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 .
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(s) 1, 2, 10, 13, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (WO 2008012989 A1, herein after referred to as Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1 Suzuki teaches a chassis for a warehousing logistics vehicle, comprising a first vehicle frame (FIG. 13: 330) and a traveling device mounted to the first vehicle frame (FIG. 13: 333), the traveling device comprising: a first shaft (FIG. 13: through the center of 333), mounted to the first vehicle frame (FIG. 13: depicted); a climbing wheel (FIG. 13: wheel part of 333), mounted to the first shaft to cause the chassis to ascend/descend (FIG. 13: depicted); a second shaft, mounted to the first vehicle frame and arranged in parallel with and spaced apart from the first shaft (FIG. 13: through the center of 331a); and a traveling wheel mounted to the second shaft to cause the chassis to travel (FIG. 13: 331a).
Regarding claim 2 Suzuki teaches a traveling drive mechanism in drive connection with the first shaft and the second shaft to drive the first shaft and the second shaft to rotate (paragraphs 63 & 64).
Regarding claim 8 Suzuki teaches a first support wheel (FIG. 25: 333a) mounted to the first shaft; a third shaft (FIG. 25: through 336b) mounted to the first vehicle frame (FIG. 25: depicted), and arranged spaced apart from and in parallel with the first shaft and the second shaft (FIG. 25: depicted); and a second support wheel mounted to the third shaft (FIG. 25: 336b), the third shaft being arranged in linkage with the first shaft so that the second support wheel is fixed relative to the first support wheel transversely of the chassis (FIG. 25: depicted such that neither wheel can move transversely relative to the chassis).
Regarding claim 9 Suzuki teaches that the axes of the first shaft, the second shaft and the third shaft are located in different planes (FIG. 20: depicted at different heights and thus on different vertical planes, although an infinite number of diagonal planes could be selected to meet this limitation as well).
Regarding claim 10 Suzuki teaches that the second shaft and the third shaft are located below the first shaft (FIG. 20: depicted).
Regarding claim 13 Suzuki teaches a warehousing logistics vehicle comprising the chassis of claim 1 (FIG. 13: depicted).
Regarding claim 14 Suzuki teaches a warehouse logistics system, comprising: a horizontal rail (FIG. 13: 310); a vertical rail (FIG. 13: 311); and a warehousing logistics vehicle according to claim 13 (see claim 13), the warehousing logistics vehicle having a traveling state in which the traveling wheels of the warehousing logistics vehicle travel along the horizontal rails, and an ascending/descending state in which the climbing wheels of the warehousing logistics vehicle ascend/descend along the vertical rails (FIG. 13-18: depicted).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (WO 2008012989 A1, herein after referred to as Suzuki) in view of Ou et al. (CN 205148197 U, herein after referred to as Ou).
Regarding claim 3 Suzuki teaches that the traveling drive mechanism comprises a speed reducer (paragraph 28), but does not explicitly teach a speed reducer spline housing, an output shaft of the speed reducer being sleeved outside the speed reducer spline housing- and comprises the first shaft (14) a first spline shaft, with a first spline being provided on the first spline shaft, the speed reducer spline housing cooperating with the first spline.
However, Ou does teach a speed reducer spline housing (FIG. 1: 11), an output shaft of the speed reducer being sleeved outside the speed reducer spline housing and comprises the first shaft (FIG. 1: depicted above 11), a first spline shaft (FIG. 1: 1), with a first spline being provided on the first spline shaft (FIG. 1: depicted attached to 1 inside of 11), the speed reducer spline housing cooperating with the first spline (FIG. 1: depicted). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used the speed reducer spline housing and associated speed reducer parts of Ou with the chassis of Suzuki in order to teach the needed details of a speed reducer.
Claim(s) 5-7, 11 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (WO 2008012989 A1, herein after referred to as Suzuki) in view of Wu (CN 210437866 U).
Regarding claim 5 Suzuki does not explicitly teach a first extension/retraction drive mechanism, which is in drive connection with the climbing wheel and configured to drive the climbing wheel to perform reciprocating movement transversely of the chassis, however Wu does (FIG. 2: 106 extends and retracts the wheels 101 & 102). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the extension/retraction drive mechanism of Wu with the chassis of Suzuki in order to better fit in a variety of warehouse environments.
Regarding claim 6 Suzuki as modified above teaches that the first extension/retraction drive mechanism comprises: a screw mounted to the first vehicle frame (Wu, FIG. 2: 106); and a moving component in threaded fit with the screw (Wu, FIG. 2: 108), the first shaft being mounted to the moving component (Wu, FIG. 2: depicted).
Regarding claim 7 Suzuki as modified above teaches a second extension/retraction drive mechanism as claimed mounted identically on the other side (Wu, FIG. 6: depicted).
Regarding claim 11 Suzuki does not explicitly teach that the first shaft, the second shaft and the third shaft are movably mounted to the first vehicle frame transversely of the chassis, however Wu does teach a mechanism for transverse movement of the shafts (FIG. 2: 106). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the extension/retraction drive mechanism of Wu with the chassis of Suzuki in order to better fit in a variety of warehouse environments.
Regarding claim 12 Suzuki does not explicitly teach a second extension/retraction drive mechanism and a second vehicle frame, wherein the second extension/retraction drive mechanism is in drive connection with the traveling wheel and configured to drive the traveling wheel to perform reciprocating movement transversely of the chassis; the second vehicle frame is mounted to the second shaft in a rotatable and axially relatively stationary manner so as to move transversely with the traveling wheel relative to the first vehicle frame; and the third shaft passes through the second vehicle frame, and the second support wheel is mounted to an outer side transversely of the second vehicle frame.
However, Wu does teach a second extension/retraction drive mechanism and a second vehicle frame (FIG. 2: 106 and duplicate thereof in FIG. 6), wherein the second extension/retraction drive mechanism is in drive connection with the traveling wheel and configured to drive the traveling wheel to perform reciprocating movement transversely of the chassis (FIG. 2: 106 extends and retracts the wheels 101 & 102); the second vehicle frame is mounted to the second shaft in a rotatable and axially relatively stationary manner so as to move transversely with the traveling wheel relative to the first vehicle frame (allowed for by structure). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the extension/retraction drive mechanism of Wu with the chassis of Suzuki in order to better fit in a variety of warehouse environments. The third shaft passes through the second vehicle frame, and the second support wheel is mounted to an outer side transversely of the second vehicle frame (result of the above combination).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 is/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: regarding claim 4 no prior art made of record teaches a chassis comprising a first rotary ball spline sleeve assembly, the first rotary ball spline sleeve assembly comprising a first outer flange and a first ball spline housing, the first outer flange being fixedly connected to the first vehicle frame; and the first shaft comprises a first spline shaft, with a first spline being provided on the first spline shaft, the first ball spline housing cooperating with the first spline; and/or the traveling device comprises a second rotary ball spline sleeve assembly, the second rotary ball spline sleeve assembly comprising a second outer flange and a second ball spline housing, the second outer flange being fixedly connected to the first vehicle frame; and the second shaft comprises a second spline shaft, with a second spline being provided on the second spline shaft, the second ball spline housing cooperating with the second spline; or the traveling device comprises a first rotary ball spline sleeve assembly, the first rotary ball spline sleeve assembly comprising a first outer flange and a first ball spline housing, the first outer flange being fixedly connected to the first vehicle frame; and the first shaft comprises a first spline shaft, with a first spline being provided on the first spline shaft, the first ball spline housing cooperating with the first spline; the traveling device comprises a second rotary ball spline sleeve assembly, the second rotary ball spline sleeve assembly comprising a second outer flange and a second ball spline housing, the second outer flange being fixedly connected to the first vehicle frame; and the second shaft comprises a second spline shaft, with a second spline being provided on the second spline shaft, the second ball spline housing cooperating with the second spline.
A combination of these limitations and the other recited features was not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach warehouse vehicles of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached on (571) 272-7742. 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.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614