Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cazali (US 2019/0231617 A1) as modified by Little et al. (US 2016/0067137 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cazali discloses a moving device (mobility assistance vehicle 1) for moving a moving object while having the moving object loaded thereon (Para. 0054), the moving device comprising: two leg portions (any of legs 6a-6d); a placement portion (mechanical structure 2/support plate 3) supported by the two leg portions and configured to have the moving object loaded thereon (Figs. 1-6); wherein each of the two leg portions includes: an upper link (first segment 7a-7d); a lower link (second segments 8a-8d) coupled to the upper link (Figs. 1-6); an end-portion wheel (wheel 11) provided at a lower end of the lower link (Figs. 1-6); a first joint actuator configured to drive the upper link in a front-rear direction (first articulations 10a-10d/actuator 100a-100d; Para. 0060); a second joint actuator configured to drive the lower link in the front-rear direction (second articulations 9a-9d/actuators 90a-90d; Para. 0061); wherein, when there is a difference in a height direction between end-portion wheel ground-contact positions of both the leg portions, the first joint actuator, the second joint actuator and/or the third joint actuator is driven so that a height of the placement portion is changed by the height difference of the end-portion wheel ground-contact positions of both the leg portions with this driving (when the end portion wheels contact the ground at different heights, the control means 19 controls actuators 90/100 to vary the leg portion length to maintain support plate 3 in a horizontal position; Paras. 0053, 0063, 0078 & 0081-0082; Figs. 1, 4-5).
Cazali differs from the invention as claimed because Cazali does not disclose a third joint actuator configured to drive the upper link in a right-left direction.
Little et al., however, teaches a secondary hip actuator configured to pivotally move an upper leg structural member toward and away from the sagittal plain for adduction and abduction, thereby providing movement of the upper leg structural member (Claim 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included a third joint actuator configured to drive the upper link in a right-left direction as taught by Little et al. on the invention of Cazali for the purpose of providing a greater means of movement capabilities.
Regarding claim 2, Cazali as modified by Little et al. discloses the moving device according to claim 1. Cazali further discloses wherein a posture of the moving device is controlled based on an added center-of-gravity position and the end-portion wheel ground-contact position of either or both the end-portion wheels (Paras. 0084-0106).
Regarding claim 7, Cazali discloses the moving device (mobility assistance vehicle 1). Cazali further discloses wherein: the moving object is a person (Para. 0054); and the placement portion for having the moving object loaded thereon comprises a chair portion on which the person sits (Figs. 1-6).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cazali in view of Little et al. and in further view of Lozano et al. (US 2017/0266069 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cazali as modified by Little et al. discloses the moving device according to claim 1. Cazali differs from the invention as claimed because Cazali does not disclose further comprising: an outside world recognition sensor configured to recognize an external situation; and a path generation unit configured to generate a moving path from the external situation recognized by the outside world recognition sensor.
Lozano et al., however, teaches an outside world recognition sensor (guidance sensor 38) configured to recognize an external situation; and a path generation unit configured to generate a moving path from the external situation recognized by the outside world recognition sensor (guidance module 136; Para. 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included an outside world recognition sensor configured to recognize an external situation; and a path generation unit configured to generate a moving path from the external situation recognized by the outside world recognition sensor as taught by Lozano et al. on the invention of Cazali for the purpose of permitting autonomous navigation based upon recognized environmental conditions.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cazali in view of Little et al. and in further view of Ohruh (US 8,695,737 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Cazali as modified by Little et al. discloses the moving device according to claim 1. Cazali further discloses the first joint actuator (first articulations 10a-10d/actuator 100a-100d), or the second joint actuator (first articulations 9a-9d/actuator 90a-90d) of each of the leg portions is driven so that the state of four-wheel ground contact is switched to a state of two-wheel ground contact in which the end-portion wheel of both the leg portions is in contact with a ground (see Figs. 1-5). Cazali differs from the invention as claimed because Cazali does not disclose comprising an intermediate wheel provided at a coupling position between the upper link and the lower link, wherein, under a state of four-wheel ground contact in which the end-potion wheel and the intermediate wheel of both the leg portions are in contact with a ground, one or more of the intermediate wheel, the end-portion wheel.
Ohruh, however, teaches an intermediate wheel provided at a coupling position between the upper link (arm 7a) and the lower link (arm 7b), wherein, under a state of four-wheel ground contact in which the end-potion wheel and the intermediate wheel (wheel 3b) of both the leg portions are in contact with a ground, one or more of the intermediate wheel, the end-portion wheel (Figs. 1 & 7a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included an intermediate wheel provided at a coupling position between the upper link and the lower link, wherein, under a state of four-wheel ground contact in which the end-potion wheel and the intermediate wheel of both the leg portions are in contact with a ground, one or more of the intermediate wheel, the end-portion wheel as taught by Ohruh on the invention of Cazali for the purpose of providing an additional rolling support point at the articulated joint and facilitate travel while permitting relative movement of the articulated links.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not disclose wherein the posture in a right-left direction of the moving device is controlled by controlling one unraised leg portion with the driving of the third joint actuator so that a moved added center-of-gravity position due to a movement of the other raised leg portion and a position in a right-left direction of the end-potion wheel ground-contact position of the unraised leg portion match each other. A prior art search did not uncover any references that teach where the ground-contact position of the unraised leg portion match each other.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not disclose wherein the posture in a front-rear direction of the moving device is controlled by controlling one unraised leg portion with the driving of the first joint actuator and the second joint actuator so that a moved added center-of-gravity position due to a movement of the other raised leg portion and a position in a front-rear direction of the end-potion wheel ground-contact position of the unraised leg portion match each other. A prior art search did not uncover any references that teach where the ground-contact position of the unraised leg portion match each other.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not fairly teach or disclose wherein: a theoretical motion occurring when each of the actuators are driven is calculated based on the added center-of-gravity position; an actual motion is estimated from an information obtained by an inertial sensor; a difference between the theoretical motion and the actual motion is determined; when there is a difference between the theoretical motion and the actual motion, a disturbance amount is estimated by an amount of the difference; a corrected drive amount of each of the actuators is calculated based on the estimated disturbance amount; and each of the actuators is controlled based on the calculated corrected drive amount. Trying to piece meal references together to meet the claim limitations would amount to hindsight reconstruction.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not fairly teach or disclose an intermediate wheel provided at a coupling position between the upper link and the lower link, wherein, under a state of two-wheel ground contact in which the end-potion wheel of both the leg portions is in contact with a ground, one or more of the intermediate wheel, the end-portion wheel, the first joint actuator, or the second joint actuator of each of the leg portions is driven so that the state of two-wheel ground contact is switched to a state of four-wheel ground contact in which the end-portion wheel and the intermediate wheel of both the leg portions are in contact with a ground. Trying to piece meal references together to meet the claim limitations would amount to hindsight reconstruction.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY LYNN JOHNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4852. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J. Allen Shriver can be reached at 3032974337 or 5712726698. 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.
/HILARY L JOHNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights