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 .
Status of Claims
This action is reply to the Application Number 19/009,220 filed on 01/03/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 02/13/2025 and 03/06/2025 have been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 4 – 8 show screenshots which are difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0068 of the specification outlines a method in which a first control method is used to control the vehicle while the second control method is still operating however not controlling the vehicle. This contradicts the example of paragraph 0056 of the specification which states while in the aided torque control method, the vehicle still provides steering and speed commands. Speed and torque control are both different control methods as stated in paragraph 0048, therefore a second control method is still controlling the vehicle.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 – 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 states: “further comprising: receiving a set of messages from the control computer specifying a set of mobility limits of the vehicle, the mobility limits include a speed limit of the vehicle; and while operating the vehicle, limiting a maximum speed of the vehicle to the speed limit specified by the mobility limits.”, and claim 1 which claim 11 is dependent upon states: “A method of operating a vehicle, comprising: controlling the vehicle using a first drive-control method in response to receiving a first set of messages from a control computer separate from the vehicle; while controlling the vehicle using the first drive-control method, operating a second drive-control method that does not control the vehicle; and in response to receiving a second set of messages from the control computer, switching from the first drive-control method to the second drive- control method such that the vehicle is controlled using the second drive-control method but not the first drive-control method.”. It is unclear if the “set of messages” specified in claim 11 are one of the “first” or “second set of messages” as stated in claim 1. The set of messages in claim 1 are for controlling the drive methods, thus receiving a set of messages regarding the mobility limits per claim 11 are also part of controlling the drive method.
Claim 14 states: “further comprising: receiving a set of messages from the control computer specifying a set of mobility limits of the vehicle, the mobility limits include a speed limit of the vehicle; and while operating the vehicle, limiting a maximum speed of the vehicle to the speed limit specified by the mobility limits.”. Claim 14 is also dependent upon claim 1 and like claim 11, it also states a set of messages to be used for setting the mobility limits. For the same reason as above for claim 11, claim 14 is objected as to being unclear if the “set of messages” are the same as the “first” or “second set of messages” as stated in claim 1.
Claims 12 and 13 are also rejected per their dependency upon the objected claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states: “operating a second drive-control method that does not control the vehicle; and”, however it is indefinite on how the second control method is operational without it controlling the vehicle. The claim limitation will be interpreted as a second drive-control method which is able to take control of the vehicle when switched from the first drive-control method.
Claim 16 states: “operate a second drive-control method that does not control the vehicle”, however like claim 1, it is indefinite on how the second control method is operational without it controlling the vehicle. The claim limitation will be interpreted as a second drive-control method which is able to take control of the vehicle when switched from the first drive-control method.
Claims 2 – 15 and 17 – 20 are also rejected per their dependency upon the objected claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11 – 13, 16 – 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha et al. (ROSI: A Robotic System for Harsh Outdoor Industrial Inspection - System Design and Applications) further in view of Urano et al. (US 20220297722 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rocha teaches a method of operating a vehicle, comprising: (Rocha: Section 2.1 Mobile Platform and Robotic Arm, Paragraph 1: “An important issue affecting the mobile robot specification is robot mobility. The proposed mobile platform has to travel large distances with endurance for long-term operations. Also, the robot should navigate along a previously designated path while reacting to obstacles in the way, including barriers and stairs. The standard ground locomotion systems consists on legs [27], wheels [30], or tracks [17].”; Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 1: “The robot software framework considers ROS Melodic Morenia running Linux Ubuntu 18.04. Six C++ rospackages enable telemetry and teleoperation at high-level commands.”)
controlling the vehicle using a first drive-control method in response to receiving a first set of messages from a control computer separate from the vehicle; (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2: “Figure 9 presents ROSI Graphical User Interface (GUI). Hosted at ROSI computer, any web-browser ready device connected to the robot Local Area Network (LAN) can access the interface. The web page connects to the rosmaster using the rosbridge package and roslibjs javascript API. The interface presents online telemetry, a 3D robot active model, and camera images. It also generates command messages, including a virtual joystick for devices without ROS installed, i.e., any common smartphone/computer can operate ROSI. Another teleoperation possibility includes a remote computer running a ROS joystick node”; Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7: “2 Velocity: EPOS4 is set to velocity control mode, and a desired velocity is defined;”,
Supplemental Note: the ROSI software is able to set the vehicle to use a first velocity control method)
while controlling the vehicle using the first drive-control method,
operating a second drive-control method that does not control the vehicle; and (Rocha: Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraphs 1 – 2: “During stair climbing, it is necessary to simultaneously control the robot heading angle and velocity together with the flippers positions, configuring a complex task for a single operator. Here, a semi-automatic stair climbing algorithm is proposed considering that there is only one DoF for an operator control – the robot linear velocity. For all other DoF, an automatic closed loop control is proposed”; Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraph 7: “pose regulation: here it is assumed that the robot is taken as close as possible to the stair centerline. A closed loop controller brings heading error to zero, pointing the robot to the first step edge;”,
Supplemental Note: during the stair climbing function, the velocity of the robot can be controlled by the operator while the heading angle is still controlled autonomously).
In sum, Rocha teaches a method of operating a vehicle, comprising: controlling the vehicle using a first drive-control method in response to receiving a first set of messages from a control computer separate from the vehicle; while controlling the vehicle using the first drive-control method, operating a second drive-control method that does not control the vehicle. Rocha however does not teach in response to receiving a second set of messages from the control computer, switching from the first drive-control method to the second drive- control method such that the vehicle is controlled using the second drive-control method but not the first drive-control method.
Urano teaches in response to receiving a second set of messages from the control computer, (Urano: Paragraph 0007: “A first aspect of the present disclosure relates to an autonomous driving device to be mounted on a vehicle. The autonomous driving device includes a first ECU configured to autonomously drive the vehicle, and a second ECU configured to operate the vehicle under remote control from an outside. The first ECU is configured to keep an activated state while the second ECU is operating the vehicle. The second ECU is configured to keep a power saving state while the first ECU is autonomously driving the vehicle.”; Paragraph 0008: “In the first aspect, the second ECU may be configured to make transition from the power saving state to an activated state in response to an activation instruction from the first ECU”)
switching from the first drive-control method to the second drive- control method such that the vehicle is controlled using the second drive-control method but not the first drive-control method (Urano: Paragraph 0041: “When determination is made that the autonomous driving cannot be continued, the autonomous driving ECU 211 may call the remote control ECU 212 even if the remote control ECU 212 is in the power saving state. Therefore, transition can be made from the autonomous driving to the remote control even if the remote control ECU 212 is in the power saving state during the autonomous driving.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Urano with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Rocha and Urano teach vehicles capable of operating remotely and autonomously. Urano further teaches the ability to switch between the two control modes of remote controlled and autonomous driving. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this function to be a simple substitution with the vehicle system of Rocha. For example, Rocha teaches it’s ROSI software to be able to remotely control the vehicle (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software) and in the stair climbing mode, the user is able to remotely adjust the speed of the vehicle while the heading is still autonomously controlled (Rocha: Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control). Therefore both Rocha and Urano teach the ability to switch to remote control operation for controlling aspects of their autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Rocha, as modified, does not teach wherein switching from the first drive-control method to the second drive-control method is performed without stopping the vehicle.
Urano teaches wherein switching from the first drive-control method to the second drive-control method is performed without stopping the vehicle (Urano: Paragraph 0060: “When the control information is quickly switched in the transition from the autonomous driving to the remote control or from the remote control to the autonomous driving, the behavior of the vehicle 20 may become unstable at the time of switching, which may cause discomfort to occupants. For example, when an instruction to depress the accelerator pedal is given in the autonomous driving and an instruction to release the accelerator pedal is given in the remote control, sudden deceleration occurs in the transition from the autonomous driving to the remote control, and sudden acceleration occurs in the transition from the remote control to the autonomous driving. Therefore, calculation is performed to smoothly switch the control information in these transitions.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Urano with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Rocha and Urano teach vehicles capable of operating remotely and autonomously. Urano teaches the ability to switch between the two control modes of remote controlled and autonomous driving. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this function to be a simple substitution with the vehicle system of Rocha as for the reasons stated in claim 1. Furthermore, Urano also teaches the ability to switch controls between the different modes without stopping the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this function obvious to try to implement with the vehicle system of Rocha as it provides a smooth transition between the two modes. For example, when operating the ROSI vehicle of Rocha, the system can now smoothly transition between remote control operation and autonomous driving function. Although there are no passengers on the ROSI vehicle, the robot having to stop between switching the two modes increases the time it takes to complete its task, thus this combination also increases the efficiency of the vehicle. There may be conditions in which it is undesirable to stop the vehicle, for example, when traveling on a slippery incline. When the vehicle stops, the vehicle may slide down the incline, thus a smooth transition would let the vehicle keep its momentum along the path while the remote operator is able to control its velocity for example.
