www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/991,652
`
`08/12/2020
`
`Mayumi KOMATSU
`
`075192-0146
`
`8724
`
`Rimon PC - Panasonic Corporation
`8300 Greensboro Dr.
`Suite 500
`
`EVANS, KARSTON G
`
`3664
`
`04/10/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOmail @rimonlaw.com
`
`eofficeaction @appcoll.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/991 ,652
`KOMATSU et al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`Karston G Evans
`3664
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 04 March 2024.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-11 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[¥) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a) All
`1.¥) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) [[] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240327
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
`
`Priority
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`The amendmentfiled 3/4/2024 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are amended. Claim 11
`
`is newly added. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendmentsto the specification
`
`and claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final
`
`Office Action mailed 12/7/2023.
`
`Applicant argues, see pages 7-8, that none of the claim limitations invoke 112(f) interpretation.
`
`The 112(f) interpretations are withdrawnin view of the amendments except for “a state sensor.”
`
`Applicant’s argument that “a state sensor” does not include any non-structural generic place holder is
`
`unpersuasive. In this case, “sensor” is the non-structural generic place holder because one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art could not identify the structure of “a state sensor” without further details other than that
`
`it has the function of sensing a state. The 112(f) interpretation of “a state sensor” is maintained for
`
`claim 6.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1 have
`
`been fully considered but they are unpersuasive. The applicant argues that Dai does not teachall of the
`
`claim limitation, "[calculating] a left correction amount and a right correction amount for the left target
`
`speed and the right target speed, respectively, based on a sum or one of the corresponding lateral forces
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 3
`
`acting on the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel detected by the force sensor," because Dai does
`
`not disclose the force sensor. The examiner agrees that Dai is missing a force sensor, however, the
`
`examiner disagrees that Dai does not teach any of the claim limitation as a result. Dai teaches
`
`“{calculating] a left correction amount and a right correction amount for the left target speed and the
`
`right target speed, respectively, based on a sum or one of the corresponding lateral forces acting on the
`
`left drive wheel and the right drive whee!”in at least paragraphs [0060-0061] cited in the 103 rejection
`
`below.In response to the arguments that Kageyama fails to teach the controls of the turning wheels,
`
`Kageyama was relied upon in the prior art rejection of claim 1 only for the benefit of detecting lateral
`
`forces using a force sensor. Nevertheless, Kageyama’s teachings of braking one of the turning wheels
`
`based on lateral forces detected by a force sensor (see at least [0655] and [0700]) is equivalent to
`
`calculating correction amounts because a correction amountcan be zero for one wheel and a negative
`
`amount(braking) for the other.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 6 have
`
`been fully considered but they are unpersuasive. The examiner agrees that Dai does not teach
`
`estimating a disturbance occurring in a rotation direction of a drive wheel, and relies upon Asano’s
`
`teachings for the particular feature. However, the examiner disagrees Dai does not teach that the acting
`
`force calculated based on the estimation result of disturbance is caused by skidding of the robot
`
`becausethe acting forces from the carpet involve the robot’s wheels drifting (skidding) (“the acting
`
`force caused by the carpetdrift.” See at least [0052]). In response to the applicant’s argumentthat
`
`Asano doesnotteach “calculating a lateral force applied to a drive wheel by skidding of the main body
`
`of the vehicle based on a yaw momentgenerated by a difference in the longitudinal forces of the vehicle
`
`wheels,” the examiner disagrees because at least paragraphs [0019-0023] describe the relationship for
`
`calculating the lateral forces based on the difference in longitudinal forces, wherein the difference in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 4
`
`longitudinal forces provides a yaw moment, which then providesa steering angle, which then provides a
`
`slip angle (skidding), which then providesthe lateral force.
`
`Claim 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`Claim Objections
`
`e
`
`Claim 1 recites “a microcontroller configure to.” This should be amended to “a microcontroller
`
`configuredto.”
`
`e
`
`Claim 11 recites “the state sensor include a current sensor.” This should be amended to “the
`
`state sensor includes a current sensor.”
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as
`a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts
`in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
`or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a
`specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain
`
`meaningof the claim languagein light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 5
`
`a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,is invoked.
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong
`
`test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means”or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means”
`
`that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no
`
`specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language,
`
`typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for’) or another linking
`
`word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure,
`
`material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the
`
`claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without
`
`reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 6
`
`Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or
`
`“step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but
`
`are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language
`
`withoutreciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not
`
`preceded bya structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “state sensor” in claim 6.
`
`Becausethis/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure
`
`described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The state
`
`sensorincludes a current sensor and an encoder (see [0020] and claim 7).
`
`If applicant does not intend to havethis/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
`
`pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them
`
`being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting
`
`sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim
`
`limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 7
`
`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 ordinaryskill 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 contentsofthe 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.
`
`Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US
`
`20210401251 A1) in view of Kageyama (US 20150291210 A1).
`
`Regarding Claim 1,
`
`Dai teaches
`
`A self-propelled robot comprising: a main body; a left drive wheel and a right drive wheel that
`
`cause the main bodyto travel on a floor; (“A robot begins to linearly move on a carpet surface from an
`
`initial position.” [0006]; “a base 4 of the mobile robotis configured to hold a left drive wheel 11 anda
`
`right drive wheel 12 that control an advancing direction of the robot.” See at least [(0024])
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 8
`
`@feree-senserfor detecting a lateral force acting on the left drive wheel and theright drive
`
`wheel in a wheel axial direction of the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel when the main body
`
`travels straight; and (“As shownin FIG. 3, when a robot 2 on the right movesto the arrow direction C, a
`
`drive wheel B of the robot 2 is pushed bya friction force f21, the carpet fibers apply an outward acting
`
`force F21 to the drive wheel B of the robot 2, so that the robot 2 deviates from the arrow direction C
`
`during the motion under a resultant force F22 of the friction force f21 and the outward acting force
`
`F21.” see at least [0004] and fig. 3; “acting forces to the left drive wheel 11 and the right drive wheel 12
`
`of the robot on the carpet surface may be changed bythe effects of carpet grain” See at least [0054]; “in
`
`conjunction with the angle change measured by the gyroscope,the angle at which the robot deviates to
`
`the positive direction of the Y-axis of the global coordinate system may be obtained, so that a resultant
`
`vector value of the acting forces to the robot from the carpet is determined.” See at least [0060] and fig.
`
`4; ExaminerInterpretation: The inward/outward acting forces from the carpet are lateral forces in a
`
`wheel axial direction as shownwith the Y-axis in fig. 4. Determining the vector value from theseforcesis
`
`equivalent to detecting a lateral force.)
`
`a microcontroller configure to: acquire left target speed and right target speed, respectively,
`
`for the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel; (“Before the robot executes $501, the speed of the
`
`left drive wheel of the robot is equal to that of the right drive wheel. Theoretically, if the robot wants to
`
`walk in a straight line, control speeds output to the two drive wheels should be the same.” See at least
`
`[0029]; Examiner Interpretation: Equal speeds of the left and right drive wheels are initially acquired as
`
`target speeds to travel in a straightline.)
`
`calculate a left correction amount and a right correction amountfor the left target speed and
`
`the right target speed, respectively, based on a sum or one of the corresponding lateral forces acting
`
`on the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel detected-bythe-force-senser; and correct the left
`
`target speed andtheright target speed, respectively, based on the left correction amount and the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 9
`
`right correction amount; and a drive unit that includes a left motor and a right motor for driving the
`
`left drive wheel and the right drive wheel, respectively, based on the left target speed and the right
`
`target speed corrected. (“when the drift average value y is a positive number, if the expected
`
`displacementdirection of the robot is determined to be the positive direction of the X-axis of the global
`
`coordinate system, it can be determined that the current motion direction of the robot deviates to the
`
`positive direction of the Y-axis of the global coordinate system. A method for synchronously adjusting
`
`the speed of the left and right drive wheels of the robot includes: the speed V1 of the left drive wheel of
`
`the robotis controlled to plus an absolute value y of the drift average value, the speed Vr of the right
`
`drive wheel of the robot is controlled to minus an absolute value y of the drift average value, so that the
`
`speed of the left drive wheel is greater than that of the right drive wheel, the robot turns to the negative
`
`direction of the Y-axis of the global coordinate system, and the current motion direction of the robot
`
`gradually approaches the preset direction.” See at least [0061]; Also see [0063] for “a motor of the right
`
`drive wheel”
`
`|’
`
`and for controlling the robot based on the speed adjustment using Pulse-Width
`
`Modulation (PWM) drive signals for motors and a PID control algorithm.)
`
`Though Dai does notspecifically address a motor of the left drive wheel, Dai teaches
`
`controlling/adjusting the speed of the left drive wheel and right drive wheel (see at least [0012])
`
`wherein the speed of the right wheel is adjusted with a PID controller that outputs a voltage to a motor
`
`of the right wheel ([0063]), therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the
`
`art before the effective filing date of the invention to also include another motor for the left drive wheel
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable the adjustment ofthe left drive wheel
`
`speed in the same wayas the right drive wheel such that the system can actually perform the leftwards
`
`adjustmentin response to disturbances on the left side of the robotlike it does on the rightwardside.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 10
`
`Dai does not explicitly teach, but Kageyama teaches a@ force sensor for detecting a lateral force
`
`(“hub lateral force sensors 25R and 25L which are lateral force detectors that detect hub lateral forces
`
`Fy.sub.R and Fy.sub.L applied to respective hubsare providedin the right and left turning wheels 17FR
`
`and 17FL.” See at least [0655]; Also see at least [0699] for detecting external lateral forces on the left
`
`and right wheels from “a rutted road or a unilateral inclined road surface” for the purposeof controlling
`
`the wheels to secure straight stable travel.)
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the invention to modify the teachings of Dai to further include the teachings of Kageyama with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Dai and
`
`Kageyama to use left wheel and right wheel lateral force sensors to secure straightness stability when
`
`traveling on an uneven or unstable surface (see at least [(0699]).
`
`Regarding Claim 3,
`
`Dai does not explicitly teach, but Kageyama teaches
`
`wherein the force sensor has at least one axis of a detection direction.(“lateral force detectors
`
`that detect hub lateral forces Fy.sub.R and Fy.sub.L applied to respective hubs.” See at least [0655];
`
`Examiner Interpretation: Forces are detected in the lateral direction, also called the y axis direction
`
`(Fy.sub.R and Fy.sub.L).)
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Dai to further include the teachings of
`
`Kageyama with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`combine modified Dai and Kageyama to use left wheel and right wheel lateral force sensors to secure
`
`straightness stability when traveling on an uneven or unstable surface (see at least [(0699]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Regarding Claim 4,
`
`Dai does not explicitly teach, but Kageyama teaches
`
`Page 11
`
`wherein the microcontroller is configured to calculate the correction amount only when the
`
`main bodyis traveling straight. (See at least fig. 45 (provided below) and [0672-0679] where the
`
`correction method steps $412-S416 only occur if steering angle is zero/straight S404.)
`
`PIG. 45 he
`
`Sa
`
`mi 8once¢
`AUEEEBEEEEEELEELE:
`
`SARE GORA. |~-SHOS
`namamnnmmtmnmnnsny 2
`
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Dai to further include the teachings of
`
`Kageyama with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`combine modified Dai and Kageyama to only perform the straight correction/stabilizing behavior when
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 12
`
`the vehicle is traveling straight to prevent inadvertently performing the straight correction/stabilizing
`
`behavior when the vehicle should be turning (see at least [0679]).
`
`Regarding Claim 5,
`
`Dai further teaches
`
`further comprising: a memory storing correction data (“A chip is configured to store a program.
`
`The program is configured to control the robot to execute the control method,... If there is a deviation,
`
`speeds of drive wheels of the robotis adjusted to drive the robot to return to the straight line.” See at
`
`least [0064]; Examiner Interpretation: The chip includes a memory becauseit stores a program. The
`
`program includescorrection data becauseit includes data on how to adjust the drive speed of the robot
`
`wheels. Paragraphs [0061-0062] further describes this correction data.)
`
`wherein the microcontroller is configured to calculate the left correction amount and the right
`
`correction amountby acquiring the left correction amount andtheright correction amount
`
`correspondingto the lateral force detected from the correction data. (See at least [0060-0062] for
`
`calculating the correction amountfor adjusting the left and right drive wheel speeds corresponding to
`
`the acting forces from the carpet that cause a drift value.)
`
`Dai does not explicitly teach, but Kageyama teaches
`
`correction data in which-the lateral force, and the left correction amount as well as the right
`
`correction amount, are associated with each otherso thatthe left correction amountis increased
`
`morethan the right correction amount, as a lateral force leftward in the wheel axial direction
`
`increases, and in which the lateral force, and the right correction amountas well as the left correction
`
`amount, are associated with each otherso that the right correction amountis increased to more than
`
`the left correction amount, as a lateral force rightward in the wheel axial direction increases, (“if the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 13
`
`hub lateral force Fy.sub.R on the right wheel is larger than the hub lateral force Fy.sub.L on the left
`
`wheel (Fy.sub.R-Fy.sub.L>0) as the vehicle travels on a rutted road or a unilateral inclined road surface,
`
`the procedure proceeds from step $413 to step $414 to perform the right wheel brake control for
`
`generating a predetermined braking force with respect to the wheel cylinder 19 on the right wheel side,
`
`to thereby makeit possible to prevent occurrence of a turning force for causing the right wheel to serve
`
`as an outer turning wheel, thereby securing the straightness stability. If the relationship of
`
`Fy.sub.R-Fy.sub.L=0 is obtained by the right wheel brake control, the right wheel brake control process
`
`is terminated, and the procedure returns to step S400 throughsteps $423 to $425.” [0699]; “Contrarily,
`
`if the hub lateral force Fy.sub.L on the left wheel becomeslarger than the hub lateral force Fy.sub.R on
`
`the right wheel (Fy.sub.R-Fy.sub.L<0), the procedure progresses to step $416 through step $413 to step
`
`S415 to perform the left wheel brake control for generating a predetermined braking force with respect
`
`to the wheel cylinder 19 on the left wheel side, to thereby make it possible to prevent occurrence of a
`
`turning force for causing the left wheel to serve as an outer turning wheel, thereby securing the straight
`
`stability.” [0700])
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Dai to further include the teachings of
`
`Kageyama with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`combine modified Dai and Kageyama to securestraightness stability when traveling on an uneven or
`
`unstable surface (see at least [0699]).
`
`Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210401251
`
`A1) in view of Kageyama (US 20150291210 A1) and Huang (US 20080172150 Al).
`
`Regarding Claim 2,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Dai further teaches
`
`Page 14
`
`further comprising: a speed detector that detects a left rotation speed and a right rotation
`
`speed of the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel, respectively, wherein:(“Both the left drive
`
`wheel 11 and the right drive wheel 12 are provided with code disks configured to detect rotational
`
`speeds of the corresponding wheels.” See at least [0024])
`
`Dai does not explicitly teach
`
`the microcontroller is configured to: calculate a traveling direction of the main body based on
`
`the left rotation speed and the right rotation speed, and
`
`calculate the left correction amountandthe right correction amount only whenthetraveling
`
`direction calculated satisfies a predetermined condition indicating that the main bodyis traveling
`
`straight.
`
`However, Kageyama teaches
`
`calculate the left correction amountandthe right correction amountonly when thetraveling
`
`direction calculated satisfies a predetermined condition indicating that the main bodyis traveling
`
`straight. (See at least fig. 45 (provided below) and [0672-0679] where the correction method steps
`
`$412-S416 only occur if steering angle is zero/straight S404.)
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`AUEEEBEEEEEELEELE:
`
`ee
`=
`ere
`een
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Dai to further include the teachings of
`
`Kageyama with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`combine modified Dai and Kageyama to only perform the straight correction/stabilizing behavior when
`
`the vehicle is traveling straight to prevent inadvertently performing the straight correction/stabilizing
`
`behavior when the vehicle should be turning (see at least [0679]).
`
`Kageyama also does not explicitly teach, but Huang teaches
`
`calculate a traveling direction of the main body based on theleft rotation speed and the right
`
`rotation speed, (“The moving apparatus 101 further includes a pair of encoders 150installed on the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 16
`
`body 110 and coupledto the control unit 130, for measuring a speed of the pair of the wheels 120
`
`respectively and transmitting information of the speed to the control unit 130, such that the control unit
`
`130 obtains a second direction variation of the body 110 accordingto information of the speed, such as
`
`the rotating speed difference of the pair of the wheels 120.” See at least [0024]; Also see Step S50
`
`([0036] and fig. 4) for obtaining the current direction of the robot body according to information of the
`
`speed provided by the pair of the encoders.)
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Dai and Kageyama to further include the
`
`teachings of Huang with a reasonable expectation of success because the difference in speed of the
`
`wheel encodersprovides an accurate and reliable navigation direction and can be relied upon when
`
`another direction measuring unit is dysfunctional (See at least [0042]).
`
`Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US
`
`20210401251 A1) in view of Asano (US 20050247510 A1) and Sun (US 20170315560 A1).
`
`Regarding Claim 6,
`
`Dai teaches
`
`A self-propelled robot comprising: a main body; a left drive wheel and a right drive wheel that
`
`cause the main bodyto travel on a floor; (“A robot begins to linearly move on a carpet surface from an
`
`initial position.” [0006]; “a base 4 of the mobile robotis configured to hold a left drive wheel 11 anda
`
`right drive wheel 12 that control an advancing direction of the robot.” See at least [(0024])
`
`an angle sensor that detects a turning angle efthe-drivern-caster-with-+respect-tothe-main
`
`body; (“The rotation angle 61 of the robot can be sensed by the gyroscope3.” See at least [0035])
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/991,652
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 17
`
`a state sensor that detects a state of each of the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel;
`
`(“Both the left drive wheel 11 and the right drive wheel 12 are provided with code disks configured to
`
`detect rotational speeds of the corresponding wheels.” See at least [0024])
`
`a computer programmedto: acquire a left target speed and a right target speed of the left
`
`drive wheel and the right