See paragraphs n0035-n0036 for “adjusting the wheelbase” by using the stepping motor 13 using controller 54. Because the motors are controlled by a controller, the motors inherently receive commands from the controller);
controlling motions of the support frames so that the first-first end of the first-first frame region and the second-first end of the second-first frame region become closer to each other in response to the contraction signal being received (see Fig. 2. The fact that the frame parts get closer is inherently true by virtue of their construction geometry shown in Fig. 2 and that fact that the commands for “adjusting the wheelbase,” as recited in paragraph n0035.);
receiving an expansion signal indicating that the horizontal width of the mobility vehicle is to be increased (see paragraph n0002 for the chassis being adjusted through a “pull-out action”, which reasonably means the chassis gets wider and therefore narrower as well in some cases. See paragraph n0005 for an “adjustable wheelbase”. See paragraphs n0035-n0036 for “adjusting the wheelbase” by using the stepping motor 13 using controller 54. Because the motors are controlled by a controller, the motors inherently receive commands from the controller); and
controlling motions of the support frames so that the first-first end of the first-first frame region and the second-first end of the second-first frame region become more distant from each other in response to the expansion signal being received (see Fig. 2. The fact that the frame parts get further from each other inherently true by virtue of their construction geometry shown in Fig. 2 and that fact that the commands for “adjusting the wheelbase,” as recited in paragraph n0035.).
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN116573049A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN219536786U).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches:
A mobility vehicle (see paragraph “n0010” for an piece of “agricultural machinery”. See Figs. 1 and 2 for the machine having a variable chassis.) comprising:
a body part (see Zhou paragraph n0029 the “mounting grooves 11” are for “mounting agricultural machinery”. The agricultural machine is the body part. It is not shown in the drawings.);
a plurality of support frames configured to support the body part and pivot about a first rotation axis relative to the body part (see Fig. 2 and paragraph n0026 for “platform plate 1”. Note that in Fig. 2, one platform plate goes over the top of the other. Thus there is a plurality of platform plates or “support frames”); and
a plurality of movement parts respectively connected to the support frames (see Fig. 2 for wheels 53.),
wherein the body part and the support frames are configured to be allowed to rotate about the first rotation axis relative to one another in a state in which the body part and the support frames are supported on one another in a direction in which the first rotation axis extends (see Fig. 2.).
Yet Zhou does not further teach:
wherein the movement parts are configured to move the body part and the support frames relative to a ground surface.
However, Zhang teaches:
wherein the movement parts are configured to move the body part and the support frames relative to a ground surface (see Zhang Fig. 4 for a drive motor 23 that drives the wheels.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Zhou, to add the additional features of wherein the movement parts are configured to move the body part and the support frames relative to a ground surface, as taught by Zhang. The motivation for doing so would be to translate the machine, as recognized by Zhang (see paragraph n0054).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
In summary, the device in Zhou practically begs for a drive motor to move the machine. Zhang cures the deficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou teaches:
A mobility vehicle comprising:
a body part;
support frames configured to support the body part and pivot about a first rotation axis relative to the body part;
movement parts respectively connected to the support frames,
wherein the movement parts are configured to move the body part and the support frames; and
a controller configured to control motions of the support frames to adjust a horizontal width of the mobility vehicle.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN116573049A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN219536786U) in further view of Euer et al. (DE102010054603A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou and Zhang teach the mobility vehicle of claim 1.
Zhou further teaches teach:
The mobility vehicle of claim 1, further comprising:
a link configured to pivotably couple the support frames and define the first rotation axis (see Fig. 1 for stepper motor 13 whose axis normal to the ground defines a first rotation axis. The motor’s rotor is a link. See paragraph n0026 for a stepper motor 13 that has a “brake function”.).
Yet Zhou and Zhang do not further teach:
an encoder configured to acquire information on angles defined by the support frames relative to each other,
wherein the encoder is disposed below the link.
However, Euer teaches:
an encoder configured to acquire information on angles defined by the support frames relative to each other (see page 4 of the attached English translation for a digital angle encoder integrated into the stepper motor.),
wherein the encoder is disposed below the link (since the motor in Zhou is below the link, and the motor in Euer has an encoder, the encoder is below the link.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Zhou and Zhang, to add the additional features of an encoder configured to acquire information on angles defined by the support frames relative to each other, wherein the encoder is disposed below the link, as taught by Euer. The motivation for doing so would be to have a compact control device, as recognized by Euer (see page 4).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 12, Zhou, Zhang, and Euer teach the mobility vehicle of claim 11.
Zhou further teaches:
The mobility vehicle of claim 11, further comprising
a brake configured to stop movements of the support frames relative to each other (see Fig. 1 for stepper motor 13 whose axis normal to the ground defines a first rotation axis. The motor’s rotor is a link. See paragraph n0026 for a stepper motor 13 that has a “brake function”.),
wherein the brake is disposed below the link (see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3-10, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are 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 and all other rejection can be resolved, such as 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections.
Claim 2 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites, with the examiner’s comments in bold:
The mobility vehicle of claim 1, wherein
the first rotation axis extends in an upward/downward direction, and
wherein the mobility vehicle further comprises:
a first engagement part on a lower surface of the body part (in the present disclosure, the “first engagement part” is item 101, according to paragraph 0046. See Fig. 1. The first engagement part and second engagement part act as a kind of circular tongue-and-groove rotating system.); and
a second engagement part on an upper surface of at least one of the support frames (in the present disclosure, the “second engagement part” is item 301, according to paragraph 0046.), and
wherein any one of the first engagement part and the second engagement part is a protrusion, and another one of the first engagement part and the second engagement part is a groove into which the protrusion is inserted.
One close prior art is Zhou et al. (CN116573049A). Zhou teaches in Fig. 3 a groove 11. According to n0029 the “mounting grooves 11” are for “mounting agricultural machinery”. Yet Zhou does not elaborate on how the agricultural machinery mounts to the movable chassis. It is not clear that a tongue, or what the present application calls a downward protrusion, such as a pin, is used in conjunction with the groove. Therefore, Zhou does not teach, as present claim 2 does, at least: “wherein any one of the first engagement part and the second engagement part is a protrusion, and another one of the first engagement part and the second engagement part is a groove into which the protrusion is inserted.
It is possible that the agricultural machine that sits atop the device shown in Zhang Fig. 1 in fact has what the present disclosure calls a body part with a downward protrusion. One could even argue that a screw head is a body part and the downward protrusion is the threaded part. But neither is explicitly taught in Zhang. Furthermore, if a screw is what goes into slot 11 in Zhang, that would still not meet the teaching in present claim 1 that the support frame with the groove must “pivot about a first rotation axis relative to the body part”.
The examiner also notes that Zhou also does not teach, as present claim 4 does, “the second engagement part has an arc shape with a first radius based on the first rotation axis as a center”. In Zhou there is no arch shape of the groove.
See Zhou, Figs. 1, 2, and 6 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
986
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
488
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Another close prior art is Zhang et al. (CN219536786U). Zhang teaches support frames 33 in Fig. 8. Item 34 appears to be able to vary in width. Zhang shows in Fig. 9 and 10 that there is some kind of hook, that can be considered a protrusion going downward, that hooks into the support members 33 where item 33 connects to item 31. This protrusion from what could be called a “body part” of item 31 does not mate into a “groove” however. Rather, it mates into a hole. There does not appear to be any grooves in Zhang.
See Zhang Figs. 8-10 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
584
1032
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
528
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
650
852
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner believes that Zhou and Zhang could be combined in various ways. Zhou teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 support frames 1 that have a groove in them. Fig. 3 shows groove 11. It could easily be the case that the adjustable width chassis as taught in Zhou, such as in Fig. 1, could be connected to the structure 31 and 32 as shown in Zhang, Figs and 9. Indeed, Zhang provides hooks on items 31 and 32, as shown in Zhang Fig. 10, that connected to item 33 of Zhang. Item 33 of Zhang could be replaced with the assembly shown in Zhou Fig. 1 or Zhou Fig. 2.
The examiner does not think that attaching a frame with a variable width to the chassis taught by Zhou would be motivated by hindsight. The disclosure of Zhou specifically teaches that in paragraph n0010 that the user must “fix” some kind of “machinery to each platform plate”. It seems logically that it could be a variable width. Zhang’s frame shown in Fig. 10 fits the bill quite well. However, even such a combination would not teach the tongue-and-groove construction claimed in present claim 2, nor would such a combination teach an arch shape with a first radius, as claimed in present claim 4.
Another close prior art is Kwon et al. (US2023/0143465). Kwon teaches in Fig. 10, item 21” which can be considered a protrusion downward. To fit the present claims, the groove in Kwon would then have to be the plate with the spiral cut into it. So the body part would have to be item 21”. But that does not make a lot of sense. It seems that in Kwon the support frames really are items 21”. See Kwon Figs. 10-12 attached below.
PNG
media_image6.png
792
604
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
742
586
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
736
494
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Another close prior art is Wu et al. (GB2594598A). Wu Fig. 1(a) and 1(b) attached below teach an adjustable wheelbase cart. An acme screw can bring the two front wheels closer together in the Y direction, and another screw can do the same for the rear wheels. The front wheels can also be brought closer to the back wheels in the X direction by adjusting another screw. However, in Wu, unlike the present disclosure, no rotation in the upward (Z direction in Wu) occurs. Also note that in Wu, the frame does not change width. Adjusting the wheelbase in any way does not help the device move through narrow doorways that it would otherwise not be able to fit through.
PNG
media_image9.png
832
538
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Another close prior art is Choi et al. (US2025/0360962). Choi teaches support frames 300s. Choi could teach at least claim 1. But there is clearly no groove and protrusion in the support frames 300 of Choi. See Choi Fig. 2 attached below.
PNG
media_image10.png
818
594
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-10 are potentially allowable for at least the reasons of claim 2 upon which they depend.
Claim 17 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The mobility vehicle of claim 16, wherein
the movement parts comprise:
front wheels respectively connected to the first-first end of the first-first frame region and the second-first end of the second-first frame region, and
rear wheels respectively connected to the first-second end of the first-second frame region and the second-second end of the second-second frame region; and
wherein the controller is configured to control the movement parts so that speeds of the front and rear wheels are different from one another in response to any one of the contraction signal and the expansion signal being provided.
One close prior art is Zhou et al. (CN116573049A). But Zhou does not teach, as claim 17 does, at least “wherein the controller is configured to control the movement parts so that speeds of the front and rear wheels are different from one another in response to any one of the contraction signal and the expansion signal being provided.
Another close prior art is Kwon et al. (US2023/0143465). As shown in Fig. 10, Kwon teaches in at least paragraphs 0047, 0058, and 0067 various “wheel parts” that move. Reasonably, they are commanded by the controller to move. Yet, unlike present claim 17, the wheels in Kwon are not moved “so that speeds of the front and rear wheels are different from one another”.
Claim 18 is potentially allowable for at least the reasons of claim 17 on which it depends.
Claim 20 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The method of claim 19, wherein
the movement parts comprise:
front wheels respectively connected to the first-first end of the first-first frame region and second-first end of the second-first frame region, and rear wheels respectively connected to the first-second end of the first-second frame region and the second-second end of the second-second frame region; and
wherein the method further comprises controlling speeds of the front wheels and the rear wheels at different speeds from one another during the controlling motions in response to the contraction signal or during the controlling motions in response to the expansion signal.
One close prior art is Mahy (US20080190682). The wheels in Mahy can be commanded to contract or expand the wheel base of the vehicle. But Mahy does not teach, as present claim 20 does, “controlling speeds of the front wheels and the rear wheels at different speeds from one another during the controlling motions in response to the contraction signal or during the controlling motions in response to the expansion signal.”
Claim 21 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The method of claim 19, further comprising:
detecting an object motion of an external object in a peripheral region of the mobility vehicle;
providing an avoidance signal to the controller,
wherein the avoidance signal indicates that the mobility vehicle is to avoid the external object in response to the object motion of the external object in the peripheral region being detected; and
orienting a long-distance wheel in a first rolling direction intersecting a second rolling direction of a short-distance wheel in response to the avoidance signal being provided to the controller,
wherein any one of the front wheels and the rear wheels that is positioned closest to the external object is a short-distance wheel, and
wherein any other one of the front wheels and the rear wheels that is positioned farthest from the external object is a long-distance wheel.
One close prior art is Mahy (US20080190682). The wheels in Mahy can be commanded to contract or expand the wheel base of the vehicle. But Mahy does not teach avoiding an obstacle by “orientating” the wheels in the fashion of present claim 21.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Prokhorov (US2014/0129129)
PNG
media_image11.png
666
564
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
528
640
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
846
548
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
826
520
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Rogers et al. (U.S. 6,164,674). See the figures below.
PNG
media_image15.png
984
658
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Rogers (US2013/0257009). See the figures below.
PNG
media_image16.png
574
488
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
552
534
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Mahy (US20080190682). See the figures below.
PNG
media_image18.png
890
528
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
894
516
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
800
594
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665