The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/12/26 has been entered.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites (in part) “the actuator comprises an air cylinder”. However, claim 7, from which this claim ultimately depends, has previously recited “the actuator comprises a pneumatic cylinder”. It is believed that these are one and the same, not separate components.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “the actuator comprises a pneumatic cylinder and a lift rod”, which is already recited in claim 1 from which this claim depends. Similarly, claim 6 recites “the step of moving the transport trailer comprises moving a tugger vehicle that is connected to the transport trailer”, but claim 1 has previously recited “connecting the transport trailer to a tugger vehicle using a hitch; and moving the transport trailer using the tugger vehicle”. As such, claims 4 and 6 do not add any further limitations to the claim from which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaltenegger (US 3,424,325) in view of Wolfe et al (CN 103875000), Grimaldo (US 3,931,895), Didbin et al (US 7,665,788) and Mackinlay (AU 2006203239).
Kaltenegger shows a method of moving a mobile object 17, the method comprising:
positioning a base 9 comprising a platform 11 (which could be a “second” platform) of a transport trailer (note col. 4:25-30 discloses that the unitary wheeled vehicle 1a shown in Figs. 8-10 can alternatively be a trailer connected to a drive vehicle, i.e., a “tractor-trailer” combination) under a frame 18 of the mobile object (col. 3:27-30), the (second) platform carrying a lifting plate 10 that is operatively connected to an actuator 22/23 that is configured to raise the lifting plate, the (second) platform and the lifting plate being sized and configured to fit beneath the mobile object;
raising the lifting plate using the actuator thereby raising the mobile object to a raised position (col. 3:30-44);
connecting the transport trailer to a “tugger vehicle” (absent any particular limitations of the term) using a hitch (inherent in the above-noted alternative trailer embodiment); and
moving the transport trailer using the tugger vehicle from one location to a different location with the lifting plate and the mobile object in the raised position (col.3:45-48).
Note that although the above-noted passages reference the Figs. 1-7 embodiment, a substantially equivalent method would apply to the trailer version of the Figs. 8-10 embodiment, except that the object being carried on the vehicle 1 in Fig. 7 would obviously be on the trailer instead.
It is also noted that Kaltenegger provides hydraulic unit 33 shown in Figs. 11-12 on the lifting plate.
Kaltenegger does not show that the mobile object being moved is an autonomous mobile robot dolly.
Wolfe shows an autonomous mobile robot dolly 163 that is normally carried or towed by an autonomous mobile robot 110 (Fig. 3), wherein, under certain conditions, the robot can send a notification to support personnel that a problem requiring further action has occurred.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Kaltenegger by applying it to an autonomous mobile robot dolly, as shown by Wolfe, to move the dolly in the event a problem occurred such that it was unable to be moved by the robot.
Kaltenegger also does not show that the base further comprises a first platform connected to the second platform in a side-by-side arrangement, or that the transport trailer is moved from the one location to the different location with the lifting plate and the autonomous mobile robot dolly in the raised position and the first and second platforms in the side-by-side-arrangement.
Grimaldo shows a transport trailer comprising: a base 11 comprising a first platform 12 and a second platform 19/20 connected to the first platform in a side-by-side arrangement; one or more wheels 23/24 connected to the base; a lift assembly 10 comprising a lifting plate 35 carried by the second platform and an actuator 57/68 connected to the base configured to lift the lift plate above the second platform; wherein the lift assembly is configured to lift a mobile vehicle 80 located on the lifting plate to a raised position; and further wherein the transport trailer can be moved from one location to a different location with the lifting plate and the mobile vehicle in the raised position and the first and second platforms in the side-by-side-arrangement. Note that even though Grimaldo indicates that the lifting plate may be lowered during “travel conditions”, the trailer is nevertheless clearly configured such that it could be moved with the lifting plate in the raised position, as nothing would preclude this. Furthermore, it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “travel conditions” refers to high speed over the road travel. At the very least, the trailer could clearly be maneuvered/aligned to make minor positional adjustments thereof at low speeds, such as in a parking lot or garage environment.
Further note Grimaldo provides a control means 70 on the first platform, the control means comprising a motor 71 and control levers (user input device) 72 to operate the actuators.
It further would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Kaltenegger by configuring the base to include a first platform connected to the second platform in a side-by-side arrangement, and by moving the transport trailer from the one location to the different location with the lifting plate and the autonomous mobile robot dolly in the raised position and the first and second platforms in the side-by-side-arrangement, as suggested by Grimaldo, to provide a convenient place to mount the control/power equipment for the actuator(s).
Kaltenegger further does not show the actuator comprising a pneumatic cylinder located below the second platform and a lift rod that extends from the pneumatic cylinder, above the second platform and is connected to the lifting plate carried on the second platform. The actuator of Kaltenegger comprises cylinders 23 and lift rods 22, but they are hydraulic rather than pneumatic.
Didbin shows a trailer having first and second side-by-side platforms, with a lifting plate 9 carried by a second platform 22 of the platforms, the lifting plate operatively connected to an actuator configured to raise the lifting plate, the actuator comprising a cylinder 19, 20 located below the second platform and a lift rod 23, 24 that extends from the cylinder, above the second platform and connected to the lifting plate carried on the second platform (Figs. 3A-B, 4A-B). Didbin also discloses an alternative embodiment (Figs. 25-34) in which pneumatic instead of hydraulic actuators are used, but such actuators are air bags rather than piston/cylinder units.
However, Mackinlay discloses in Figs. 7a-f a trailer wherein a lifting plate 53 is carried by a platform of the trailer and can be raised and lowered relative to the platform by “a suitable drive system” which can comprise either hydraulic or pneumatic piston/cylinder units such as 40 or 41 shown in Figs. 5-6 (page 7:11 to 9:12).
It yet further would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of Kaltenegger by configuring the actuator as (at least one) pneumatic cylinder located below the second platform and a lift rod that extended from the pneumatic cylinder, above the second platform and was connected to the lifting plate carried on the second platform, as collectively suggested by Didbin and Mackinlay, to provide a simpler, less costly and easier to maintain actuation system.
Re claim 2, one of the problems that the robot may encounter is a malfunction that causes the robot to be immobile (Wolfe, par. [0006]). This is considered to be within the scope of “determining that an autonomous mobile robot is unresponsive”, as broadly recited.
Since claims 4 and 6 do not further limit claim 1, as noted above in par. 6, no further analysis thereof is deemed necessary.
Re claim 5, Kaltenegger shows in Figs. 11-12 that the hydraulic unit 33 can be provided on the vehicle (trailer) instead of using a fluid source via a conduit 15 from the (towing) vehicle, as in Fig. 5 (see col. 4:12-18). Although not separately identified, it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would logically conclude that this hydraulic unit comprises (from left to right in Figs. 11-12): a user input device (i.e., control levers), a motor/pump, and a hydraulic fluid tank. When modified as above to utilize pneumatic instead of hydraulic cylinders, the method would obviously further comprise using such a user input device to provide pressurized air to the pneumatic cylinder.
Re claim 7, Kaltenegger, when modified in the manner noted above with respect to claim 1, would show a system comprising:
an autonomous mobile robot dolly configured to mate with an autonomous mobile robot; and
a transport trailer comprising:
a base comprising a first platform and a second platform connected to the first platform in a side-by-side arrangement;
one or more wheels connected to the base (not shown but would be inherent in Kaltenegger’s alternative trailer embodiment noted above, especially in light of Grimaldo’s wheels 23/24); and
a lift assembly comprising a lift plate carried by the second platform and an actuator connected to the second platform configured to lift the lift plate above the second platform, the actuator comprising a pneumatic cylinder located below the second platform and a lift rod that extends from the pneumatic cylinder, above the second platform and is connected to the lifting plate carried on the second platform, the second platform and the lift plate being sized and configured to fit beneath the autonomous mobile robot dolly;
wherein the lift assembly is configured to lift the autonomous mobile robot dolly located on the lift plate to a raised position and the transport trailer is configured to move the autonomous mobile robot dolly in the raised position with the first and second platforms in the side-by-side arrangement.
Re claims 9 and 10, when modified as above with pneumatic rather than hydraulic actuators, Kaltenegger’s lift plate would be on the second platform, and the tank would be carried by the first platform and would be an air tank, with the air tank connected to [an air] the pneumatic cylinder.
Re claim 11, as noted above, Kaltenegger shows in Figs. 11-12 that unit 33 includes a user input device that is configured to control operation of the actuator.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
6/18/26
Prosecution Insights