Regarding claim 4, Rocha, as modified, teaches wherein each of the first drive-control method and the second drive-control method is a respective one of:
a torque control method in which the vehicle produces respective torques by left and right motors of the vehicle based on input from the control computer, (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2: “Figure 9 presents ROSI Graphical User Interface (GUI). Hosted at ROSI computer, any web-browser ready device connected to the robot Local Area Network (LAN) can access the interface. The web page connects to the rosmaster using the rosbridge package and roslibjs javascript API. The interface presents online telemetry, a 3D robot active model, and camera images. It also generates command messages, including a virtual joystick for devices without ROS installed, i.e., any common smartphone/computer can operate ROSI. Another teleoperation possibility includes a remote computer running a ROS joystick node”; Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7: “3 Torque: EPOS4 is set to torque control mode, and a desired torque is defined. This control mode is not used in ROSI teleoperation; instead, it can be used for closed loop coordinated control in order to maximizes traction conditions between wheels/tracks and the terrain.”,
Supplemental Note: the ROSI software is able to control the torque of the vehicle)
a speed control method in which the vehicle runs at a desired speed based on input from the control computer; (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7: “2 Velocity: EPOS4 is set to velocity control mode, and a desired velocity is defined;”)
a heading control method in which the vehicle drives in a desired heading based on input from the control computer,
or a waypoints control method in which the vehicle drives to a series of desired geographical locations based on input from the control computer (Not all methods are required as the claim states “each of the first drive-control method and the second drive-control method is a respective one of”).
Regarding claim 6, Rocha, as modified, teaches wherein the first drive-control method is the torque control method and (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2: “Figure 9 presents ROSI Graphical User Interface (GUI). Hosted at ROSI computer, any web-browser ready device connected to the robot Local Area Network (LAN) can access the interface. The web page connects to the rosmaster using the rosbridge package and roslibjs javascript API. The interface presents online telemetry, a 3D robot active model, and camera images. It also generates command messages, including a virtual joystick for devices without ROS installed, i.e., any common smartphone/computer can operate ROSI. Another teleoperation possibility includes a remote computer running a ROS joystick node”; Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7: “3 Torque: EPOS4 is set to torque control mode, and a desired torque is defined. This control mode is not used in ROSI teleoperation; instead, it can be used for closed loop coordinated control in order to maximizes traction conditions between wheels/tracks and the terrain.”,
Supplemental Note: the ROSI software is able to control the torque of the vehicle)
the second drive-control method is the speed control method (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7: “2 Velocity: EPOS4 is set to velocity control mode, and a desired velocity is defined;”).
Regarding claim 8, Rocha, as modified, teaches further comprising:
receiving messages from the control computer specifying settings of at least one of the speed control method, the heading control method, and the waypoints control method; (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2: “Figure 9 presents ROSI Graphical User Interface (GUI). Hosted at ROSI computer, any web-browser ready device connected to the robot Local Area Network (LAN) can access the interface. The web page connects to the rosmaster using the rosbridge package and roslibjs javascript API. The interface presents online telemetry, a 3D robot active model, and camera images. It also generates command messages, including a virtual joystick for devices without ROS installed, i.e., any common smartphone/computer can operate ROSI. Another teleoperation possibility includes a remote computer running a ROS joystick node… 2 Velocity: EPOS4 is set to velocity control mode, and a desired velocity is defined;”,
Supplemental Note: the ROSI software is able to set the vehicle to use at least a first velocity control method)
transforming the messages into torque control inputs for controlling the left and right motors; and
powering the left and right motors based on the torque control inputs (Rocha: Section 3 ROSI: A Novel Mobile Platform, Paragraph 5: “ROSI can distribute traction among the four high power motors installed in each traction module. Despite requiring two extra motors, the proposed solution simplifies the mechanism to decouple wheeled and tracked locomotion and does not need a transmission mechanism between front and rear wheel/tracks, improving mechanical modularity. Also, the four traction modules with independent command configures ROSI as a four-wheel or four-track 4x4 drive vehicle.”; Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7: “3 Torque: EPOS4 is set to torque control mode, and a desired torque is defined. This control mode is not used in ROSI teleoperation; instead, it can be used for closed loop coordinated control in order to maximizes traction conditions between wheels/tracks and the terrain.”,
Supplemental Note: the torque control adjusts the steering of the vehicle. The vehicle turn from the motors attached to each of the wheels in a 4x4 configuration. Therefore the torque controls the motors in order to turn the vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Rocha, as modified, teaches wherein operating the second drive-control method while controlling the vehicle using the first drive-control method includes running the second drive-control method open loop (Rocha: Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraphs 1 – 2: “During stair climbing, it is necessary to simultaneously control the robot heading angle and velocity together with the flippers positions, configuring a complex task for a single operator. Here, a semi-automatic stair climbing algorithm is proposed considering that there is only one DoF for an operator control – the robot linear velocity. For all other DoF, an automatic closed loop control is proposed”; Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraph 4: “pose regulation: here it is assumed that the robot is taken as close as possible to the stair centerline. A closed loop controller brings heading error to zero, pointing the robot to the first step edge;”,
Supplemental Note: during the stair climbing function, the velocity of the robot can be controlled by the operator while the heading angle is still controlled autonomously. This is interpreted as an open loop system as the velocity is being controlled by the operator while the heading is still functioning in an autonomous manner).
Regarding claim 12, Rocha, as modified, teaches wherein operating the second drive-control method while controlling the vehicle using the first drive-control method further includes:
providing a set of inputs to the second drive-control method; and
generating a set of outputs of the second drive-control method based on the set of inputs (Rocha: Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraphs 1 – 2 : “During stair climbing, it is necessary to simultaneously control the robot heading angle and velocity together with the flippers positions, configuring a complex task for a single operator. Here, a semi-automatic stair climbing algorithm is proposed considering that there is only one DoF for an operator control – the robot linear velocity. For all other DoF, an automatic closed loop control is proposed; pose regulation: here it is assumed that the robot is taken as close as possible to the stair centerline. A closed loop controller brings heading error to zero, pointing the robot to the first step edge;”,
Supplemental Note: during the stair climbing function, the velocity of the robot can be controlled by the operator while the heading angle is still controlled autonomously).
Regarding claim 13, Rocha, as modified, teaches wherein operating the second drive-control method while controlling the vehicle using the first drive-control method further includes limiting the set of outputs of the second drive-control method to levels expected under closed-loop control (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2: “Figure 9 presents ROSI Graphical User Interface (GUI). Hosted at ROSI computer, any web-browser ready device connected to the robot Local Area Network (LAN) can access the interface. The web page connects to the rosmaster using the rosbridge package and roslibjs javascript API. The interface presents online telemetry, a 3D robot active model, and camera images. It also generates command messages, including a virtual joystick for devices without ROS installed, i.e., any common smartphone/computer can operate ROSI. Another teleoperation possibility includes a remote computer running a ROS joystick node”; Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7: “3 Torque: EPOS4 is set to torque control mode, and a desired torque is defined. This control mode is not used in ROSI teleoperation; instead, it can be used for closed loop coordinated control in order to maximizes traction conditions between wheels/tracks and the terrain.”,
Supplemental Note: the ROSI software is able to control the torque of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Rocha teaches a tracked vehicle, comprising: (Rocha: Section 2.1 Mobile Platform and Robotic Arm, Paragraph 1: “A hybrid wheeled-tracked system with flippers combines the necessary locomotion capabilities to perform the proposed task.”)
first and second tracks;
first and second motors respectively coupled to the first and second tracks;
a traction motor inverter coupled to the first and second motors; and (Rocha: Section 3 ROSI: A Novel Mobile Platform, Paragraph 5: “ROSI can distribute traction among the four high power motors installed in each traction module. Despite requiring two extra motors, the proposed solution simplifies the mechanism to decouple wheeled and tracked locomotion and does not need a transmission mechanism between front and rear wheel/tracks, improving mechanical modularity. Also, the four traction modules with independent command configures ROSI as a four-wheel or four-track 4x4 drive vehicle.”)
control circuitry constructed and arranged to:
control the vehicle using a first drive-control method in response to receipt of a first set of messages from a control computer separate from the vehicle; (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2; Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7,
Supplemental Note: the ROSI software is able to set the vehicle to use a first velocity control method)
while the vehicle is controlled using the first drive-control method, operate a second drive-control method that does not control the vehicle; and (Rocha: Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraphs 1 – 2; Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraph 7).
In sum, Rocha teaches a tracked vehicle, comprising: first and second tracks; first and second motors respectively coupled to the first and second tracks; a traction motor inverter coupled to the first and second motors; and control circuitry constructed and arranged to: control the vehicle using a first drive-control method in response to receipt of a first set of messages from a control computer separate from the vehicle; while the vehicle is controlled using the first drive-control method, operate a second drive-control method that does not control the vehicle. Rocha however does not teach in response to receipt of a second set of messages from the control computer switch from the first drive-control method to the second drive- control method such that the vehicle is controlled using the second drive- control method but not the first drive-control method.
Urano teaches in response to receipt of a second set of messages from the control computer, (Urano: Paragraph 0007; Paragraph 0008)
switch from the first drive-control method to the second drive- control method such that the vehicle is controlled using the second drive- control method but not the first drive-control method (Urano: Paragraph 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Urano with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 17, Rocha, as modified, teaches further comprising a wireless interface constructed and arranged (Rocha: Section 3.1 Mechanical Design, Paragraph 1)
to receive the first set of messages and the second set of messages from the control computer over a wireless connection (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2; Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7; Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraphs 1 – 2; Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 18, Rocha, as modified, teaches wherein each of the first drive-control method and the second drive-control method is a respective one of:
a torque control method in which the vehicle is constructed and arranged to produce desired torques of left and right motors of the vehicle based on input from the control computer; (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2; Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7)
a speed control method in which the vehicle is constructed and arranged to run at a desired speed based on input from the control computer; (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7)
a heading control method in which the vehicle is constructed and arranged to drive in a desired heading based on input from the control computer; or a waypoints control method in which the vehicle is constructed and arranged to drive to a series of geographical locations based on input from the control computer (Not all methods are required as the claim states “each of the first drive-control method and the second drive-control method is a respective one of”).
Regarding claim 20, Rocha, as modified, teaches wherein the control circuitry constructed and arranged to operate the second drive-control method while the vehicle is controlled using the first drive-control method is further constructed and arranged to run the second drive-control method open loop (Rocha: Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraphs 1 – 2: “During stair climbing, it is necessary to simultaneously control the robot heading angle and velocity together with the flippers positions, configuring a complex task for a single operator. Here, a semi-automatic stair climbing algorithm is proposed considering that there is only one DoF for an operator control – the robot linear velocity. For all other DoF, an automatic closed loop control is proposed”; Section 4.3 Semi-automatic Stair Climbing Control, Paragraphs 4: “pose regulation: here it is assumed that the robot is taken as close as possible to the stair centerline. A closed loop controller brings heading error to zero, pointing the robot to the first step edge;”,
Supplemental Note: during the stair climbing function, the velocity of the robot can be controlled by the operator while the heading angle is still controlled autonomously. This is interpreted as an open loop system as the velocity is being controlled by the operator while the heading is still functioning in an autonomous manner).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha et al. (ROSI: A Robotic System for Harsh Outdoor Industrial Inspection - System Design and Applications) and Urano et al. (US 20220297722 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Standiford et al. (US 20240377833 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Rocha, as modified, does not teach wherein prior to switching from the first drive-control method to the second drive-control method, the method further comprises establishing one or more settings of the second drive-control method operating in the vehicle based on a third set of messages received from the control computer.
Standiford teaches wherein prior to switching from the first drive-control method to the second drive-control method, the method further comprises establishing one or more settings of the second drive-control method operating in the vehicle based on a third set of messages received from the control computer (Standiford: Claim 1: “A remotely controlled vehicle, comprising: a vehicle propulsion system constructed and arranged to move the remotely controlled vehicle; a vehicle control computer coupled with the vehicle propulsion system, the vehicle control computer being constructed and arranged to operate the vehicle propulsion system; and electronic safety equipment coupled with the vehicle propulsion system, the electronic safety equipment being constructed and arranged to perform a method of: receiving a set of speed signals indicating a current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle, performing a comparison operation which compares the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle, as indicated by the set of speed signals, to a predefined maximum speed, and triggering an emergency vehicle stop in response to a result of the comparison operation indicating that the current speed of the remotely controlled vehicle exceeds the predefined maximum speed by a predefined amount.”,
Supplemental Note: the electronic safety equipment has a predefined maximum speed of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Standiford with a reasonable expectation of success. Rocha and Standiford both teach vehicles which are able to remotely operate their respective vehicles. Standiford further teaches the addition of an electronic safety equipment coupled with the vehicle to trigger an emergency response if the vehicle is controlled to travel above a predetermined maximum speed. Standiford teaches the inclusion of this electronic safety equipment to improve the ability of the vehicle to perform an emergency stop. For example, if the vehicle is traveling too fast, the vehicle cannot stop in time and can collide with a personnel (Standiford: Paragraph 0003). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Standiford with the tracked vehicle of Rocha as to mitigate any collisions. For example, setting a predetermined maximum speed per the electronic safety equipment coupled to the vehicle of Rocha can improve the response remotely stopping the vehicle and thus preventing any collisions with other equipment or personal.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha et al. (ROSI: A Robotic System for Harsh Outdoor Industrial Inspection - System Design and Applications) and Urano et al. (US 20220297722 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choe et al. (US 8983708 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Rocha, as modified, teaches wherein the first drive-control method is the speed control method and (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2: “Figure 9 presents ROSI Graphical User Interface (GUI). Hosted at ROSI computer, any web-browser ready device connected to the robot Local Area Network (LAN) can access the interface. The web page connects to the rosmaster using the rosbridge package and roslibjs javascript API. The interface presents online telemetry, a 3D robot active model, and camera images. It also generates command messages, including a virtual joystick for devices without ROS installed, i.e., any common smartphone/computer can operate ROSI. Another teleoperation possibility includes a remote computer running a ROS joystick node”; Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 7: “2 Velocity: EPOS4 is set to velocity control mode, and a desired velocity is defined;”,
Supplemental Note: the ROSI software is able to set the vehicle to use a first velocity control method).
In sum, Rocha teaches wherein the first drive-control method is the speed control method. Rocha however does not teach the second drive-control method is the waypoints control method.
Choe teaches the second drive-control method is the waypoints control method (Choe: Col. 3, lines 16 – 22: “a steering control device of an autonomous vehicle is also provided, the device is composed of as follows: a waypoint selection unit for selecting a tracking waypoint of an autonomous vehicle based on a current position of the autonomous vehicle with using received waypoints”; Col. 5, lines 21 – 24: “The steering control device 130 selects one of received waypoints as a tracking waypoint based on the position of the body 110, and generates a steering command so that the body 110 can trace the tracking waypoint.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Choe with a reasonable expectation of success. Rocha teaches a ROSI vehicle which is able to perform inspections on belt conveyors. Choe teaching the ability of setting waypoints for a vehicle to travel to would be a use of a known technique to improve the vehicle in the same way to one of ordinary skill in the art when combined with Rocha. Rocha teaches the ROSI vehicle to be able to navigate along a previously designated path (Rocha: Section 2.1 Mobile Platform and Robotic Arm, Paragraph 1), thus the ability of adding in waypoints would be an improvement of the designed path method. For example, the ROSI vehicle can be designated to inspect specific areas of the belt conveyor which can be specified by a waypoint. This improves the ability of specifying which areas to inspect.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha et al. (ROSI: A Robotic System for Harsh Outdoor Industrial Inspection - System Design and Applications) and Urano et al. (US 20220297722 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (CN115366866A).
Regarding claim 7, Rocha, as modified, teaches left and right motors of the vehicle (Rocha: Section 3 ROSI: A Novel Mobile Platform, Paragraph 5: “ROSI can distribute traction among the four high power motors installed in each traction module. Despite requiring two extra motors, the proposed solution simplifies the mechanism to decouple wheeled and tracked locomotion and does not need a transmission mechanism between front and rear wheel/tracks, improving mechanical modularity. Also, the four traction modules with independent command configures ROSI as a four-wheel or four-track 4x4 drive vehicle.”; Section 3.3 Software: “3 Torque: EPOS4 is set to torque control mode, and a desired torque is defined. This control mode is not used in ROSI teleoperation; instead, it can be used for closed loop coordinated control in order to maximizes traction conditions between wheels/tracks and the terrain.”,
Supplemental Note: the torque control adjusts the steering of the vehicle. The vehicle turn from the motors attached to each of the wheels in a 4x4 configuration. Therefore the torque controls the motors in order to turn the vehicle).
In sum, Rocha teaches left and right motors of the vehicle. Rocha however does not teach wherein the torque control method is an aided torque control method, and wherein the method further comprises smoothing torque values received in the control commands from the control computer to prevent sudden changes in power.
Gao teaches wherein the torque control method is an aided torque control method, and wherein the method further comprises smoothing torque values received in the control commands from the control computer to prevent sudden changes in power applied to the (Gao: Lines 126 – 131: “Torque control: This function mainly realizes the distribution of the required torque of the whole vehicle, and ensures the stability and high efficiency of the vehicle while meeting the vehicle dynamic requirements. Torque smoothing is mainly responsible for ensuring no sudden changes in the power output of the vehicle and improving driving comfort. Torque control includes boundary limitation on the main link, drivability processing, torque intervention, torque distribution, secondary distribution, engine start and stop control, torque dynamic compensation, clutch control, and subsystem arbitration.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Gao with a reasonable expectation of success. Gao teaches the ability of the vehicle to have a torque control function which ensures stability of the vehicle while meeting the vehicle dynamic requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this function of Gao to be applying the known technique of torque control to a known device, such as the ROSI vehicle as taught by Rocha, ready for improvement to yield predictable result. For example, if the remote operator is adjusting the torque of the ROSI vehicle and the vehicle is traveling at a set speed, there can be scenarios where the vehicle loses stability when making a sharp turn at high speeds. The combination with Gao’s torque control improves the stability of the ROSI vehicle as it will be able to smooth the torque and improve stability when the vehicle turns at the set speed.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha et al. (ROSI: A Robotic System for Harsh Outdoor Industrial Inspection - System Design and Applications) and Urano et al. (US 20220297722 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choe et al. (US 8983708 B2) and Yoneda et al. (US 10962970 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Rocha, as modified, does not teach further comprising, while operating the vehicle using one of the heading control method or the waypoints control method.
Choe teaches further comprising, while operating the vehicle using one of the heading control method or the waypoints control method: (Choe: Col. 3, lines 16 – 22: “a steering control device of an autonomous vehicle is also provided, the device is composed of as follows: a waypoint selection unit for selecting a tracking waypoint of an autonomous vehicle based on a current position of the autonomous vehicle with using received waypoints”; Col. 5, lines 21 – 24: “The steering control device 130 selects one of received waypoints as a tracking waypoint based on the position of the body 110, and generates a steering command so that the body 110 can trace the tracking waypoint.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Choe with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 5 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Rocha in view of Choe however still do not teach receiving directional input from the control computer indicating an instructed change in direction of the vehicle; and automatically switching operation of the vehicle to the speed control method responsive to the directional input.
Yoneda teaches receiving directional input from the control computer indicating an instructed change in direction of the vehicle; and
automatically switching operation of the vehicle to the speed control method responsive to the directional input (Yoneda: Col. 11, lines 1 – 3: “Next, the remote control unit 1608 corrects the accelerator input value included in the vehicle operation signal received in step S10 or the accelerator input value included in the previously received vehicle operation signal, based on the steering angle and the speed acquired in step S11 (step S12). Note that step S12 is an example of a step of correcting the accelerator input value.”; Col. 12, lines 36 – 49: “Therefore, when the operator 10 is performing an operation of turning the vehicle 16 under control right or left or a similar operation, it is difficult for the operator 10 to finely control the accelerator. For example, there is a possibility that the operator 10 presses the accelerator input part 11b too much and thus the vehicle 16 under control has an abrupt acceleration during the turning-right/left operation (see FIG. 14 and FIG. 15). To handle the above situation, in the correction factor calculation process 1 in step S22, the accelerator input value is corrected so as to reduce the probability of an occurrence of an abrupt acceleration on the vehicle 16 under control. More specifically, in the correction factor calculation process 1, a process is executed to reduce the correction factor C.”,
Supplemental Note: the acceleration input value is updated when the remote steering is started for the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Yoneda with a reasonable expectation of success. Yoneda teaches the ability of controlling the acceleration of the vehicle when it is being remotely steered. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Yoneda with the ROSI vehicle of Rocha. Yoneda teaches this function to improve the operator’s controllability of the vehicle as the operator is only able to view images on their information display, thus it is difficult for the operator to properly control the steering and the speed at the same time. Combining this capability with the ROSI vehicle of Rocha increases the ability of the vehicle to control the vehicle properly. For example, the remote operator now will be able to view the data feed from the ROSI vehicle and focus on making turns for the vehicle while it is traveling at low speeds, thus increasing the efficiency. This also mitigates situations where the operator accidentally adjusts the speed of the vehicle while evaluating the data feed.
Regarding claim 10, Rocha, as modified, teaches wherein the directional input is based on movement of a joystick of the control computer (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2: “Figure 9 presents ROSI Graphical User Interface (GUI). Hosted at ROSI computer, any web-browser ready device connected to the robot Local Area Network (LAN) can access the interface. The web page connects to the rosmaster using the rosbridge package and roslibjs javascript API. The interface presents online telemetry, a 3D robot active model, and camera images. It also generates command messages, including a virtual joystick for devices without ROS installed, i.e., any common smartphone/computer can operate ROSI. Another teleoperation possibility includes a remote computer running a ROS joystick node”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha et al. (ROSI: A Robotic System for Harsh Outdoor Industrial Inspection - System Design and Applications) and Urano et al. (US 20220297722 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Choe et al. (US 8983708 B2) and Yoneda et al. (US 10962970 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Rocha, as modified, does not teach wherein the control circuitry constructed and arranged to operate the vehicle using one of the heading control method or the waypoints control method is further constructed and arranged to.
Choe teaches wherein the control circuitry constructed and arranged to operate the vehicle using one of the heading control method or the waypoints control method is further constructed and arranged to: (Choe: Col. 3, lines 16 – 22; Col. 5, lines 21 – 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Choe with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 5 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Rocha in view of Choe however still do not teach receive directional input from the control computer indicating an instructed change in direction of the vehicle and automatically switch operation of the vehicle to the speed control method responsive to the directional input.
Yoneda teaches receive directional input from the control computer indicating an instructed change in direction of the vehicle; and
automatically switch operation of the vehicle to the speed control method responsive to the directional input (Yoneda: Col. 11, lines 1 – 3; Col. 11, lines 33 – 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Yoneda with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 9 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claims 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha et al. (ROSI: A Robotic System for Harsh Outdoor Industrial Inspection - System Design and Applications) and Urano et al. (US 20220297722 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bouma et al. (US 20230305557 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Rocha, as modified, teaches further comprising:
receiving a set of messages from the control computer (Rocha: Section 3.3 Software, Paragraph 2: “Figure 9 presents ROSI Graphical User Interface (GUI). Hosted at ROSI computer, any web-browser ready device connected to the robot Local Area Network (LAN) can access the interface. The web page connects to the rosmaster using the rosbridge package and roslibjs javascript API. The interface presents online telemetry, a 3D robot active model, and camera images. It also generates command messages, including a virtual joystick for devices without ROS installed, i.e., any common smartphone/computer can operate ROSI. Another teleoperation possibility includes a remote computer running a ROS joystick node”).
In sum, Rocha teaches further comprising: receiving a set of messages from the control computer. Rocha however does not teach specifying a set of mobility limits of the vehicle, the mobility limits include a speed limit of the vehicle; and while operating the vehicle, limiting a maximum speed of the vehicle to the speed limit specified by the mobility limits.
Bouma teaches specifying a set of mobility limits of the vehicle, the mobility limits include a speed limit of the vehicle; and
while operating the vehicle, limiting a maximum speed of the vehicle to the speed limit specified by the mobility limits (Bouma: Paragraph 0013: “One or more parameters of the system, e.g., operator control stations and/or the device, e.g., robot device, being remotely controlled, e.g., teleoperated, are altered in response to one or more of: i) communications latency, ii) communications bandwidth, iii) a task to be performed; and/or iv) environmental conditions. By changing such parameters, things such as maximum speed of device operation, a maximum acceleration rate or a maximum rate of movement of a device element such as forks of a forklift the device can be controlled or limited. The changing of parameters takes into consideration one, more or all of: i) communications latency, ii) communications bandwidth, iii) a task to be performed; and/or iv) environmental conditions”; Paragraph 0014: “For example, as latency increases, the maximum speed of a vehicle may be reduced by setting a parameter that controls the maximum speed to a lower value. The change in maximum speed may be, and sometimes is, proportional to the change in latency. By reducing the maximum speed of a vehicle such as a forklift being controlled, the minimum amount of time an operator will have to control the vehicle to alter course will increase. Thus, the operator will have more time to redirect the device being controlled even when operating at maximum speed, helping to offset the increased amount of time required to send control signals to the device from the operator workstation.”,
Supplemental Note: the speed and acceleration limits can be set depending on the connection speed of sending controls from the operator control station to the robot device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Bouma with a reasonable expectation of success. Bouma teaches the ability of limiting the maximum speed of a vehicle when in remote operation as to combat any latency increases. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Bouma with the vehicle system of Rocha. For example, when the ROSI vehicle is being remotely controlled and travels in an area with increased latency issues, the maximum speed can now be limited as to combat the latency issues. This maximum speed gives the communication between the vehicle and the remote controller time to send/receive all of the data. This mitigates any potential collisions of not being able to stop the vehicle in time if the data feed from the ROSI vehicle is being acquired too slowly due to latency issues.
Regarding claim 15, Rocha, as modified, does not teach wherein the set of mobility limits further include at least one of: maximum acceleration, maximum yaw rate, maximum differential braking rate, maximum torque, maximum deceleration, whether the vehicle is allowed to use regenerative braking, and whether the vehicle is allowed to perform zero turning, and wherein the method further comprises limiting the vehicle during operation to the set of mobility limits.
Bouma teaches wherein the set of mobility limits further include at least one of: maximum acceleration, maximum yaw rate, maximum differential braking rate, maximum torque, maximum deceleration, whether the vehicle is allowed to use regenerative braking, and whether the vehicle is allowed to perform zero turning, and wherein the method further comprises limiting the vehicle during operation to the set of mobility limits (Bouma: Paragraph 0013: “One or more parameters of the system, e.g., operator control stations and/or the device, e.g., robot device, being remotely controlled, e.g., teleoperated, are altered in response to one or more of: i) communications latency, ii) communications bandwidth, iii) a task to be performed; and/or iv) environmental conditions. By changing such parameters, things such as maximum speed of device operation, a maximum acceleration rate or a maximum rate of movement of a device element such as forks of a forklift the device can be controlled or limited. The changing of parameters takes into consideration one, more or all of: i) communications latency, ii) communications bandwidth, iii) a task to be performed; and/or iv) environmental conditions”; Paragraph 0014: “For example, as latency increases, the maximum speed of a vehicle may be reduced by setting a parameter that controls the maximum speed to a lower value. The change in maximum speed may be, and sometimes is, proportional to the change in latency. By reducing the maximum speed of a vehicle such as a forklift being controlled, the minimum amount of time an operator will have to control the vehicle to alter course will increase. Thus, the operator will have more time to redirect the device being controlled even when operating at maximum speed, helping to offset the increased amount of time required to send control signals to the device from the operator workstation.”,
Supplemental Note: the speed and acceleration limits can be set depending on the connection speed of sending controls from the operator control station to the robot device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Rocha with the teachings of Bouma with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights