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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/27/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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-AIA 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.
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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “resilient element” as seen in Claims 1, 6, 8 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The specification states the resilient element comprises a gas spring (Page 14, Line 1; and Page 15, Line 14). If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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-AIA 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-AIA 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-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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belinsky (US 5,893,696) in view of Sokoloski et al. (US 2004/0098179) and Mumm (US 4,013,145).
Claim 1: Belinsky teaches a robot for an electric vehicle (Fig.5) comprising:
a reference surface (floor) (Fig.2),
a first rod (100 left) and a second rod (100 right) (Fig.5), which are coplanar and parallel to each other (Fig.16),
a support frame (62) (Fig.7) with which the first rod (100 left) and the second rod (100 right) are slidingly associated respectively along a first sliding axis, perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the first rod (100 left), and a second sliding axis, perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the second rod (100 right), and wherein said rods (100) are movable along said sliding axes between a first position, in which the mutual distance between the rods is minimal (Fig.16, Position III) (Col.4, Lines 40-50), and a second position, in which the mutual distance between the rods (100) is maximal (Fig.16, Position I) (Col.4, Lines 21-24),
a supporting frame (60) (Fig.5) (Col.2, Lines 56-60) with which the support frame (62) (Col.2, Lines 61-64) is slidingly associated with respect to a sliding axis parallel to the longitudinal axes of the rods (100) (Fig.16, The frame slides out to engage the wheels of the vehicle and back, in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axes of the engagement rods.),
a lifting group (32) configured to move the supporting frame (60) along a vertical direction, between a first position, in which the distance of the rods (100) from the reference surface (floor) is minimal, and a second position, in which the rods (100) are located at a higher level than the reference surface (floor) and the distance from the reference surface (floor) is maximal (Col.4, Lines 56-63; The rods are lifted a few inches above the floor.).
Belinsky does not explicitly teach the robot for the automatic electric charging an of electric vehicle comprising: a power supply socket adapted to be connected by means of a cable to an electric power source, said power supply socket being coupled to the first rod.
Sokoloski teaches a power supply socket (60) adapted to be connected by means of a cable (36) to an electric power source (Par.49) (Fig.2), said power supply socket (60) being coupled to a first rod (16) (Par.29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Sokoloski in the system of Belinsky to have had allowed for charging while the vehicle is fixed in placed at a parking structure (Par.25 and 49-50).
Furthermore, Belinsky does not explicitly teach a resilient element configured to exert a force on said rods such that in order to bring the rods from the first position to the second position it is necessary to overcome said force of the resilient element.
Mumm teaches a resilient element (16 and 38) configured to exert a force on a first rod (12) and a second rod (14), which are coplanar and parallel to each other (Fig.1), such that in order to bring the rods (12 and 14) from a first position to a second position it is necessary to overcome said force of the resilient element (16 and 38) (Col.2, Lines 67-68) (Col.3, Lines 1-7 and 13-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Mumm in the system of Belinsky to have had necessitated relieving a tension on resilient elements in order to change positions of the rods (Col.3, Lines 13-19) thereby preventing unwanted movement of the rods.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belinsky (US 5,893,696) in view of Sokoloski et al. (US 2004/0098179) and Mumm (US 4,013,145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rathbun et al. (US 2012/0251276).
Claim 2: Belinsky in view of Sokoloski and Mumm teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Belinsky does not explicitly teach the support frame is rotatably associated with the supporting frame with respect to a vertical rotation axis.
Rathbun teaches a support frame (16) is rotatably associated with a supporting frame (14) with respect to a vertical rotation axis (Z-axis) (Fig.11A-11D) (Par.84 and 86-87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Rathbun in the system of Belinsky to have had safely and efficiently move vehicles to a desired position (Par.17).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belinsky (US 5,893,696) in view of Sokoloski et al. (US 2004/0098179) and Mumm (US 4,013,145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonacini (US 2014/0238121).
Claim 3: Belinsky in view of Sokoloski and Mumm teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Belinsky comprising a first roller rotatably associated with the first rod with respect to the longitudinal axis of the first rod itself and a second roller rotatably associated with the second rod with respect to the longitudinal axis of the second rod itself.
Bonacini teaches a first roller (6) rotatably associated with a first rod with respect to the longitudinal axis of the first rod itself and a second roller (8) rotatably associated with a second rod with respect to the longitudinal axis of the second rod itself (Fig.1) (Par.44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Bonacini in the system of Belinsky to have had an element that operates in contrast to a reverse movement of a vehicle wheel (Par.28) to prevent the reverse movement of the vehicle (Par.31) and contain the vehicle wheel (Par.78).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belinsky (US 5,893,696) in view of Sokoloski et al. (US 2004/0098179) and Mumm (US 4,013,145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Booth et al. (US 2019/0176633).
Claim 4: Belinsky in view of Sokoloski and Mumm teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. The combination of Belinsky in view of Sokoloski does not explicitly teach wherein the power supply socket (105) is of the type comprised in the group among type 1, type 2, ccs2 and chademo.
Booth teaches a power supply socket (122) is of the type comprised in the group among type 2 and chademo (Par.32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Booth in the combination of Belinsky in view of Sokoloski to have had the expected result of supplying electric power to an electric vehicle utilizing a standard electrical connection (Par.32).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belinsky (US 5,893,696) in view of Sokoloski et al. (US 2004/0098179) and Mumm (US 4,013,145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cox et al. (US 2018/0222741)
Claim 5: Belinsky in view of Sokoloski and Mumm teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Belinsky comprising a base provided with the reference surface, a first hump and a second hump placed side by side with the reference surface along a direction transverse to the longitudinal axes of the first rod and of the second rod and projecting vertically from the reference surface, wherein the first hump comprises a groove adapted to accommodate the first rod and the second hump comprises a groove adapted to accommodate the second rod.
Cox teaches a base (12) provided with a reference surface (16), a first hump (left) and a second hump (right) placed side by side with the reference surface (16) along a direction transverse to the longitudinal axes of a first rod (28 at the left) and of a second rod (28 at the right) and projecting vertically from the reference surface (16) (Fig.1), wherein the first hump (left) comprises a groove adapted to accommodate the first rod (28 left) and the second hump (right) comprises a groove adapted to accommodate the second rod (28 right).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Cox in the system of Belinsky to have had created a well between a plurality of humps to receive a wheel that provides an indication that the vehicle is correctly positioned (Par.149); and have had rods within the well that prevent the wheel from moving until authorized (Par.148).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belinsky (US 5,893,696) in view of Sokoloski et al. (US 2004/0098179) and Mumm (US 4,013,145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tzivanopoulos et al. (US 2020/0180696).
Claim 6: Belinsky in view of Sokoloski and Mumm teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. The combination of Belinsky in view of Mumm does not explicitly teach a protective casing inside which the support frame, the resilient element and the lifting group are completely contained and which comprises a first slot crossed by the first rod and a second slot crossed by the second rod, in such a way that said rods protrude outwardly from the casing.
Tzivanopoulos teaches a protective casing inside which elements utilized to bring a first rod (38 left) and a second rod (38 right) from a first position (Fig.1) to a second position (Fig.2) are completely contained and which comprises a first slot crossed by the first rod (38 left) and a second slot crossed by the second rod (38 right) (Fig.1), in such a way that said rods (38) protrude outwardly from the casing (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Tzivanopoulos in the combination of Belinsky in view of Mumm to have had the rods inside the robot until a vehicle is present (Par.33 and 39) thereby protecting robot elements when not in use.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belinsky (US 5,893,696) in view of Sokoloski et al. (US 2004/0098179) and Mumm (US 4,013,145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Contreras Sosa et al. (US 2019/0202303).
Claims 7-8: Belinsky in view of Sokoloski and Mumm teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Belinsky does not explicitly teach a charging group comprising: a power charging plug adapted to be electrically connected by means of an electric cable to a battery of an electric vehicle provided with wheels resting on the ground, insert the power supply socket into the power charging plug so as to form an electrical connection, wherein the power charging plug is adapted to be rigidly connected to a first portion of a hub of the vehicle; the power supply socket of the robot is connected to the first rod.
Sokoloski teaches a charging group (10) (Fig.1) comprising:
a power charging plug (70) adapted to be electrically connected by means of an electric cable (71) to a battery (42) of an electric vehicle (12) provided with wheels resting on the ground (Par.25 and 38),
insert the power supply socket (60) into the power charging plug (70) so as to form an electrical connection, wherein the power charging plug (70) is adapted to be rigidly connected to a first portion of a hub of the vehicle (12) (Par.37);
the power supply socket (60) is connected to a first rod (160 (Fig.2) (Par.29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Sokoloski in the system of Belinsky to have had allowed for charging while the vehicle is fixed in placed (Par.25 and 49-50).
The combination of Belinsky and Sokoloski does not explicitly teach a robot according to claim 1 which inserts the power supply socket which hub comprises the first portion and a second portion rotatably associated with the first portion and to which a wheel of the plurality of wheels is connected; the power supply socket is coupled to the first rod by means of a resilient element configured to push the power supply socket along a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis of the first rod itself, and wherein the charging group comprises a lead- in surface, which is convergent towards the power charging plug, is adapted to be rigidly connected to the first portion of the hub, and is configured to be contacted by the power supply socket under the thrust of said resilient element to guide at least in part the power supply socket towards the power charging plug.
Contreras Sosa teaches a robot (22a) which inserts a power supply socket (18a) into a power charging plug (34) (Fig.9) (Par.48), wherein the power charging plug (34) is adapted to be rigidly connected to a first portion of a hub (66) of a vehicle (Fig.3) (Par.47), which hub (66) comprises the first portion and a second portion rotatably associated with the first portion and to which a wheel (50) of a plurality of wheels is connected (Par.41 and 47); the power supply socket (18a) is coupled to the robot (22a) by means of a resilient element configured to push the power supply socket (18a) along a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the robot (Par.50) (Fig.9; The power supply socket is pushed along a Y direction and a Z direction which would be transverse to a longitudinal axis of the first rod in the combination of Belinsky in view of Sokoloski and Contreras Sosa), and wherein the charging group comprises a lead-in surface, which is convergent towards the power charging plug (34) (Fig.7), is adapted to be rigidly connected to the first portion of the hub (66), and is configured to be contacted by the power supply socket (18a) under the thrust of said resilient element to guide at least in part the power supply socket (18a) towards the power charging plug (34) (Par.51-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Contreras Sosa in the combination of Belinsky in view of Sokoloski to have had comprised a power charger plug in a location on the vehicle that avoids visible cutlines in the body panels of the vehicle (Par.42); and have had positioned it closer to the battery of the vehicle thereby reducing costs (Par.43).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Contreras Sosa in the combination of Belinsky in view of Sokoloski to have had automatically adjusted a position of the power supply socket to locate and accurately couple with the power supply plug (Par.51-52).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belinsky (US 5,893,696) in view of Sokoloski et al. (US 2004/0098179) and Mumm (US 4,013,145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Contreras Sosa et al. (US 2019/0202303) and Booth et al. (US 2019/0176633).
Claims 9-10: Belinsky in view of Sokoloski and Mumm teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Belinsky does not explicitly teach an automotive apparatus comprising an electric vehicle, which is provided with a plurality of wheels resting on the ground and an electric battery configured to supply an electric motor of the vehicle adapted to put at least one of said wheels in rotation, said automotive apparatus also comprising a charging group provided with: a power charging plug adapted to be electrically connected by means of an electric cable to a battery of an electric vehicle provided with wheels resting on the ground, insert the power supply socket into the power charging plug so as to form an electrical connection, wherein the power charging plug is adapted to be rigidly connected to a first portion of a hub of the vehicle; the power supply socket is coupled to the first rod by means of a resilient element configured to push the power supply socket along a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis of the first rod itself, and wherein the charging group comprises a lead- in surface, which is convergent towards the power charging plug, is adapted to be rigidly connected to the first portion of the hub, and is configured to be contacted by the power supply socket under the thrust of said resilient element to guide at least in part the power supply socket towards the power charging plug.
Sokoloski teaches an automotive apparatus comprising an electric vehicle (12), which is provided with a plurality of wheels resting on the ground (Fig.4) and an electric battery (42) (Fig.1), said automotive apparatus also comprising a charging group (10) (Fig.1) comprising:
a power charging plug (70) adapted to be electrically connected by means of an electric cable (71) to the battery (42) of the electric vehicle (12) provided with wheels resting on the ground (Par.25 and 38),
insert the power supply socket (60) into the power charging plug (70) so as to form an electrical connection, wherein the power charging plug (70) is adapted to be rigidly connected to a first portion of a hub of the vehicle (12) (Par.37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Sokoloski in the system of Belinsky to have had allowed for charging while the vehicle is fixed in placed (Par.25 and 49-50).
The combination of Belinsky and Sokoloski does not explicitly teach the battery of the electric vehicle configured to supply an electric motor of the vehicle adapted to put at least one of said wheels in rotation.
Booth teaches a battery (314 and 318) of an electric vehicle (102) is configured to supply an electric motor (312 and 316) of the vehicle (102) adapted to put at least one of a plurality of wheels (300) in rotation (Par.43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Booth in the combination of Belinsky in view of Sokoloski to have had the expected result of providing required power to maneuver a vehicle (Par.43).
The combination of Belinsky and Sokoloski does not explicitly teach a robot according to claim 1 which inserts the power supply socket which hub comprises the first portion and a second portion rotatably associated with the first portion and to which a wheel of the plurality of wheels is connected.
Contreras Sosa teaches a robot which inserts a power supply socket (18a) into a power charging plug (34) (Fig.9) (Par.48), wherein the power charging plug (34) is adapted to be rigidly connected to a first portion of a hub (46) of a vehicle (Fig.3), which hub (46) comprises the first portion and a second portion rotatably associated with the first portion and to which a wheel (50) of a plurality of wheels is connected (Par.41);
the power supply socket (18a) is coupled to the robot (22a) by means of a resilient element configured to push the power supply socket (18a) along a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the robot (Par.50) (Fig.9; The power supply socket is pushed along a Y direction and a Z direction which would be transverse to a longitudinal axis of the first rod in the combination of Belinsky in view of Sokoloski and Contreras Sosa), and wherein the charging group comprises a lead-in surface, which is convergent towards the power charging plug (34) (Fig.7), is adapted to be rigidly connected to the first portion of the hub (66), and is configured to be contacted by the power supply socket (18a) under the thrust of said resilient element to guide at least in part the power supply socket (18a) towards the power charging plug (34) (Par.51-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Contreras Sosa in the combination of Belinsky in view of Sokoloski to have had comprised a power charger plug in a location on the vehicle that avoids visible cutlines in the body panels of the vehicle (Par.42); and have had positioned it closer to the battery of the vehicle thereby reducing costs (Par.43).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Contreras Sosa in the combination of Belinsky in view of Sokoloski to have had automatically adjusted a position of the power supply socket to locate and accurately couple with the power supply plug (Par.51-52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bell et al. (US 2016/0023565) discloses a power supply socket (60) being coupled to a first rod (74) (Fig.1) (Par.33).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859