DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,702,159 to Meirer.
Regarding claim 13 Meirer discloses a vehicle parking method comprising: a vehicle parking robot providing step for providing a vehicle parking robot configured to lift a vehicle from a ground and place the vehicle in a parking space (1 figure 1), the vehicle including a first vehicle wheel rotating about a first rotation axis and a second vehicle wheel rotating about a second rotation axis parallel to the first rotation axis (see figure 2); a first image information collecting step for collecting first image information by capturing an image of the first vehicle wheel by a first camera (6 and col. 4 lines 15-25); a first image information analyzing step for identifying the first vehicle wheel from the first image information (col. 4 lines 17-20); a first fork positioning step for positioning a first front fork at a first side of the first vehicle wheel and a first rear fork at a second side of the first vehicle wheel by a first controller, based on a position of the first vehicle wheel identified from the first image information (col. 4 lines 24-28); and a first vehicle wheel loading step for lifting the first vehicle wheel with the first front fork and the first rear fork (col. 4 lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 14 Meirer discloses the first fork positioning step includes: a front-end-of-first-fork positioning step for controlling, by the first controller, a first electric wheel to position a front end of the first front fork and a front end of the first rear fork at a lateral surface of the first vehicle wheel (col 4 lines 24-28, positioning forks relative to front wheel); and a first fork inserting step for moving, by the first controller, the first front fork and the first rear fork in a first direction in which the first rotation axis of the first vehicle wheel extends, to insert the first front fork and the first rear fork under the vehicle (col. 4 lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 15 Meirer discloses in the first vehicle wheel loading step, the first front fork and the first rear fork move closer together about the first rotation axis of the first vehicle to lift the first vehicle wheel from the ground (col. 4 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 16 Meirer discloses in the first image information collecting step, the first camera captures an image of the first vehicle wheel and the second vehicle wheel to collect the first image information, in the first image information analyzing step, the first vehicle wheel and the second vehicle wheel are identified from the first image information (see col. 4 lines 17-25), and the vehicle parking method further comprises: a second fork positioning step for positioning, by a second controller (control of motors for rear half of transporter 1), a second front fork at a first side of the second vehicle wheel and a second rear fork at a second side of the second vehicle wheel, based on first distance information between the first vehicle wheel and the second vehicle wheel that are identified from the first image information received from the first controller; and a second vehicle wheel loading step for lifting the second vehicle wheel with the second front fork and the second rear fork (see col. 4, positioning of the rear forks reads on these limitations).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meirer in view of US 11,383,383 to Shikano.
Regarding claim 1 Meirer discloses a vehicle parking robot comprising: a first robot including a first body (1) provided with a first rail that extends longitudinally (see figure 1), a first front fork coupled to the first rail and configured to move along the first rail and support a first side of a first vehicle wheel of a vehicle, the first vehicle wheel rotating about a first rotation axis, a first rear fork coupled to the first rail and configured to move along the first rail and support a second side of the first vehicle wheel (see one set of forks 3 in figure 1), and a first electric wheel configured to provide a driving force (12a); and a first controller configured to identify the first vehicle wheel from the first image information, and control the first front fork, the first rear fork, and the first electric wheel, wherein the vehicle parking robot lifts the vehicle from a ground, and places the vehicle in a parking space (see col. 4 regarding image analysis and adjustment/placement of forks).
Meirer does not disclose a first camera disposed on the first body to face a lateral surface of the first vehicle wheel and configured to capture an image of the first vehicle wheel and collect first image information as it uses a camera (6) that is separate from the transporter 1.
Shikano teaches a parking robot system including a first camera (52) disposed on the first body to face a lateral surface of the first vehicle wheel and configured to capture an image of the first vehicle wheel and collect first image information in order to collect information and aid in automated operation (col. 4 lines 36-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Meirer to include a first camera disposed on the first body to face a lateral surface of the first vehicle wheel and configured to capture an image of the first vehicle wheel and collect first image information, as taught by Shikano, in order to collect information and aid in automated operation. Furthermore, doing so allows the transporter to handle the vehicle without requiring the vehicle be positioned in a specific for analysis by a detached camera.
Regarding claim 2 Meirer discloses the first controller controls the first electric wheel to position the first front fork at the first side of the first vehicle wheel identified from the first image information, and the first rear fork at the second side of the first vehicle wheel (see col. 4 adjustment/placement of forks).
Regarding claim 3 Meirer discloses the first controller controls the first electric wheel to position a front end of the first front fork and a front end of the first rear fork at the lateral surface of the first vehicle wheel, and then to move the first front fork and the first rear fork in a first direction in which the first rotation axis of the first vehicle wheel extends, to insert the first front fork and the first rear fork under the vehicle (see col. 4 adjustment/placement of forks).
Regarding claim 5 Meirer discloses the vehicle further includes a second vehicle wheel configured to rotate about a second rotation axis parallel to the first rotation axis (see figure 2)
Meirer does not disclose the vehicle parking robot further comprises: a second robot including a second body provided with a second rail that extends longitudinally, a second front fork coupled to the second rail and configured to move along the second rail and support a first side of the second vehicle wheel, a second rear fork coupled to the second rail and configured to move along the second rail and support a second side of the second vehicle wheel, and a second electric wheel disposed on the second body and configured to provide a driving force; and a second controller configured to receive a control signal from the first controller to control the second front fork, the second rear fork, and the second electric wheel.
Shikano teaches a system including a second robot (12b) to separately handle the rear of the vehicle in order to provide a smaller system that can move more freely (col. 2 lines 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Meirer to include a second robot vehicle, as taught by Shikano, in order to provide a smaller system that can move more freely. Doing such would split the handling of the front and rear axles into different robots and would result in a second robot including a second body provided with a second rail that extends longitudinally (back half of Meirer functioning as separate robot in view of Shikano), a second front fork coupled to the second rail and configured to move along the second rail and support a first side of the second vehicle wheel, a second rear fork coupled to the second rail and configured to move along the second rail and support a second side of the second vehicle wheel (rear pair of forks 3), and a second electric wheel (12c) disposed on the second body and configured to provide a driving force; and a second controller configured to receive a control signal from the first controller to control the second front fork, the second rear fork, and the second electric wheel (see Shikano discussing coordinated operation of 12a and 12b at e.g., col 9 lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 6 the combination teaches the first controller transmits first distance information between the first vehicle wheel and the second vehicle wheel to the second controller, the first distance information being calculated by further identifying the second vehicle wheel from the first image information (identifying location of wheels/axles see e.g., Meirer at col. 4 lines 18-25 and Shikano at col. 6 lines 64- col. 7 line 10), and the second controller controls the second electric wheel based on the first distance information to position the second front fork at the first side of the second vehicle wheel identified from the first image information, and the second rear fork at the second side of the second vehicle wheel (positioning of rear forks/robot to handle rear wheels).
Regarding claim 7 neither Meirer or Shikano explicitly discloses when the first controller does not identify the first vehicle wheel and the second vehicle wheel from the first image information, the first controller controls the first electric wheel to move the first camera from the vehicle by a predetermined distance, and the first camera re-captures an image of the first vehicle wheel and the second vehicle wheel to collect the first image information.
That said it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Meirer and Shikano to include when the first controller does not identify the first vehicle wheel and the second vehicle wheel from the first image information, the first controller controls the first electric wheel to move the first camera from the vehicle by a predetermined distance, and the first camera re-captures an image of the first vehicle wheel and the second vehicle wheel to collect the first image information because verification of image data and repositioning/retaking image information is well known in order to ensure the necessary information is acquired as needed to perform the given operation. See MPEP 2144.03. As one example, rental applications for e-scooters and e-bikes often require an image to verify the device is properly parked before ending a session and will require a user to move/take additional photos if the validity of the parking can not be determined from the first image.
Regarding claim 8 the combination teaches the first controller controls the first electric wheel to position a front end of the first front fork and a front end of the first rear fork at the lateral surface of the first vehicle wheel, and then move the first front fork and the first rear fork in a first direction in which the first rotation axis extends, to insert the first front fork and the first rear fork under the vehicle (see Meirer col. 4 lines 24-28), and the second controller controls the second electric wheel to position a front end of the second front fork and a front end of the second rear fork at a lateral surface of the second vehicle wheel, and then move the second front fork and the second rear fork in a second direction in which the second rotation axis extends, to insert the second front fork and the second rear fork under the vehicle (operation of rear robot as combined above to locate rear forks).
Regarding claim 17 Meirer does not disclose in the first image information collecting step, when the first controller does not identify the first vehicle wheel and the second vehicle wheel from the first image information, the first controller controls a first electric wheel to move the first camera from the vehicle by a predetermined distance, and the first camera re-captures an image of the first vehicle wheel and the second vehicle wheel to collect the first image information.
Shikano, as discussed above with regard to claim 1, teaches locating the camera on the transporter in order to collect information and aid in automated operation (col. 4 lines 36-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Meirer to include locating the camera on the transporter, as taught by Shikano, in order to collect information and aid in automated operation. Regarding the retaking of the image, see discussion above regarding claim 7.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meirer and Shikano in view of US 2011/0234389 to Mellin.
Meirer and Shikano teach all the limitations of the claim except: a first front obstacle recognition sensor disposed at an end of the first front fork; and a first rear obstacle recognition sensor disposed at an end of the first rear fork.
Mellin teaches a system including a first front obstacle recognition sensor disposed at an end of the first front fork (5); and a first rear obstacle recognition sensor disposed at an end of the first rear fork (6) in order to ensure close placement without collisions (para 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Meirer and Shikano to include a first front obstacle recognition sensor disposed at an end of the first front fork; and a first rear obstacle recognition sensor disposed at an end of the first rear fork, as taught by Mellin, in order to ensure close placement without collisions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 and 18-20 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the verification of the distance by comparing the distance measured by both the first and second cameras on the two robots differentiates the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other instances of using coordinated robots to move and park vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652