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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 19th, 2025. Claims 1-37 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on July 15th, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for 371 priority to PCT/AU2023/051324 dated December 18th, 2023 and further foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to AU2022903892 dated December 19th, 2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, and 19-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11, and 19-21 recite “the suspension system” should recite “the suspension arrangement” to properly recite antecedent basis.
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 2, 4, 8, 12, 15-17, 19, 21, 31-32 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.
Regarding claims 2 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what angle would be considered “substantially” level.
The term “around” in claims 2, 4, and 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range would be considered “around” the desired value.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “at least one…of the power drives drive a respective axle”, and the claim also recites “preferably all, of the power drives drive a respective axle. which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 12 and 19 recites the limitations "said pressure sensor and/or at least one respective said linear transducer" and “the at least one pressure sensor and/or the at least one transducer respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claim 21 is additionally rejected due to its dependence on claim 19.
Claims 12, 19, and 23-24 recites the limitation "the vehicle/mobile platform" or “the vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the vehicle portion and said portion should be removed so the claim recites “the mobile platform”. Claim 21 is additionally rejected due to its dependence on claim 19.
Claims 15 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in addition to “the mobile platform”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the vehicle portion and it is unclear whether the vehicle and the mobile platform refer to the same or different apparatus.
Claim 16 recites the limitations "said pressure sensors…the hydraulic system…the hydraulic actuators, the gyroscope and accelerometer…the linear transducers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for all of these limitations in the claim.
The term “neat” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what distance range would be considered near.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the signals/data…the hydraulic system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for both of these limitations in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, 31 recites the broad recitation “between 1.0m and 1.5m”, and the claim also recites “preferably 1.1m to 1.3m” and further “more preferably around 1.2m”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, 32 recites the broad recitation “wherein the suspension arrangement includes upper and lower suspension links associated with the suspension for at least one ground engaging means”, and the claim also recites “wherein the suspension arrangement includes upper and lower suspension links associated with the suspension…preferably for each of the provided ground engaging means”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US-20160333549 (hereinafter, “Manchester”).
Regarding claim 1 Manchester discloses apparatus (see at least [abstract]; “a trenching apparatus”) includes a mobile platform for transporting and/or delivering a payload across contoured terrain to a drilled hole or blast hole (see at least [0072-0073]; “Apparatus 100 can further include at least two ground contacting units 16 arranged on opposed sides of the main body portion 10. In the Figures, two such ground contacting units 16' and 16" are shown. In other exemplary configurations four such ground contacting units can be provided, arranged two either side of the main body portion 10, or six such ground contacting units can be provided, arranged three either side of main body portion 10. [0073] In some preferred embodiments, ground contacting units 16 are constructed and configured to transmit tractive effort to move the trenching apparatus 100 in use,” and [0064]; “Main body portion 10 can comprise a primary structural element of the trenching apparatus 100 to which auxiliary equipment necessary or desirable for the operation of the trenching apparatus, such as control and power equipment, typically is mounted,” the equipment corresponds to applicant’s payload, it would be obvious that the apparatus could move to any place desired including to a drilled or blast hole ), the mobile platform including a payload support structure (see at least [0064]; “Main body portion 10 can comprise a primary structural element of the trenching apparatus 100 to which auxiliary equipment necessary or desirable for the operation of the trenching apparatus, such as control and power equipment, typically is mounted,” the equipment corresponds to applicant’s payload), a plurality of ground engaging means for traversing the contoured terrain (see at least [0072-0073]; “Apparatus 100 can further include at least two ground contacting units 16 arranged on opposed sides of the main body portion 10. In the Figures, two such ground contacting units 16' and 16" are shown. In other exemplary configurations four such ground contacting units can be provided, arranged two either side of the main body portion 10, or six such ground contacting units can be provided, arranged three either side of main body portion 10.”), and a suspension arrangement supporting the payload support structure on the plurality of ground engaging means (see at least Fig. 1 and [0078-0079]; “In this way, the suspension assemblies can be configured such that the main body portion 10 remains in a substantially horizontal condition (that is, with the nominally vertical plane (as above defined) including the longitudinal centerline 14 of the trenching apparatus lying substantially vertically) even where the underlying seabed 12 has a lateral slope. [0079] Said defined plane can be the longitudinal vertical bisector (as above defined) of said equipment 50. Where, in accordance with some preferred embodiments, the trench cutting equipment is mounted centrally (with respect to the lateral direction) to the main body portion, said longitudinal vertical bisector is coincident with the longitudinal center line of the apparatus 100.”).
Regarding claim 2 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the suspension arrangement include height adjustable independent suspension for each ground engaging means that enables the respective ground engaging means to follow rising or falling ground level contours whilst adjusting payload support structure height to maintain an attitude, preferably a level attitude, of the payload substantially level (see at least [0077-0078]; “Each respective ground contacting unit 16 is connected to main body portion 10 through an independent suspension assembly 20…Each suspension assembly 20 can be configured to comprise a virtual pivot system with its pivot center substantially in a defined plane of the trenching apparatus 100. In this way, the suspension assemblies can be configured such that the main body portion 10 remains in a substantially horizontal condition (that is, with the nominally vertical plane (as above defined) including the longitudinal center line 14 of the trenching apparatus lying substantially vertically) even where the underlying seabed 12 has a lateral slope,” and [0094]; “A further advantage of the independent suspension arrangements 20 in the apparatus 100 of the invention lies in the ability of the independent suspension to change or alter the "ride height" of the apparatus 100 at any given time, that is, the spacing h, of the main body portion 10 from the ground, at any given time. Thus, the suspension assemblies 20 can be adjusted such as by movement of actuators 30 to maintain a substantially constant and/or optimum ride height in relation to changing ground topography, or to maximize ground clearance when moving over particular obstacles such as rocks or boulders for example.”).
Regarding claim 5 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the ground engaging means includes a plurality of wheels (see at least Fig. 1 and [0072-0073]; “Apparatus 100 can further include at least two ground contacting units 16 arranged on opposed sides of the main body portion 10. In the Figures, two such ground contacting units 16' and 16" are shown. In other exemplary configurations four such ground contacting units can be provided, arranged two either side of the main body portion 10, or six such ground contacting units can be provided, arranged three either side of main body portion 10. [0073] In some preferred embodiments, ground contacting units 16 are constructed and configured to transmit tractive effort to move the trenching apparatus 100 in use,” units 16 are wheels to enable travel of the apparatus).
Regarding claim 9 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the suspension arrangement includes at least one actuator providing up-down height adjustment of the payload support structure relative to the ground engaging means (see at least [0091]; “for each independent suspension assembly 20, an actuator 30 can be provided (not shown in FIG. 4. Each actuator 30 can extend between main body portion 10 and a moveable part (with respect to the main body portion 10) of the suspension assembly…the actuator 20 can act as a damper and the actuators can extend or retract in response to changes in the inclination of the underlying ground,” the extension and retraction correspond to up-down height adjustment).
Regarding claim 10 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the at least one actuator includes at least one hydraulic, pneumatic or electric actuator, or a combination of any two or more thereof (see at least [0092]; “In some preferred constructions at least some of the actuators 30 are active. In these arrangements the actuators 30 can, for example, be hydraulic piston and cylinder arrangements.”).
Regarding claim 13 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the mobile platform includes: a control system having a control unit (see at least [0027]; “the trenching apparatus can further comprise electronic control apparatus operative to effect adjustment of the said actuator”), at least one sensor system and at least one sensor for sensing at least one of: features of the terrain, geofenced boundary, blast/drilled hole location (see at least [0092]; “In some preferred configurations, the apparatus 100 can be provided with one or more measurement devices such as an inclinometer, a gyroscopic device, an altimeter, ground profiling sonar or the like which can determine a positional condition of the apparatus 100 ( e.g. the inclination of the main body portion 10) and/or the presence and characteristics of local features of the ground ( such as angle of inclination, presence of ridges, size of boulders etc.) over which the apparatus 100 is passing or will pass.”).
Regarding claim 14 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the at least one sensor system includes one or more of lidar, radar, infra-red, camera, inclination/incline sensor, GPS (see at least [0092]; “In some preferred configurations, the apparatus 100 can be provided with one or more measurement devices such as an inclinometer, a gyroscopic device, an altimeter, ground profiling sonar or the like which can determine a positional condition of the apparatus 100 ( e.g. the inclination of the main body portion 10) and/or the presence and characteristics of local features of the ground ( such as angle of inclination, presence of ridges, size of boulders etc.) over which the apparatus 100 is passing or will pass.”).
Regarding claim 17 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the at least one sensor is arranged and configured to transmit signals/data to the control unit which interprets the received signals/data, and wherein the control unit sends control commands back to the hydraulic system (see at least [0092]; “In these arrangements the actuators 30 can, for example, be hydraulic piston and cylinder arrangements…the apparatus 100 can be provided with one or more measurement devices such as an inclinometer, a gyroscopic device, an altimeter, ground profiling sonar or the like which can determine a positional condition of the apparatus 100 (e.g. the inclination of the main body portion 10) and/or the presence and characteristics of local features of the ground (such as angle of inclination, presence of ridges, size of boulders etc.) over which the apparatus 100 is passing or will pass. In response to the output of such measurement devices received by the control apparatus, the actuators 30 can be actively adjusted by the control apparatus to maintain the trench cutting apparatus 50 in the desired vertical orientation. Where a trenching apparatus includes more than one pair”).
Regarding claim 18 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the control system is configured to predict at least one upcoming gradient, inclination and/or hazard based on current gradient, inclination, and/or hazard data and/or past gradient, inclination and/or hazard data (see at least [0092]; “the apparatus 100 can be provided with one or more measurement devices such as an inclinometer, a gyroscopic device, an altimeter, ground profiling sonar or the like which can determine a positional condition of the apparatus 100 ( e.g. the inclination of the main body portion 10) and/or the presence and characteristics of local features of the ground ( such as angle of inclination, presence of ridges, size of boulders etc.) over which the apparatus 100 is passing or will pass”).
Regarding claim 20 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the control system is configured to control system to actively drive the respective ground engaging means upward to accommodate a rise in the terrain contour (see at least Fig. 2, the wheels are adjusted to keep the payload support structure level while traveling on a diagonal slope, and [0092]; “In some preferred constructions at least some of the actuators 30 are active. In these arrangements the actuators 30 can, for example, be hydraulic piston and cylinder arrangements. The extension and retraction of the actuators 30 can be controlled by a control apparatus (in particular, electronic control apparatus) in response to measured parameters of, or in relation to, the apparatus 100. In some preferred configurations, the apparatus 100 can be provided with one or more measurement devices such as an inclinometer, a gyroscopic device, an altimeter, ground profiling sonar or the like which can determine a positional condition of the apparatus 100 (e.g. the inclination of the main body portion 10) and/or the presence and characteristics of local features of the ground (such as angle of inclination, presence of ridges, size of boulders etc.) over which the apparatus 100 is passing or will pass. In response to the output of such measurement devices received by the control apparatus, the actuators 30 can be actively adjusted by the control apparatus to maintain the trench cutting apparatus 50 in the desired vertical orientation,” the actuators of different wheels can be extended or retracted to accommodate the terrain this corresponds to driving one of the wheels upward).
Regarding claim 32 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the suspension arrangement includes upper and lower suspension links associated with the suspension for at least one ground engaging means, preferably for each of the provided ground engaging means (see at least fig. 1-4 and [0090]; “each independent suspension assembly 20 comprises a first suspension arm 22 mounted or otherwise arranged in fixed relation to the main body portion. Each independent suspension assembly can further comprise a second suspension arm 24 mounted or otherwise arranged in fixed relation to the ground contacting unit or to a mounting element, assembly or portion thereof. In some embodiments the ground contacting unit 16 can move relative to said mounting element, assembly or portion about a nominally vertical axis for steering and/or about a nominally horizontal lateral axis such as axis "A" in FIG. 1 to accommodate changes in the slope of the ground (seabed). The respective first and second suspension arms can each include first and second pivot points 22a, b, 24a, b. A first suspension pivot arm 26 can be pivotally attached at a first end to first pivot point 22a of the first suspension arm 22 and at a second end to first pivot point 24a of the second suspension arm 24. A second suspension pivot arm 28 can be pivotally attached at a first end to second pivot point 22b of the first suspension arm 22 and at a second end to second pivot point 24b of the second suspension arm 24. The respective first and second pivot points 22a, 24a, 22b, 24b of each independent suspension assembly 20 can define the corners of a convex quadrilateral and can thus form a construction conveniently referred to by those of skill in the art as a four-bar linkage.”).
Regarding claim 33 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Manchester discloses including connection of the ground engaging means to the support structure via a respective upper suspension link arrangement and a respective lower suspension link arrangement (see at least fig. 1-4 and [0090]; “each independent suspension assembly 20 comprises a first suspension arm 22 mounted or otherwise arranged in fixed relation to the main body portion. Each independent suspension assembly can further comprise a second suspension arm 24 mounted or otherwise arranged in fixed relation to the ground contacting unit or to a mounting element, assembly or portion thereof. In some embodiments the ground contacting unit 16 can move relative to said mounting element, assembly or portion about a nominally vertical axis for steering and/or about a nominally horizontal lateral axis such as axis "A" in FIG. 1 to accommodate changes in the slope of the ground (seabed). The respective first and second suspension arms can each include first and second pivot points 22a, b, 24a, b. A first suspension pivot arm 26 can be pivotally attached at a first end to first pivot point 22a of the first suspension arm 22 and at a second end to first pivot point 24a of the second suspension arm 24. A second suspension pivot arm 28 can be pivotally attached at a first end to second pivot point 22b of the first suspension arm 22 and at a second end to second pivot point 24b of the second suspension arm 24. The respective first and second pivot points 22a, 24a, 22b, 24b of each independent suspension assembly 20 can define the corners of a convex quadrilateral and can thus form a construction conveniently referred to by those of skill in the art as a four-bar linkage.”).
Regarding claim 34 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 33. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the upper suspension link arrangement or the lower suspension link arrangement, or both, include respective upper inner and upper outer suspension arms or links and/or lower inner and lower outer suspension arms or links (see at least fig. 1-4 and [0090]; “each independent suspension assembly 20 comprises a first suspension arm 22 mounted or otherwise arranged in fixed relation to the main body portion. Each independent suspension assembly can further comprise a second suspension arm 24 mounted or otherwise arranged in fixed relation to the ground contacting unit or to a mounting element, assembly or portion thereof. In some embodiments the ground contacting unit 16 can move relative to said mounting element, assembly or portion about a nominally vertical axis for steering and/or about a nominally horizontal lateral axis such as axis "A" in FIG. 1 to accommodate changes in the slope of the ground (seabed). The respective first and second suspension arms can each include first and second pivot points 22a, b, 24a, b. A first suspension pivot arm 26 can be pivotally attached at a first end to first pivot point 22a of the first suspension arm 22 and at a second end to first pivot point 24a of the second suspension arm 24. A second suspension pivot arm 28 can be pivotally attached at a first end to second pivot point 22b of the first suspension arm 22 and at a second end to second pivot point 24b of the second suspension arm 24. The respective first and second pivot points 22a, 24a, 22b, 24b of each independent suspension assembly 20 can define the corners of a convex quadrilateral and can thus form a construction conveniently referred to by those of skill in the art as a four-bar linkage.”).
Regarding claim 35 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 33. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein pairs of upper and lower suspension link arrangements are provided for up and down parallel motion of a respective pivot hub whilst maintaining correct ground engaging means orientation relative to the ground for steering accuracy (see at least fig. 1-4 and [0090-0092]; “each independent suspension assembly 20 comprises a first suspension arm 22 mounted or otherwise arranged in fixed relation to the main body portion. Each independent suspension assembly can further comprise a second suspension arm 24 mounted or otherwise arranged in fixed relation to the ground contacting unit or to a mounting element, assembly or portion thereof. In some embodiments the ground contacting unit 16 can move relative to said mounting element, assembly or portion about a nominally vertical axis for steering and/or about a nominally horizontal lateral axis such as axis "A" in FIG. 1 to accommodate changes in the slope of the ground (seabed). The respective first and second suspension arms can each include first and second pivot points 22a, b, 24a, b. A first suspension pivot arm 26 can be pivotally attached at a first end to first pivot point 22a of the first suspension arm 22 and at a second end to first pivot point 24a of the second suspension arm 24. A second suspension pivot arm 28 can be pivotally attached at a first end to second pivot point 22b of the first suspension arm 22 and at a second end to second pivot point 24b of the second suspension arm 24. The respective first and second pivot points 22a, 24a, 22b, 24b of each independent suspension assembly 20 can define the corners of a convex quadrilateral and can thus form a construction conveniently referred to by those of skill in the art as a four-bar linkage.”).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manchester, as applied to claims 1 and 35 above, in view of US-20200276877 (hereinafter, “Gao”).
Regarding claim 3 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Manchester does not disclose wherein at least two of the ground engaging means are steerable between around +90° and around -90° relative to a forward-rearward 0° axis of the mobile platform.
Gao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein at least two of the ground engaging means are steerable between around +90° and around -90° relative to a forward-rearward 0° axis of the mobile platform (see at least [0040]; “The tire 14 used in the present invention can be rotated within 360-degrees using a special structure (the rotation axis is the Z axis). The rotation axis is close to the center of the wheel hub; therefore, the rotation radius is small and the space needed for rotating is small as well”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the tire setup of Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing a vehicle to move more freely (see at least Gao; [0002]).
Regarding claim 4 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Manchester does not disclose wherein all of the ground engaging means are steerable between the +90° and -90°, providing around 180° steering and direction control enabling up to 90° direct sideways movement or diagonal crabbing movement of the mobile platform.
Gao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein all of the ground engaging means are steerable between the +90° and -90°, providing around 180° steering and direction control enabling up to 90° direct sideways movement or diagonal crabbing movement of the mobile platform (see at least [0040]; “The tire 14 used in the present invention can be rotated within 360-degrees using a special structure (the rotation axis is the Z axis). The rotation axis is close to the center of the wheel hub; therefore, the rotation radius is small and the space needed for rotating is small as well”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the tire setup of Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing a vehicle to move more freely (see at least Gao; [0002]).
Regarding claim 36 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 35. Manchester does not disclose wherein the respective pivot hub enables rotation of the associated ground engaging means about a vertical axis for steering/direction control of the mobile platform.
Gao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the respective pivot hub (see at least [0039]; “The steering 12 is connected to the suspension 11 by applying a pivot connection or screwing method”)enables rotation of the associated ground engaging means about a vertical axis for steering/direction control of the mobile platform (see at least fig. 10 and [0040]; “The tire 14 used in the present invention can be rotated within 360-degrees using a special structure (the rotation axis is the Z axis). The rotation axis is close to the center of the wheel hub; therefore, the rotation radius is small and the space needed for rotating is small as well”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the tire setup of Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing a vehicle to move more freely (see at least Gao; [0002]).
Regarding claim 37 Manchester in view of Gao renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 36. Additionally, Gao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the respective pivot hub (see at least [0039]; “The steering 12 is connected to the suspension 11 by applying a pivot connection or screwing method”) includes drive means to power rotation of the respective ground engaging means about the respective upright/vertical pivot axis (see at least fig. 10 and [0040]; “The tire 14 used in the present invention can be rotated within 360-degrees using a special structure (the rotation axis is the Z axis). The rotation axis is close to the center of the wheel hub; therefore, the rotation radius is small and the space needed for rotating is small as well”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the tire setup of Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing a vehicle to move more freely (see at least Gao; [0002]).
Claim(s) 6-8, 11-12, 15, 19, 21-26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manchester as applied to claims 5 and 9 above, in view of US-20040232632 (hereinafter, “Beck”).
Regarding claim 6 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Manchester does not disclose wherein each of the wheels has a dedicated power drive.
Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein each of the wheels has a dedicated power drive (see at least [0041]; “Each of the wheel assemblies 102 comprises a link structure or suspension arm, 112, a wheel 116 articulable with respect to the link structure 112, and a hub drive 114 for rotating the wheel 116.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the individual drives of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of an advantage in manipulating CG and stability limits (see at least Beck; [0079]).
Regarding claim 7 Manchester in view of Beck renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein power drive to each respective wheel is provided by hydraulic, pneumatic or electric drive (see at least [0058]; “The drive 202 is, in the illustrated embodiment, an electric motor including a rotor 234 and a stator 236... The drive 202 does not have to be electric, and can be a hydraulic, pneumatic, or a hybrid motor system”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the individual drives of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of an advantage in manipulating CG and stability limits (see at least Beck; [0079]).
Regarding claim 8 Manchester in view of Beck renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein at least one, preferably all, of the power drives drive a respective axle of a respective wheel directly or through a gearbox drive (see at least [0079]; “Each of the drives 114 may comprise any type of drive known to the art, for example, a direct-drive motor, a servo motor, a motor-driven gear train, an engine-driven gear train, a rotary actuator, or the like.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the individual drives of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of an advantage in manipulating CG and stability limits (see at least Beck; [0079]).
Regarding claim 11 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the mobile platform includes a hydraulic system providing hydraulic pressure and at least one hydraulic pressure sensor, wherein the up-down height adjustment is provided by at least one hydraulic cylinder or ram of the suspension system extending or retracting (see at least [0092]; “In some preferred constructions at least some of the actuators 30 are active. In these arrangements the actuators 30 can, for example, be hydraulic piston and cylinder arrangements. The extension and retraction of the actuators 30 can be controlled by a control apparatus (in particular, electronic control apparatus) in response to measured parameters of, or in relation to, the apparatus 100,” it would be obvious that a hydraulic system would include a hydraulic pressure sensor).
Manchester does not disclose under control of sensed pressure for the respective hydraulic cylinder or ram associated with a respective ground engaging means to maintain an attitude of the payload support structure.
Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches under control of sensed pressure for the respective hydraulic cylinder or ram associated with a respective ground engaging means to maintain an attitude of the payload support structure (seat least [0104]; “For example, as the attitude of the vehicle 100 changes as it traverses rough terrain, loads on each of the wheel assemblies 102 will change accordingly. Thus, according to the present invention, spring loading on each of the suspension arms 112 and/or the pressure in each of the tires 410 is monitored to determine the loads on each wheel assembly 102. As suspension loading becomes nonuniform between the wheel assemblies 102, one or more of the wheel assemblies 102 can be articulated with respect to the chassis 104 to level the resultant loads on each wheel assembly 102.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the suspension adjustment based on pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing a vehicle from rolling over (see at least Beck; [0097]).
Regarding claim 12 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Manchester does not disclose including at least one respective said pressure sensor and/or at least one respective said linear transducer configured to detect and/or influence suspension adjustment for change in ground contour(s) as the vehicle/mobile platform traverses the terrain.
Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches including at least one respective said pressure sensor and/or at least one respective said linear transducer configured to detect and/or influence suspension adjustment for change in ground contour(s) as the vehicle/mobile platform traverses the terrain (seat least [0104]; “For example, as the attitude of the vehicle 100 changes as it traverses rough terrain, loads on each of the wheel assemblies 102 will change accordingly. Thus, according to the present invention, spring loading on each of the suspension arms 112 and/or the pressure in each of the tires 410 is monitored to determine the loads on each wheel assembly 102. As suspension loading becomes nonuniform between the wheel assemblies 102, one or more of the wheel assemblies 102 can be articulated with respect to the chassis 104 to level the resultant loads on each wheel assembly 102.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the suspension adjustment based on pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing a vehicle from rolling over (see at least Beck; [0097]).
Regarding claim 15 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the control system and the at least one sensor system are configured to identify gradients, inclination of gradients, drop-offs and/or obstacles (see at least [0092]; “In some preferred configurations, the apparatus 100 can be provided with one or more measurement devices such as an inclinometer, a gyroscopic device, an altimeter, ground profiling sonar or the like which can determine a positional condition of the apparatus 100 ( e.g. the inclination of the main body portion 10) and/or the presence and characteristics of local features of the ground ( such as angle of inclination, presence of ridges, size of boulders etc.) over which the apparatus 100 is passing or will pass”)
Manchester does not disclose identify gradients, inclination of gradients, drop-offs and/or obstacles beyond predefined operating parameters of the mobile platform and prevent the vehicle from progressing into such conditions.
Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identify gradients, inclination of gradients, drop-offs and/or obstacles beyond predefined operating parameters of the mobile platform and prevent the vehicle from progressing into such conditions (see at least [0112]; “In real time, the predictive control model 1302 calculates the control commands (represented by block 1310) required to move the vehicle 100 to the desired attitude and location. The model calculates the CG and stability limits of the vehicle 100 in its current state and manipulates the wheel assemblies 102, active dampers (e.g., the rotary MR dampers 402), and any other articulable mass associated with the vehicle 100 to affect the CG and stability limits of the vehicle 100 to reach the desired location and attitude without unfavorable impacts such as a roll-over” the vehicle is prevented from entering a condition which may cause a roll-over).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the stability limits of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing unfavorable impacts such as a roll-over (see at least Beck; [0112]).
Regarding claim 19 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Manchester does not disclose wherein the control system includes control of the suspension system and/or steering of the vehicle or mobile platform based providing feedback to the at least one pressure sensor and/or the at least one linear transducer.
Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control system includes control of the suspension system and/or steering of the vehicle or mobile platform based providing feedback to the at least one pressure sensor and/or the at least one linear transducer (seat least [0104]; “For example, as the attitude of the vehicle 100 changes as it traverses rough terrain, loads on each of the wheel assemblies 102 will change accordingly. Thus, according to the present invention, spring loading on each of the suspension arms 112 and/or the pressure in each of the tires 410 is monitored to determine the loads on each wheel assembly 102. As suspension loading becomes nonuniform between the wheel assemblies 102, one or more of the wheel assemblies 102 can be articulated with respect to the chassis 104 to level the resultant loads on each wheel assembly 102.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the suspension adjustment based on pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing a vehicle from rolling over (see at least Beck; [0097]).
Regarding claim 21 Manchester in view of Beck renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the control system is configured to control the suspension system to actively drive the respective ground engaging means downward to accommodate a dip in terrain contour or to control descent of the respective ground engaging means (see at least Fig. 2, the wheels are adjusted to keep the payload support structure level while traveling on a diagonal slope, and [0092]; “In some preferred constructions at least some of the actuators 30 are active. In these arrangements the actuators 30 can, for example, be hydraulic piston and cylinder arrangements. The extension and retraction of the actuators 30 can be controlled by a control apparatus (in particular, electronic control apparatus) in response to measured parameters of, or in relation to, the apparatus 100. In some preferred configurations, the apparatus 100 can be provided with one or more measurement devices such as an inclinometer, a gyroscopic device, an altimeter, ground profiling sonar or the like which can determine a positional condition of the apparatus 100 (e.g. the inclination of the main body portion 10) and/or the presence and characteristics of local features of the ground (such as angle of inclination, presence of ridges, size of boulders etc.) over which the apparatus 100 is passing or will pass. In response to the output of such measurement devices received by the control apparatus, the actuators 30 can be actively adjusted by the control apparatus to maintain the trench cutting apparatus 50 in the desired vertical orientation,” the actuators of different wheels can be extended or retracted to accommodate the terrain this corresponds to driving one of the wheels upward).
Regarding claim 22 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Manchester does not disclose wherein the control system is configured to compare computed/calculated gradient, inclination and/or hazard against one or more pre-defined parameters.
Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control system is configured to compare computed/calculated gradient, inclination and/or hazard against one or more pre-defined parameters (see at least [0112]; “In real time, the predictive control model 1302 calculates the control commands (represented by block 1310) required to move the vehicle 100 to the desired attitude and location. The model calculates the CG and stability limits of the vehicle 100 in its current state and manipulates the wheel assemblies 102, active dampers (e.g., the rotary MR dampers 402), and any other articulable mass associated with the vehicle 100 to affect the CG and stability limits of the vehicle 100 to reach the desired location and attitude without unfavorable impacts such as a roll-over” the vehicle is prevented from entering a condition which may cause a roll-over).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the stability limits of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing unfavorable impacts such as a roll-over (see at least Beck; [0112]).
Regarding claim 23 Manchester in view of Beck renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 22. Additionally, Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, when the computed/calculated gradient, inclination, and/or hazard data is within at least one parameter, the control system is configured to instruct the vehicle to proceed (see at least [0112]; “In real time, the predictive control model 1302 calculates the control commands (represented by block 1310) required to move the vehicle 100 to the desired attitude and location. The model calculates the CG and stability limits of the vehicle 100 in its current state and manipulates the wheel assemblies 102, active dampers (e.g., the rotary MR dampers 402), and any other articulable mass associated with the vehicle 100 to affect the CG and stability limits of the vehicle 100 to reach the desired location and attitude without unfavorable impacts such as a roll-over” the vehicle is prevented from entering a condition which may cause a roll-over, if stability limits are okay and do not indicate rollover it may proceed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the stability limits of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing unfavorable impacts such as a roll-over (see at least Beck; [0112]).
Regarding claim 24 Manchester in view of Beck renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 22. Additionally, Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, if the computed/calculated gradient, inclination, and/or hazard data outside the at least one parameter, the vehicle/mobile platform is directed by the control system to take an alternative route or is directed to stop (see at least [0112]; “In real time, the predictive control model 1302 calculates the control commands (represented by block 1310) required to move the vehicle 100 to the desired attitude and location. The model calculates the CG and stability limits of the vehicle 100 in its current state and manipulates the wheel assemblies 102, active dampers (e.g., the rotary MR dampers 402), and any other articulable mass associated with the vehicle 100 to affect the CG and stability limits of the vehicle 100 to reach the desired location and attitude without unfavorable impacts such as a roll-over” the vehicle is prevented from entering a condition which may cause a roll-over, if stability limits are okay and do not indicate rollover it may proceed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the stability limits of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing unfavorable impacts such as a roll-over (see at least Beck; [0112]).
Regarding claim 25 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Manchester does not disclose including at least one load sensor for sensing a payload supported by the payload support structure.
Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches including at least one load sensor for sensing a payload supported by the payload support structure (see at least [0115]; “In the illustrated embodiment, a load sensor 1304 is coupled with each of the wheel assemblies 102 and with the controller 1302 for providing the amount of loading on each of the wheel assemblies 102 to the controller 1302. A pressure sensor 1306 is provided for each of the tires 410 so that the pressure in each of the tires 410 can be provided to the controller 1302”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the suspension adjustment of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing a vehicle from rolling over (see at least Beck; [0097]).
Regarding claim 26 Manchester in view of Beck renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 25. Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one load sensor includes at least one load cell arranged and configured to sense a payload weight or mass present within the payload container or hopper to assess how much material/payload has been loaded into or unloaded from the container/hopper (see at least [0115]; “In the illustrated embodiment, a load sensor 1304 is coupled with each of the wheel assemblies 102 and with the controller 1302 for providing the amount of loading on each of the wheel assemblies 102 to the controller 1302. A pressure sensor 1306 is provided for each of the tires 410 so that the pressure in each of the tires 410 can be provided to the controller 1302”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the suspension adjustment of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing a vehicle from rolling over (see at least Beck; [0097]).
Regarding claim 29 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Manchester does not disclose including at least one load sensor for sensing a payload supported by the payload support structure.
Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches including at least one load sensor for sensing a payload supported by the payload support structure (see at least [0115]; “In the illustrated embodiment, a load sensor 1304 is coupled with each of the wheel assemblies 102 and with the controller 1302 for providing the amount of loading on each of the wheel assemblies 102 to the controller 1302. A pressure sensor 1306 is provided for each of the tires 410 so that the pressure in each of the tires 410 can be provided to the controller 1302”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the suspension adjustment of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing a vehicle from rolling over (see at least Beck; [0097]).
Regarding claim 30 Manchester in view of Beck renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 29. Additionally, Beck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one load sensor includes at least one load cell arranged and configured to sense a payload weight or mass present within the payload container or hopper (see at least [0115]; “In the illustrated embodiment, a load sensor 1304 is coupled with each of the wheel assemblies 102 and with the controller 1302 for providing the amount of loading on each of the wheel assemblies 102 to the controller 1302. A pressure sensor 1306 is provided for each of the tires 410 so that the pressure in each of the tires 410 can be provided to the controller 1302”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the suspension adjustment of Beck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing a vehicle from rolling over (see at least Beck; [0097]).
Claim(s) 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manchester, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of CN115230420A (hereinafter, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 27 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Manchester does not disclose wherein the payload support structure includes a container or hopper for holding explosive or stemming.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the payload support structure includes a container or hopper for holding explosive or stemming (see at least Fig. 1, [0027-0029]; “When the ground level fluctuates, the electric cylinder actively extends and retracts based on the extension and retraction amount calculated from the detection parameters, thereby providing stable support for the adaptive mobile robot and ensuring smooth transport of valuable, dangerous, or other objects with high stability requirements…an outer shell 7 is provided on the outside of the frame 2…to prevent goods from shifting on the robot due to inertia or other reasons when loading goods, a groove 71 is provided on the top surface of the outer shell” the payload is configured to transport dangerous objects such as explosives).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the payload container of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of maximizing the stability of goods transportation (see at least Wang; [0005]).
Regarding claim 28 Manchester in view of Wang renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 27. Additionally, Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the mobile platform includes at least one outlet with an opening to underneath the container or hopper for dispensing the explosive or stemming into the drilled/blast hole while the mobile platform straddles the drilled/blast hole (see at least [0028]; “An outer shell 7 is provided on the outside of the frame 2. The bottom of the outer shell 7 has a hollow structure to ensure heat dissipation of various components.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the payload container of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of maximizing the stability of goods transportation (see at least Wang; [0005]).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manchester as applied to claim 13 above, in view of US-20180297432 (hereinafter, “Giovanardi”).
Regarding claim 16 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Manchester does not disclose said pressure sensors are located in the hydraulic system near the hydraulic actuators, the gyroscope and accelerometer are located in the control unit, the linear transducers are respectively located on, in or adjacent the hydraulic actuators.
Giovanardi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches said pressure sensors are located in the hydraulic system near the hydraulic actuators, the gyroscope and accelerometer are located in the control unit, the linear transducers are respectively located on, in or adjacent the hydraulic actuators (see at least [109]; “The controller 200 may receive inputs from sensors that are external to the hydraulic actuator or from sensors that are integrated with, or disposed on, the hydraulic actuator. Sensors located external to the hydraulic actuator may either be sensors dedicated to the hydraulic actuator, or they may be sensors integrated with the vehicle body as the disclosure is not so limited. The above noted sensors correspond to one or more of the following sensor architectures: wheel acceleration sensing; body acceleration sensing, fluid pressure sensing; position sensing; smart valve local sensing; motor position sensing; multi- sensor whole vehicle sensing; centralized inertial measurement unit sensor architecture; the vehicle CAN bus, one or more sensors associated with a wheel (e.g. accelerometers), and one or more sensors associated with an axle (e.g. accelerometers),” and [0111]; “Other possible embodiments of inputs 202 include information such as global positioning system (GPS) data, self-driving parameters, vehicle mode setting (i.e. comfort/sport/eco), driver behavior (e.g. how aggressive is the throttle and steering input), body sensors (accelerometers, inertial measurement units, gyroscopes from other devices on 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 with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile platform of Manchester with the hydraulic system description of Giovanardi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring the necessary energy for hydraulic pressure is applied in a timely manner (see at least Giovanardi; [0003]).
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manchester as applied to claim 13 above, in view of case law.
Regarding claim 31 Manchester discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Manchester discloses wherein the suspension arrangement provides up-down articulation range (see at least Figs. 5a and 5b, and [0088]; “FIGS. Sa and Sb illustrate the range of available movement of a typical suspension assembly 20 and associated ground contacting unit 16". The same ground contacting unit 16" is shown in a range of positions. Position 16"(1) represents the median position, typically where the apparatus 100 rests on flat horizontal ground. In FIG. Sa, position 16"(2) represents a typical upper limit of movement of the ground contacting unit 16 provided by the suspension assembly 20 and in FIG. Sb, position 16"(3) represents a typical lower limit of movement of the ground contacting unit 16 provided by the suspension assembly 20.”).
Manchester discloses the claimed invention except for the range being “between 1.0m and 1.5m, preferably 1.1m to 1.3m, and more preferably around 1.2m, between maximum height up and minimum height down”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-8950330 teaches a mobile platform for the delivery of bulk explosives to a blast hole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/9/26
Prosecution Insights