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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and 7, Boussard discloses that the plate 200 is equipped with drive wheels (201, 202), i.e. two laterally spaced wheel assemblies provided on the carrying vehicle. Boussard further discloses that the drive units (201, 202) are provided with a steering motor and a steerable drive mechanism consisting of an electric motor, a gearbox and a brake. Thus, each of the two lateral subassemblies includes a motorized and directional wheel configured to be steered independent of one another. The claimed phrase “ configured to be steered independently of one another” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as requiring that the respective lateral wheel subassemblies be individually steerable rather than requiring any particular disclosed control algorithm, steering angle offset or explicit statement that wheels are simultaneously driven to different steering angles. Under this broadest reasonable interpretation, Broussard’s disclosure of two distinct drive units 201 and 202 each having its own steering motor and steerable drive mechanism, teaches wheels configured to be steered independently of one another, because each wheel units is separately, independently steerable. Applicant argues that Boussard does not expressly state that the two wheels are steered independently of one another. This argument is not persuasive. Anticipation is not avoided because the references does not employ the identical words used in the claim, where the relied upon structure expressly disclosed and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to possess the claimed configuration.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/03/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cord US 20220073330.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boussard (WO 2016189233).
In regards to claim 1, Boussard discloses a system (see fig.1, 2, and 9) for transporting articles or loads (see fig.2-8), comprising: at least one carriage (see vehicle fig.2-8) including a carriage platform (vehicle frame) and at least two axles supporting wheels (see wheels of the vehicle), and a carrying vehicle (conveyor) wherein the carrying vehicle is a self- propelled vehicle (via front block 1 with motor) comprising a vehicle platform (frame 2,3) configured to slide underneath the at least one carriage (see fig.2-8), the vehicle platform (2,3) comprising means for lifting the carriage high enough to prevent contact of the wheels with the ground (lifting mechanism controlling ground clearance of the first segment so as to allow a variation of the height between a collapsed position where 2 can be slid under the vehicle and a raised position where it allows to lift the vehicle so that its wheels leave the contact with the ground).
Boussard discloses that the plate 200 is equipped with drive wheels (201, 202), i.e. two laterally spaced wheel assemblies provided on the carrying vehicle. Boussard further discloses that the drive units (201, 202) are provided with a steering motor and a steerable drive mechanism consisting of an electric motor, a gearbox and a brake. Thus, each of the two lateral subassemblies includes a motorized and directional wheel configured to be steered independent of one another. The claimed phrase “ configured to be steered independently of one another” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as requiring that the respective lateral wheel subassemblies be individually steerable rather than requiring any particular disclosed control algorithm, steering angle offset or explicit statement that wheels are simultaneously driven to different steering angles. Under this broadest reasonable interpretation, Broussard’s disclosure of two distinct drive units 201 and 202 each having its own steering motor and steerable drive mechanism, teaches wheels configured to be steered independently of one another, because each wheel units is separately, independently steerable.
In regards to claim 2, Boussard discloses wherein the means for lifting (lifting mechanism) the carriage (conveyor) include at least one actuator (cylinders 311,331, 321, or 341, and linear actuator) configured to interact with a lower surface of the carriage (so as to lift the system and cause loss of tire contact with the ground).
In regards to claim 3, Boussard discloses wherein the carrying vehicle (conveyor) comprises a propulsion unit (motor in the motorized block) and a frame extending from the propulsion unit (2,3 see fig. 9, 10), the frame (2) provided with arms (23, 24, 32, 34) for wedging the wheels of the carriage between a retracted position and a position in which they come into contact with the wheels of the carriage (see fig.10, abstract).
In regards to claim 4, Boussard discloses wherein the propulsion unit (motorized block 1) comprises a front frame (200) to which two lateral subassemblies are fixed (201, 202), and a means for coupling the frame with the front frame (coupling frame 2 with the front frame 1(or 200) see fig.9,10).
In regards to claim 6, Boussard discloses, wherein the carrying vehicle comprises an autonomous driving vehicle (the front block contains electronic circuits and a computer ensuring the autonomous guidance).
In regards to claim 7, Boussard discloses a system (see fig.1,2, and 9) for transporting articles or loads (see fig. 3-8), comprising: at least one carriage(vehicle) including a carriage platform (vehicle frame) and at least two axles supporting wheels (see vehicle wheels, axles known for vehicle wheels); and a self-propelled carrying vehicle (conveyor) comprising a vehicle platform (2,3) configured to slide underneath the at least one carriage (see fig.2-8), the vehicle platform comprising a lifting mechanism for lifting the carriage off the ground (lifting mechanism controlling ground clearance of the first segment so as to allow a variation of the height between a collapsed position where 2 can be slid under the vehicle and a raised position where it allows to lift the vehicle so that its wheels leave the contact with the ground). Boussard discloses that the plate 200 is equipped with drive wheels (201, 202), i.e. two laterally spaced wheel assemblies provided on the carrying vehicle. Boussard further discloses that the drive units (201, 202) are provided with a steering motor and a steerable drive mechanism consisting of an electric motor, a gearbox and a brake. Thus, each of the two lateral subassemblies includes a motorized and directional wheel configured to be steered independent of one another. The claimed phrase “ configured to be steered independently of one another” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as requiring that the respective lateral wheel subassemblies be individually steerable rather than requiring any particular disclosed control algorithm, steering angle offset or explicit statement that wheels are simultaneously driven to different steering angles. Under this broadest reasonable interpretation, Broussard’s disclosure of two distinct drive units 201 and 202 each having its own steering motor and steerable drive mechanism, teaches wheels configured to be steered independently of one another, because each wheel units is separately, independently steerable.
In regards to claim 8, Boussard discloses wherein the lifting mechanism (lifting mechanism) comprises at least one actuator (cylinders 231, 241, 311, 331, 321, 341) configured to interact with the carriage (vehicle).
In regards to claim 9, Boussard discloses wherein the self-propelled carrying vehicle (conveyor) comprises a propulsion unit (motor inside of the motorized block) and a frame (2,3) coupled to the propulsion unit, the frame provided with movable arms (23, 24, 31, 32) configured to move between a first position and a second position (extended and retracted position), the movable arms engaging at least two of the wheels of the carriage (vehicle wheel) when the carriage is disposed over the frame (2,3) and the moveable arms are in the second position (see fig. 10, 11).
In regards to claim 10, Boussard discloses wherein the propulsion unit (motorized block) comprises a front frame (see fig.9-11, 200) and two lateral subassemblies (201, 202) coupled to the front frame, , and a means for coupling the frame (2,3) with the front frame (1, 200).
In regards to claim 12, Boussard discloses wherein the carrying vehicle (conveyor) comprises an autonomous driving vehicle (automatic moved conveyor).
In regards to claim 13, Boussard discloses a system for transporting articles or loads, comprising: at least one carriage including a carriage platform and at least two axles supporting wheels; and a carrying vehicle, wherein the carrying vehicle is a self-propelled vehicle comprising a vehicle platform configured to slide underneath the at least one carriage, the carrying vehicle including at least one wheel mounted on an inflatable pad configured to lift or lower the vehicle platform.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumera (WO 2018224343) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Cord (US 20220073330).
In regards to claim 1 and 7, Lumera discloses a system for transporting articles or loads, comprising (see fig.2-3): at least one carriage (20) including a carriage platform (vehicle frame) and at least two axles supporting wheels (see wheels 22, see diameter D), and a carrying vehicle (2) wherein the carrying vehicle (2) is a self- propelled vehicle (motor 3) comprising a vehicle platform (6) configured to slide underneath the at least one carriage (pick up device 6 for receiving a motor vehicle for transporting the motor vehicle), the vehicle platform (6) comprising means for lifting the carriage (20) high enough to prevent contact of the wheels with the ground (see para. 0016, lifting device which make it possible to lift the motor vehicle to be transported so that it loses contact with the ground, see para. 0058). Lumera fails to explicitly teach each of the two lateral subassemblies comprising a motorized and directional wheel configured to be steered independently of one another, Lumera discloses “at least one “
Cord teaches a system for transporting articles or loads comprising a carrying vehicle (conveyer), similar to Lumera, including two lateral subassemblies (two lateral subunits 110, 120) comprising a motorized and directional wheel (see abstract) configured to be steered independently of one another (which can be oriented independently of one another, see para 0012, para. 0033). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lumera in view of Cord wherein both subassemblies comprise a motorized and directional wheel for improved maneuverability, alignment, and control in confined spaces while positioning beneath a transporting a vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 3 and 9, Lumera in combination discloses wherein the carrying vehicle comprises a propulsion unit (motor 3) and a frame extending from the propulsion unit (3), the frame (platform 6) provided with arms (8) for wedging the wheels of the carriage (vehicle) between a retracted position (retracted position inside of the transport device 2) and a position in which they come into contact with the wheels of the carriage (extended position projecting laterally to contact the wheels of vehicle, see para. 0058-0059) .
In regards to claim 4 and 10, Lumera in combination discloses wherein the propulsion unit (3) comprises a front frame (see annotated fig.3, vehicle front frame with 3,5,10,14) to which two lateral subassemblies are fixed (for wheel 4 on the left and right side of the vehicle), and a means for coupling the frame (platform) with the front frame (containing 3, 5, 10, 14).
In regards to claim 5 and 11, Lumera in combination discloses, wherein the frame (6) by comprises a structure comprising a wheel (rear wheels 4) with a section operable vertically by a lift pad (lift device 7). However, Lumera fails to disclose a structure less than 100 millimeters thick and the wheel section less than 100 millimeters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame structure and wheel section to be less than 100 mm thick since it has been held that absent criticality “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the frame of Lumera would not operate differently with the claimed thicknesses and since the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range (less than 100 millimeters) the modification would have been obvious in order to minimize the vertical profile, reduce material usage and weight, and to fit within constrained clearance environments.
In regards to claim 6 and 12, Lumera in combination discloses wherein the carrying vehicle comprises an autonomous driving vehicle (autonomous transport device).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumera (WO 2018224343) and Cord (US 20220073330)as applied to claims above, and further in view of Galbreath (US 4934898).
In regards to claim 2 and 8, Lumera in combination discloses wherein the means for lifting the carriage (lifting device 7)configured to interact with a lower surface of the carriage. Although Lumera fails to explicitly disclose the means for lifting the carriage includes at least one actuator, Galbreath teaches an actuator is a well-known way of lifting a carriage from a platform, see actuators 36, 38. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have made a substitution of one known equivalent for lifting with another and used an actuator as Galbreath teaches for lifting a carriage in Lumera's vehicle. A person would have been motivated to modify Lumera in order to provide an efficient and compact lift mechanism with a known actuator design that can engage and lift from beneath with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boussard (WO 2016189233).
In regards to claim 5 and 11, Boussard discloses wherein the frame (2, 3) comprises a structure (3)comprising a wheel (301, 302) with a section (plate 3) operable vertically by a lift pad (lifting cushion 300). Boussard fails to disclose a structure less than 100 millimeters thick and the wheel section less than 100 millimeters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame structure and wheel section to be less than 100 mm thick since it has been held that absent criticality “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the frame of Lumera would not operate differently with the claimed thicknesses and since the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range (less than 100 millimeters) the modification would have been obvious in order to minimize the vertical profile, reduce material usage and weight, and to fit within constrained clearance environments.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cord (US 20220073330) and further in view of Boussard (WO 2016189233).
In regards to claim 13, Cord discloses a system (100,200) for transporting articles or loads (see fig. 1, 2), comprising: at least one carriage (see par. 0044, the vehicle to be moved); and a carrying vehicle (conveyor), wherein the carrying vehicle (conveyor) is a self-propelled vehicle (conveyor with propulsion unit 100) comprising a vehicle platform (platform 200) configured to slide underneath the at least one carriage (underneath the vehicle to be moved), the carrying vehicle (conveyor) including at least one wheel (see accommodations 271, 281, for wheel, para. 0063) mounted on an inflatable pad (pneumatic pad) configured to lift or lower the vehicle platform (accommodations 271, 281 receive a wheel associated with a pad making it possible to adjust the height of the side members of the platform relative to the ground).
In regards to the at least one carriage (vehicle to be moved) including a carriage platform and at least two axles supporting wheels; Cord only provides that the vehicle is four wheeled and fails to explicitly disclose the platform or two axles for the four wheels. However, Boussard teaches a vehicle to be moved having a frame (carriage platform) and having two axles supporting two pairs of wheels (see wheels, figure 1,2, and 9). Cord and Broussard’s carriages are known equivalents of four wheeled vehicles, therefore a simple substitution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.A.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614