DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 03/11/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 4 and 9 have been amended and claim 3 has been cancelled, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented. In light of amendments, all the objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. In view of amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103 (details below) and claims 1-2 and 4-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see (‘Remarks’, pages 7-11) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, lines 3-4 regarding the phrase “claims 7-8 have been withdrawn” is considered to be a typographical error. See attached interview summary report for the details.
On page 8 of the argument regarding claim 1, the applicant submits that the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the inventive features, such as i) the guide portions and the rotation shaft being coupled with each other and held by a holding force from the magnetic modules, ii) wherein respective magnetic modules are provided on the peripheries around each of the guide portions to correspond to each of the guide portions have been fully considered; however, in light of amendment and in view of the further consideration, they are not found persuasive. Applicant amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC § 103 over Batista in view of Chang Wensen (details below) does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. For these reasons, the limitations of claim 1 do not distinguish from the current art of record e.g. Batista, Chang Wensen and Yan Ming etc. Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 4-18 are rendered obvious and the claim rejections are sustained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (US 20220306196 A1) in view of Chang Wensen (CN 1629023 A; hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding claim 1, Batista discloses: a vehicle (“tractor truck 1”, fig. 1-11; [0029]) capable of container -swapping (fig. 1), the vehicle (1) comprising:
a container (2) including a container body (body of 2, fig. 1) and a rotation shaft (“king pin” 5; fig. 6) provided on a front-end portion or a rear end portion (fig. 1) thereof; and
a drive module (articulated semi-trailer 1 with fifth-wheel 3) including a driving device (articulated trailer is the device that includes fifth-wheel 3 is considered as driving device) to be able to travel (fig. 1), guide portions formed on a first side and a second side of the drive module (see annotated fig. 1 below where guide portions A and B are formed on a first side and a second side of the drive module), respectively, to guide (fig. 8) the rotation shaft (5) of the container (2), magnetic modules (“magnetic disc 4”, fig. 8;[0025]) provided on peripheries (disk shape has peripheries) around the guide portions (A and B), the drive module (2 with 3) traveling toward the rotation shaft (5) of the container (2) so that the rotation shaft enters the guide portions (A and B, fig. 1), but in view of argument - Batista differs from the claimed invention in such that those guide portions (A and B) are not formed on a first side and a second side of the drive module and the rotation shaft (5) is not being held by a holding force from the magnetic modules so that the container is moved through traveling and the remaining limitation as required by claim 1; however,
Chang in another mechanical decoupling structure of guiding electromagnetic module similar to Batista teaches that guide portions (“tie rod 3 equivalent to a guide with 31 and 32 portions as depicted in fig. 2; [see claim 1]; also note that: tie rod 3 appeared to form in V-shapes so that first and second end portions thereof extend toward the rotation shaft as depicted in fig. 2) formed on a first side and a second side of the drive module [ “claim 1 teaches: “the two ends (equivalent to a first and a second side) of the guide electromagnet module (7) are respectively connected to the bracket (6) by a triangular tie rod (3; equivalent to guide portion of similar shape as recited in claimed invention)), and the guide portions (two 3) and the rotation shaft (10, 15, fig. 4) being coupled with each other (via bracket 6, claim 1) and held by a holding force ( “guiding force” ; [0004 of Chang]) from the magnetic modules (7) so that the container is moved through traveling, wherein respective magnetic modules (7) are provided on the peripheries (fig. 2 shows on the peripheries) around each of the guide portions (two 3) to correspond to each of the guide portions (3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a guide portion formed on a first side and a second side of the drive module and associated magnetic holding structures as taught by Chang into the invention of Batista in order to advantageously rearrange the components or duplicating the parts is an obvious matter of design choice [see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)]. Providing guide portions on both sides of the drive module, each configured to receive and retain the rotation shaft through magnetic attraction, represents nothing more than a predictable use of known elements to achieve same coupling and decoupling function already taught by the references, particularly in view of reference’s explicit disclosure of magnetic retention and guided engagement of the rotation shaft. Therefore, the claimed configuration would have been obvious, and the rejection is retained. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Batista.
Regarding claim 4, Batista as modified above further teaches that a power module (electronic central 10 of Batista, fig. 3; [0031]) provided on the drive module (1 with 3) for upward translation along the rotation shaft (5 ; [“vertical arrow” as depicted in fig. 6 shows upward translation along the rotation shaft]) when being coupled (fig. 6 shows when being coupled) to the rotation shaft (5), providing the holding force ( “guiding force” ; [0004 of Chang]) to the magnetic modules (7 of Chang), wherein the power module (10 of Batista) is decoupled (“de-energized”; [0031] of Batista) to an armature (“fixing device” 11; [0031] of Batista) below the power module (10) when coupled to the rotation shaft (5) [ para. 0031 of Batista teaches: “electromagnet device (4) connected to an electronic central (10) by a communicator cable (8). These components are arranged be at the bottom of the fifth wheel (3), mounted on a support (7) connected to a set of springs (9) which is fixed to the fifth wheel (3) by a fixing device (11). Still on the fig. 2, it presents the king pin (5) on movement, in direction (12) for engagement. At this time, the electromagnet device (4) is on a static and on the lowest position and de-energized”; thus, the power module is decoupled to an armature below the power module when coupled to the rotation shaft.]
Regarding claim 5, Batista as modified above further teaches that the power module (electronic central 10, fig. 3; [0031]) descends with the guide portions (3 of Chang) in the longitudinal direction (fig. 2 or 6 of Batista shows in the longitudinal direction) of the rotation shaft (5) when decoupled (fig. 2 and [0032]) from the rotation shaft (5) so that the guide portions (3 of Chang) and the rotation shaft (5) are released (fig. 2) from each other.
Regarding claim 6, Batista as modified above further teaches that the rotation shaft (5) includes an internal space formed therein (fig. 2 of Batista), a wire (8) is provided to penetrate the internal space (fig. 2), and the penetrating wire (8) is connected to the power module (10) on a lower surface of the rotation shaft (5) [ para 0031 discloses: “these components are arranged be at the bottom of the fifth wheel (3)”; thus, on a lower surface of the rotation shaft.]
Regarding claim 7, Batista as modified above teaches the power module and the rotating shaft, but doesn’t explicitly disclose a plurality of guide pins provided on lateral portions; however,
Chang teaches that a plurality of guide pins (2, 4; [0020-0021]) provided on lateral portions (fig. 2 shows on lateral portions) of the power module to elastically support the power module upwards, wherein the guide pins (2, 4, fig. 2) are configured so that the power module ascends in the longitudinal direction of the rotation shaft (12, fig. 4) to be coupled to the rotation shaft (12). Accordingly, Batista teaches a vehicle system including a rotation shaft and coupling features, while Chang teaches the use of guide pins or elastic support to bias components upward for engagement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of the modified Batista to further incorporate the guide pins arrangement of Chang, thereby advantageously enabling the power module to ascend in the longitudinal direction of the rotation shaft for coupling. Such a modification represents use of known mechanical biasing techniques to achieve secure engagement and reliable coupling and would have been motivated by the recognized benefit of improving alignment and stability during connection and further achieving mechanical decoupling between the guide electromagnet module of the whole vehicle [0008 of Chang].
Regarding claim 8, Batista as modified above further teaches that a spring (9; [0031]) provided in the longitudinal direction (fig. 2 or 6) of the rotation shaft (5) to elastically support (via free mechanical and rotational movements on X and Y axes; [0036]) the rotation shaft upwards so that after the rotation shaft (5) enters the guide portions (3 of Chang), the guide portions and the rotation shaft (5) are not released by external impacts [ para 0036 teaches that support (7) is connected to the fixing device (11) of the fifth wheel (3) by a set of springs (9), which allows free mechanical translational and rotational movements on X (19) and Y axes; thus, the longitudinal direction of the rotation shaft to elastically support the rotation shaft upwards so that after the rotation shaft enters the guide portions; see fig. 2 and spring 9 configuration.]
Regarding claim 9, Batista teaches the drive module, but fails to teach that a rotatable holding shaft mounted in the drive module; however,
Chang teaches that a rotatable holding shaft (shaft on the guide electromagnetic module as depicted in fig. 1) mounted in the drive module [para. 0025 teaches: “a triangular tie rod 3 is connected to both ends of the guide electromagnet module 7”; thus, a rotatable holding shaft mounted in the drive module.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of the modified Batista to incorporate teaching of Chang and provide a rotatable holding shaft mounted in the drive module. Such a modification represents a predictable application of known mechanical alignment techniques to improve coupling reliability and operational stability.
Regarding claim 10, Batista as modified above further teaches that the guide portions (31 and 32 of 3 of Chang, fig. 2) are formed in V-shapes (fig. 2 of Chang shows V shapes) so that first and second end portions thereof extend toward the rotation shaft (see fig. 2 of Chang);
Regarding claim 12, Batista as modified above further teaches that the container (2) includes an extension portion formed (fig. 1) to extend from an upper portion of a front side or a rear side of the container body, the rotation shaft (5) extends downwards (fig. 1) from a lower surface of the extension portion (lower portion of the extension portion 2), and the drive module (1 with 3) travels below the extension portion (fig. 1) so that the rotation shaft (5) enters the guide portions (guide portion 3 of Chang).
Regarding claim 13, Batista as modified above further teaches that the container (2) further includes a first position detecting sensor (set of gyroscope and sensors 6 of Batista; [0034]) provided on the extension portion or the container body (“integrated in the body”; [0034]), and the drive module includes a second position detecting sensor (6) positioned to correspond to the first position detecting sensor, detecting a mutual position with the first position detecting sensor [ para. 0034 discloses that the electromagnet (4) has a set of sensors (6) integrated in the body, composed of accelerometers and gyroscope; it should be noted that sensors may be positioned at any corner of the container body, as such placement represents an optimal design choice readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.]
Regarding claim 15, Batista as modified above further teaches that the container (2) includes a first connecting module (E, annotated fig. 4 above) formed on an internal peripheral surface of the rotation shaft (5) to penetrate an inside (fig. 4) thereof in upward and downward directions (fig. 6 shows vertical arrow pointing upward and downward), and
wherein the drive module (1 with 3) includes a second connecting module (7) inserted into the first connecting module to connect the drive module (1 with 3) and the container (2) and an actuator (device 20; [0043]) configured to move the second connecting module (7) in the upward direction or the downward direction to be coupled to or decoupled from the first connecting module [ para. 0043 discloses that the reference (20), through the variation of the magnetic field (22A and 22B). Because this device (20) that is attached in the rotating shaft (5), the system is able to monitoring the pin (5) movements on the X (19), Z (18) and Y axes, an example is when there are clearances and the king pin (5) moves from its ideal working position (5A); thus, configured to move the second connecting module (7) in the upward direction or the downward direction to be coupled to or decoupled from the first connecting module.]
Regarding claim 17, Batista as modified above further teaches that the drive module travels toward the container (fig. 1) so that the rotation shaft (5) enters the guide portions (3 of Chang), and the magnetic modules (4) are held, after the rotation shaft (5) enters the guide portions (3 of Chang) so that the container is moved through traveling. See figs 1-11 of Batista.
Regarding claim 18, Batista further discloses that the vehicle of the vehicle of
wherein the drive module (1 with 3) includes a coupling body (C, annotated fig. 4 below), and a recessed portion (D, annotated fig. 4 below) is formed in the coupling body (C) to be recessed from an external peripheral surface (fig. 4) thereof toward the center thereof, and
wherein the recessed portion (D) includes a corrugated portion (see annotated fig. 4 below) formed on an internal surface thereof to protrude in a circumferential direction thereof.
PNG
media_image2.png
610
1310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 4 of Batista
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista in view of Chang and further in view of Yan Ming (CN 115366590 A; hereinafter “Ming”).
Regarding claim 2, Batista further discloses that the rotation shaft (5) enters the guide portions (guide portion 3 of Chang; [see fig. 4 of Chang where rotating shaft enters between the guide portions 3 of Chang]).
Batista as modified above further does not appear to expressly teach that the guide portions are pressurized by the rotation shaft and rotated in a direction of entry of the rotation shaft; however,
Ming in another autonomous robot comprising a vehicle body similar to Batista teaches that the guide portions (“first and second pushing plates” 1342 of pushing assemblies 1142 and 1242, fig. 3-4; [86 and 93]) are pressurized (via 1042) by the rotation shaft (102) and rotated in a direction of entry of the rotation shaft (102) [ para. 93 teaches that the movable end 1042 of the rotating shaft 102 includes a guide portions 1342, and the guide portion 1342 is used to abut against the resistance portion 1022; thus, the guide portions are pressurized by the rotation shaft and rotated in a direction of entry of the rotation shaft; note that: the term pressurized” is equivalent to the term “pushing”]. Batista discloses a vehicle with a container and a drive module including guide portions and magnetic modules for coupling a rotation shaft, whereas Ming explicitly teaches guide portions that are pressurized by a pushing act of a shaft and rotate in the direction of entry to facilitate alignment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide portions of the modified Batista and to rotate in the direction of entry of the shaft as taught by Ming, in order to achieve smoother engagement and self-alignment of the rotating shaft with the guide portions; thereby reliability of the moving components is improved [ para. 94 of Ming].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista in view of Chang and further in view of Wulff (US Pub. 20090014982 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Batista as modified above teaches the magnetic module and guide portion, but fails to teach holding grooves formed on rear surface and a plurality of holding blocks; however,
Wulff in another roll coupling trailer hitch assembly similar to Batista teaches that the guide portions (12 and 14, fig. 1) include holding grooves (groove formed by 14a, fig. 1) formed on rear surfaces (fig. 1 shows on the rear surface) thereof, and the vehicle further includes a plurality of holding blocks (plurality of 12a) provided on peripheries around the guide portions (fig. 1) to be fastened to the holding grooves (14a) formed on the guide portions (12 and 14) by the holding force, constraining positions of the guide portions [ see para 0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic module configuration of the modified Batista and to incorporate the holding mechanism of Wulff by integrating grooves on the guide portions surrounded by the plurality of blocks so that holding blocks fasten into grooves on the guide portions over the influence of magnetic force, thereby advantageously align and improve rotating shaft positional stability.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista in view of Chang and further in view of Claesson et at. (US20210240200 A1; hereinafter “Claesson”).
Regarding claim 14, Batista as modified above teaches the drive module, but fails to teach the drive module in plural and the remaining limitations of claim 14; however,
Claesson in another method for replacing a module of a vehicle similar to Batista teaches that the drive module is in plural (set of modules 20, [0069] and [para. 0017 teaches: “the set of modules from which the vehicle is assembled may comprise a plurality of drive modules and a plurality of functional modules”; see fig. 3], a first position detecting sensor is in plural, and a second position detecting sensor is in plural [para 0017 teaches: “ the drive module comprises a plurality of sensors and systems for steering and driving the drive module automatically as an independent unit according to conventional methods”; thus, detecting sensors is in plural]), and
wherein the first position detecting sensors are provided on the lower surface of the extension portion (fig. 3) and on a front surface or a rear surface of the container body (40), respectively, and the second position detecting sensors are provided and positioned to correspond to the first position detecting sensors, aligning positions of the container (40) and the drive modules (set of modules 20; [ para. 0017 teaches that the drive module comprises a navigation system and sensors for detecting objects in the surrounding of the drive module]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Batista to incorporate the teaching of Claesson and provide the set of plurality of drive modules and sensors in order to advantageously align and engage the container for synchronized movement and stable container swapping, thereby configured to be autonomously operated [para. 0059 of Claesson.]
Regarding claim 16, Batista as modified above teaches the drive module and rotation shaft, but fails to teach the drive module in plural and the remaining limitations of claim 16; however,
Claesson teaches that the drive module is in plural (set of 20; [0069]), and wherein the rotation shaft is provided on a front side and a rear side of the container (fig. 3), and the drive modules (set of modules 20) are provided and connected to the front side (fig. 3) and the rear side of the container to travel (fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle system of the modified Batista above and to incorporate the teaching of Claesson by including multiple drive modules at both the front and rear of the container in order to advantageously optimize the module. Claesson expressly teaches the use of plural drive modules to enhance stability and measurability. Combining this teaching with the rotation shaft configuration of the modified Batista would have predictably resulted in improved load distribution across the container and increased mobility during travel. Such a modification represents a straightforward application of known design principles- namely, that distributing drive forces across multiple connection points reduces stress concentrations and enhance operational efficiency. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement the combined features of Batista in view of Chang and Claesson to achieve these recognized advantages without requiring undue experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180050626 A1 to Delp discloses: a transportation system includes at least one passenger module and at least one autonomous engine module configured to operatively couple with the at least one passenger module to form an autonomous passenger vehicle.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM 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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on 571-272-7109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights