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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.Claim 1, line 8 the term “mobile robot’s” is unclear.
Claim 1, line 10 the term “spring’s” is unclear.
Claim 6, line 2 the term “mobile robot’s” is unclear.
Claim 13, line 6 the term “spring’s” is unclear.
Claim 13, line 9 the term “mobile robot’s” is unclear.
Claim 14, line 3 the term “spring’s” is unclear.
Claim 15, line 2 the term “spring’s” is unclear.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 - 9, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shu (CN 114953877 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shu discloses a suspension system (fig 3) for mobile robots, comprising: a. a Drive Wheel Assembly (fig 4) securely mounted to the main body of the Mobile Robot (fig 3), ensuring precise alignment; b. Mounting brackets (202,204,205) positioned strategically to distribute loads and enhance structural integrity; c. Alignment mechanisms (para 0030) for maintaining consistent contact between the Drive Wheels and the floor surface; d. Structural support (the combination of the mounting brackets and the suspensions system components provide structural support) for the Mobile Robot's chassis during dynamic movements and uneven terrain traversal; and A Parallel Guided Spring's Assembly (203) to dampen and prevent the transfer of disruptive forces by providing Vibration isolation capabilities (para 0030).
Regarding claim 2, Shu discloses a. Linear-Motion (LM) Shaft and Bush Bearings for internally guiding compression springs, ensuring smooth suspension movement; and b. An Offset LM Shaft and Bush Bearing designed for load carrying and alignment (para 0030, 0047).
Regarding claim 4, Shu discloses a Gearbox (para 0055) and Electrical Motor (206) to achieve the desired driving torque, positioning, and displacement of the Mobile Robot within its workspace (para 0055-0057).
Regarding claim 6-9, Shu discloses all the structural limitations of claim 1. As all of the structural limitations are disclosed the system of Shu, the invention
Is characterized by its minimal footprint to ensure it does not interfere with the Mobile Robot's maneuverability and workspace;
effectively controls and dampens continuous vibrations originating from floor irregularities, preventing their transfer to the Mobile Robot Chassis.
Is designed to absorb and mitigate instantaneous loads encountered during travel over floor humps and potholes, thereby preserving the structural integrity of the Mobile Robot Chassis.
enhances motion efficiency and stability within Mobile Robots, making them well-suited for operation in demanding industrial environments.
The recitation of the intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As the invention of Shu discloses the mobile robot assembly of claim 1, it is understood that Shu discloses all limitations of claims 6-9.
Regarding claim 12, Shu discloses wherein the robot maintains continuous contact with the floor even on uneven surfaces, enhances stability during dynamic speed changes and varying load conditions, and achieves energy efficiency through reduced motor torque requirements (para 0030).
Regarding claim 13, Shu discloses a method for operating a robotic suspension system in mobile robots, comprising the steps of: a) Facilitating continuous and uninterrupted contact between the mobile robot and the floor (para 0030), allowing seamless navigation over uneven terrain and dynamic operational conditions through the deployment of a Parallel Guided Spring's Assembly b) Addressing jounces and rebounds during robot travel by enabling compression and extension movements in a vertically oriented plane, which is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the Mobile Robot's chassis, thereby significantly reducing vibrations experienced by the Mobile Robot (para 0030,0047); c) Improving the linear relationship between the Mobile Robot and the floor, resulting in enhanced stability, control, and overall performance (para 0030, 0047).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (CN 114953877 A).
Regarding claim 3, Shu does not disclose wherein the Drive Wheel Assembly is equipped with a Polyurethane-based center mount castor wheel to facilitate the Mobile Robot's movement. However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of Polyurethane castor wheels is common and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to modify Shu such that the Drive wheel comprises a Polyurethane-based center mount castor wheel to provide an easy and cheap to manufacture component.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (CN 114953877 A) in view of Jensen (US 20220363329 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Shue does not disclose wherein the suspension system is designed to function effectively in both forward and backward directions of drive-wheel movement. However, Jensen discloses a similar apparatus wherein the suspension system can function in both forward and backward directions of drive-wheel movement (para 0076). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shu such that the suspension system can function forward and backwards provide vibration dampening regardless of direction.
Claim(s) 10,11,14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (CN 114953877 A) in view of Imaokai (US 20190077212 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shu discloses wherein the Parallel Guided Spring's Assembly includes shock absorbers, springs. However, Shu does not disclose the use of sensors. Peng disclose a similar invention wherein the Parallel Guided Spring's Assembly includes shock absorbers (fig 3), springs (22) and sensors (para 0042,0043) for real-time monitoring and adjustment of suspension parameters, further enhancing the system's capability to address jounces and rebounds, significantly reducing vibrations, and improving the linear relationship between the Mobile Robot and the floor (para 0018, 0042, 0043, 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shu such that the robot comprises sensors to analyze terrain to make adjustments for improved traverse.
Regarding claim 11, Shu does not specify an onboard control unit. However, Imaokai discloses a similar vehicle comprising an onboard control unit (117) equipped with software algorithms that analyze data from the sensors within the Parallel Guided Spring's Assembly and adjust suspension parameters dynamically, enhancing the Mobile Robot's stability and performance based on real-time feedback (para 0018,0040,0042,0043,0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shu such that the vehicle comprises an onboard control unit to allow users to remotely control the vehicle if autonomous override is required.
Regarding claim 14, Shu does not disclose sensors. However, Imaokai discloses the step of monitoring suspension parameters in real-time using sensors integrated into the Parallel Guided Spring's Assembly, and adjusting said parameters dynamically to optimize the Mobile Robot's stability and control during operation (par 0030, 0042-0047). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shu such that the robot comprises sensors to analyze terrain to make adjustments for improved traverse.
Regarding claim 15, Shu does not disclose a step of fine-tuning movements. However, Imaokai discloses the step of fine tuning the compression and extension movements of the Parallel Guided Spring's Assembly through an actuator mechanism, allowing the system to adapt to varying terrain conditions and speed changes for improved stability (para 0042-0047). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shu such that the device is able to fine tune itself to provide a more stable ride and mitigate external forces.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (CN 114953877 A) in view of Coltson(US 20070240928 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Shu does not disclose a step of detecting floor conditions. However, Coltson discloses the step of detecting variations in floor conditions through a feedback mechanism and autonomously adjusting suspension parameters in response to detected changes, ensuring continuous and uninterrupted contact between the Mobile Robot and the floor (para 0025, claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shu such that the robot comprises the step of detecting various floor conditions to analyze terrain to make adjustments for improved traverse.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (CN 114953877 A) in view of Brady(US 20150057885 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Shu does not disclose the step of providing users with customizable settings. However, Brady discloses a similar apparatus comprising the step of providing users with customizable settings to fine-tune the system's response to specific operational requirements, terrains, or load conditions, thus enhancing adaptability and flexibility (para 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shu such that the robot comprises the ability to allow users to customize the robot’s settings in case there is a need for a user override for manual tweaks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMS DHANANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) - 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571) 270-5985. 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.
SHAMS . DHANANI
Examiner
Art Unit 3614
/KAREN BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights