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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should be limited to a single paragraph and in the last line, the phrase “Figure 5 to be published.” should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7, 12 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1) In claim 1, line 1: The number “3” should be changed to --13--.
2) In the last two lines of claim 1: The term --said-- should be inserted before “frame”.
3) In claim 2, line 2; claim 3, line 2; claim 4, line 3 and in claim 7, line 2: The term
--said-- should be inserted before “automatic”.
4) In the last line of claims 2 & 3: The phrase --said at least one-- should be inserted before the term “driven”.
5) In claim 4, line 2: The term --said-- should be inserted before “electric”.
6) In claim 5, lines 4 & 6: The term --said-- should be inserted before “longitudinal”, and the term “direction” should be changed to --axis--.
7) In the last line of claim 12: The phrase --at least-- should be inserted before “two”.
8) In claim 16, line 3: The term --said-- should be inserted before “rolling” and “electric”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 15 and 16 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0102392 to Johnson et al. With respect to claim 1, Johnson et
al. ‘392 shows the claimed limitations of a removable electric propulsion system (2) for a rolling object (4), said propulsion system comprising a frame (6) provided with at least one wheel (14) driven by an electric machine, and at least one non-driven wheel (10), at least one of said at least one non-driven wheel comprising an orientable off-centered wheel (as shown in Figures 1, 2 & 9A-19 and as described on page 4, in paragraphs 0066-0069; page 6, paragraph 0094 & 0095 and on page 7, in paragraphs 0095-0099), said electric propulsion system (2) comprising means for coupling (450, 456) said electric propulsion system (2) to said rolling object (4), said coupling means comprising means for gripping and lifting at least one wheel (21) of said rolling object (4) (as shown in Figures 33 & 34 and as described on page 10, in paragraphs 0129 & 0130), characterized in that electric propulsion system (2) comprises an automatic directional locking device (180) for locking in a predetermined direction, the rotation about a vertical axis of at least one of said orientable off-centered wheels (10), preferably the predetermined direction being along the longitudinal axis of said frame (6), the longitudinal axis being defined by the principal direction of displacement of said frame (as shown in Figures 10 & 15-19 and as described on page 7, in paragraph 0104 and on page 8, in paragraphs 0104-0109).
With respect to claims 2-4, the reference further discloses the claimed limitations wherein said automatic directional locking device (180) locks at least one of said lockable orientable off-centered wheels (10) in the direction of said at least one driven wheel (14), wherein said automatic direction locking device (180) locks at least one of said lockable orientable off-centered wheels (10) in the opposite direction to said at least one driven wheel (14); and wherein said electric propulsion system (2) comprises at least two lockable off-
centered wheels (10), said automatic directional locking device (180) locking said at least two lockable orientable off-centered wheels in said predetermined direction (as shown in Figures 2, 10 & 15-19 and as described on page 7, in paragraph 0104 and on page 8, in paragraphs 0104-0109).
With respect to claims 6, 7 and 10, the reference further shows the claimed limitations wherein said automatic directional locking device (180) comprises at least two connecting elements (240, 245) configured to cooperate with one another so as to provide directional locking, a first connecting element (245) being positioned on at least one of said lockable orientable off-centered wheels (10) and a second connecting element (240) being positioned on said frame (6), preferably one of said two connecting elements is a male element (245) and the other of said two connecting elements is a female element (240), the engagement of said male element (245) in said female element (240) providing said directional locking (as shown in Figures 15-19 and as described on page 8, in paragraphs 0106-0108); wherein said automatic directional locking device (180) comprises at least two female elements (i.e., respective end and central edge portions of 240) and/or at least two male elements (245) (also as shown in Figures 15 & 16 and as described on page 8, in paragraphs 0106 & 0107) and wherein said automatic directional locking device (180) comprises an unlocking control means, said unlocking control means preferably comprising an electromagnet, the unlocking control means being preferably manual (as described on page 8, in paragraph 0109).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, the reference further discloses the claimed limitations of a coupled assembly comprising a rolling object (4) and an electric propulsion system (2), said
rolling object being coupled to said electric propulsion system by said coupling means (450, 456) (as shown in Figures 33 & 34 and as described on page 10, in paragraphs 0129 & 0130); and a method for directional locking of at least one of said lockable orientable off-centered wheels (10) of a removable electric propulsion system (2), wherein said rolling object (4) and/or said electric propulsion system is moved so as to position at least one of said lockable orientable off-centered wheels (10) in said predetermined position, and at least one of said lockable orientable off-centered wheels is directionally locked in an automatic manner (as shown in Figures 10 & 15-19 and as described on page 7, in paragraph 0104 and on page 8, in paragraphs 0104-0109).
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.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. ‘392 in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017/0119607 to Derenne et al. With respect to claims 8 and 9, Johnson et al. ‘392 does not specifically disclose conditions wherein said male elements (245) comprise at least one pin, one finger and/or one key and wherein said female elements (end and central edge portions of 240) comprise cylindrical holes, oblong holes and/or grooves. Derenne et al. ‘607 provide the basic teaching of a directional locking device (63) for at least one wheel (58) of a rolling object (30), wherein the directional locking device comprises a male element (126) in the form of at least one pin or finger, and a pair of female elements (128) in the form of grooves (as shown in Figures 1, 2 & 8A-8C and as described on page 2, in paragraphs 0033, 0034 & 0040; page 5, paragraphs 0067-0070 and on page 6, in paragraphs 0070 & 0071). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the removable electric propulsion system disclosed in Johnson et al. ‘392 with the male and female elements taught in Derenne et al. ‘607 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a simple and alternative configuration which readily imparts directional locking as taught by Derenne et al. ‘607 (page 6, paragraph 0071).
With respect to claim 11, Derenne et al. ‘607 further provides the basic teaching of a directional locking device (63) which provides a plurality of locking positions for at least one wheel (58) of a rolling object (30) (as shown in Figures 1, 2, 8B & 8C and as described on page 2, in paragraphs 0033, 0034 & 0040; page 5, in paragraph 0070 and on page 6, in paragraph 0071). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the removable electric propulsion system disclosed in Johnson et al. ‘392 with the variable locking arrangement taught in Derenne et al. ‘607 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of further facilitating operation of the directional locking device as taught by Derenne et al. ‘607 (page 5, paragraph 0067).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12-14, 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The examiner respectfully asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the removable electric propulsion system of Johnson et al. ’392 to include the particular additional structural features of the coupling means further comprising means for orienting at least one wheel of the rolling object in a direction forming a non-zero angle with said longitudinal axis of said frame of said electric propulsion system as recited in dependent claim 5, as well as the frame further comprising at least two parts connected by a transverse-axis pivot connection and/or by a longitudinal slideway, the automatic directional locking device being configured to lock at least one of said lockable orientable off-centered wheels through the relative motion of said at least two parts as recited in dependent claims 12-14, 17 and 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: Venturi et al. ‘055, Derenne et al. ‘792, Johnson et al. ‘742, Ruschke et al. ‘286, Johnson ‘707, Johnson ‘754, Ruschke et al. ‘100, Ruschke et al. ‘407, Johnson ‘362, Johnson ‘714, Johnson ‘923, Ruschke et al. ‘116, Kiebooms et al. ‘207, Shieman et al. ‘024, Venturi et al. ‘159, Venturi et al. ‘188, Venturi et al. ‘996, Venturi et al. ‘887 and Venturi et al. ‘419.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm.
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, Justin C Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673