DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on January 9th, 2026 for application no. 18/287,070 filed on October 16th, 2023. Claims 1, 3, 5-10 and 13-23 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 13, 15-16 and 20 are amended, claims 21-23 are new, and claims 2, 4 and 11-12 are canceled.
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, 5, 8-9, 13-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Georgeson (US 11,414,002).
Regarding Claim 1, Georgeson teaches an autonomous vehicle assembly (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A) comprising:
a chassis assembly (“first transit carrier” 135A and “second transit carrier” 135B) including a front chassis module (135A) and a rear chassis module (135B) being selectively connectable to one another (via “magnetic couplers” 16; see Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A);
the front chassis module (135A) including at least one front wheel (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A) and the rear chassis module (135B) including at least one rear wheel (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A);
an electronics, braking and steering EBS assembly (braking and steering portions of “powertrain” 124) located in at least one of the front chassis module (135A) and the rear chassis module (135B) for steering at least one of the at least one front wheel and the at least one rear wheel (col. 7, line 34 – “transit carrier 100 of the illustrated example of FIGS. 1A-1B includes an example powertrain 124 to facilitate movement of the transit carrier 100. In FIGS. 1A-1B, the powertrain 124 includes one or more motors (e.g., electric motors, internal-combustion based motors, etc., and/or a combination thereof to constitute a hybrid motor system), one or more transmissions, one or more drive shafts, one or more differentials, one or more axles, a final drive, etc., to steer and/or otherwise control the wheels 114A-D to facilitate movement of the transit carrier 100” emphasis added);
a propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124) located in at least one of the front chassis module (135A) and the rear chassis module (135B) for driving at least one of the at least one front wheel and the at least one rear wheel (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A; see col. 7, line 34 passage above);
at least one storage assembly (Figs. 1F-1I, “passenger pod” 102 or Figs. 1J-1M “parcel pod” 104) connectable to the at least one of the front and rear chassis modules (135A, 135B); and
an autonomous driving module (“transit controller” 122 and “sensor systems” 128, 130, 132, 134) connectable to one of the front and rear chassis modules (135A, 135B) independently of the storage assembly (102 or 104; see at least Fig. 2A), and in communication with the EBS assembly (braking and steering portions of 124) and the propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124) for managing self-driving of the autonomous vehicle assembly (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A).
Regarding Claim 3, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly of Claim 1,
Georgeson teaches wherein the autonomous driving module (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A; 122, 128, 130, 132, 134) includes at least one sensor (128, 130, 132, 134; col. 9, line 1 – “In some examples, one or more of the sensor systems 128, 130, 132, 134 represent one or more instruments or sensors monitoring a characteristic or a parameter of the transit carrier 100 and/or environment or surroundings of the transit carrier 100. For example, one or more of the sensor systems 128, 130, 132, 134 can include an accelerometer, a depth sensor, a humidity sensor, a light sensor, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, a moisture sensor, a pressure sensor, a speed sensor (e.g., a motor encoder, a wheel speed sensor, etc.), a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) system (e.g., a Doppler radar, a pulse-Doppler system, etc.), a temperature sensor, an ultrasound sensor, etc., or any other sensor and/or a combination thereof”),
at least one camera (128, 130, 132, 134; col. 8, line 53 – “In some examples, one or more of the sensor systems 128, 130, 132, 134 are camera systems to capture images of surroundings or an environment of the transit carrier 100”) and
at least one controller (122) configured to dictate a speed, direction, and a travel path of the autonomous vehicle assembly (see relevant passages above; see Figs. 13, 16B and 21-22).
Regarding Claim 5, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly of Claim 1,
wherein the at least one storage assembly (Figs. 1J-1M, 104) includes at least one cargo door (“hatch” 174) being moveable between open and closed positions (col. 13, line 12 – “For example, the transit controller 122 of the parcel pod 104 may open the hatch 174”).
Regarding Claim 8, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly of Claim 1,
wherein the at least one storage assembly (Figs. 1F-1I, 102 or Figs. 1J-1M, 104) comprises a plurality of interchangeable storage modules (102 or 104) of different shapes (see Figs. 1F-1M).
Regarding Claim 9, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly of Claim 1,
wherein the at least one storage assembly (Figs. 1F-1I, 102 or Figs. 1J-1M, 104) includes a central storage module (Figs. 1F-1I, 102 or Figs. 1J-1M, 104; Fig. 21, “example autonomous vehicle train” 2020) selectively attached to the front chassis module (Fig. 7A, 135A) and the rear chassis module (135B) to space the front chassis module (135A) and the rear chassis module (135B) and to extend a storage space (see Fig. 21; col. 12, line 62 – “In the illustrated example of FIGS. 1J-1K, the parcel pod 104 includes the first and second magnetic couplers 170, 172 to facilitate coupling (e.g., magnetic coupling) with one or more different parcel pods 104 and/or one or more of the passenger pod 102 depicted in FIGS. 1F-1G. For example, the parcel pod 104 can couple to the passenger pod 102 using the first magnetic coupler 170 and/or can couple to a different parcel pod 104 using the second magnetic coupler 172” emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 13, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly of Claim 1,
wherein the front chassis module (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A; 135A) includes a front frame (frame portion of 135A),
wherein the rear chassis module (135B) includes a rear frame (frame portion of 135B),
wherein the front and rear frames (frame portions of 135A and 135B) are configured to support the propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124) and the EBS assembly (braking and steering portions of 124; see col. 7, line 34 passage above), and
wherein the front and rear frames (frame portions of 135A and 135B) are removeably connectable to one another (via “magnetic couplers” 116, 118).
Regarding Claim 14, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly of Claim 13,
wherein the front and rear frames (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A; frame portions of 135A and 135B) are connectable to one another with at least one removeable pin (Fig. 16C, “pin” 1622).
Regarding Claim 15, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly of Claim 1,
wherein the front and rear chassis modules (Fig. 7A, 135A, 135B) are coupled to one another in end-to-end relationship with one another in a front-to-rear direction of the autonomous vehicle assembly (see Fig. 7A).
Regarding Claim 16, Georgeson teaches an autonomous vehicle assembly (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A, 6D and 7), comprising:
a chassis assembly (135A, 135B) including a front chassis module (135A) and a rear chassis module (135B) being selectively connectable to one another (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A);
wherein the front chassis module (135A) has a rear end (see Figs. 6A and 7A),
wherein the rear chassis module (135B) has a front end (see Figs. 6A and 7A),
and wherein the rear end of the front chassis module (135A) contacts and is flush with the front end of the rear chassis module (135B) when the front and rear chassis modules (135A, 135B) are connected to one another (contacting and flush at “magnetic couplers” 116, 118; see relevant passages above; see relevant figures);
the front chassis module (135A) including at least one front wheel (see Fig. 7A) and the rear chassis module (135B) including at least one rear wheel (see Fig. 7A);
a front propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124) located in at least one of the front chassis module (135A) and the rear chassis module (135B) for driving at least one of the at least one front wheel and the at least one rear wheel (see relevant passages above; see relevant figures);
an autonomous driving module (“transit controller” 122) in communication with the propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124) and configured to manage self-driving of the autonomous vehicle assembly (see col. 7, line 34 passage above; col. 14, line 36 – “the transit controller 122 of the passenger pod 102 can direct the second movement systems 152 of the passenger pod 102 to decouple and move away from the transit carrier 100. The transit controller 122 of the transit carrier 100 may direct the powertrain 124 to engage the wheels 114A-D to move the transit carrier 100 to a different location”); and
a storage assembly (Figs. 1F-1I, 102 or Figs. 1J-1M, 104) selectively attachable to at least one of the front and rear chassis modules (135A, 135B) for storing items on the autonomous vehicle assembly (see Figs. 1F-1M).
Regarding Claim 17, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 16,
wherein the storage assembly (Figs. 1F-1I, 102 or Figs. 1J-1M, 104) includes a plurality of storage modules (102 or 104) being interchangeable (see relevant passages above; see relevant figures).
Regarding Claim 18, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 17,
wherein the plurality of storage modules (Figs. 1F-1I, 102 or Figs. 1J-1M, 104) includes a front storage module (102 or 104) connectable to the front chassis module (Fig. 7A, 135A) and a rear storage module (102 or 104) connectable to the rear chassis module (Fig. 7A, 135B; see relevant passages above).
Regarding Claim 19, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 18,
wherein the front and rear storage modules (Figs. 1J-1M, 104) each include a cargo door (174) being moveable between open and closed positions (see relevant passages above).
Regarding Claim 23, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 1,
wherein the front and rear chassis modules (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A; 135A, 135B) each have a front end and a rear end (see relevant figures),
wherein the rear end of the front chassis module (135A) and the front end of the rear chassis module (135B) are planar (see relevant figures), and
wherein the rear end of the front chassis module (135A) and the front end of the rear chassis module (135B) are flush with one another when the front and rear chassis modules (135A, 135B) are connected to one another (connected at “magnetic couplers” 116, 118).
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson (US 11,414,002), in view of Naish (US 12,325,294).
Regarding Claim 6, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly of Claim 5.
Georgeson does not teach “wherein a cargo door actuator is positioned on a top surface of at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module, and wherein the cargo door actuator is configured to move the cargo door between the open and closed positions”.
Naish teaches a cargo door actuator (Figs. 3, 6, 9 and 13; “actuator” 26) is positioned on a top surface of a chassis module (see Figs. 9 and 13), and
wherein the cargo door actuator (26) is configured to move a cargo door (“first sheet” 22) between the open and closed positions (col. 4, line 24 – “A belt 30a, 30b extends along the closed loop and is configured to engage one of the drive pulleys 28a, 28b, thus mechanically linking the actuator 26 with the closed loop of the first sheet 22 and providing for the actuator 26 to drive rotation of the first sheet 22”).
Naish also teaches “The transportable enclosure of the present disclosure may provide several advantages over traditional enclosures with traditional doors. For example, the transportable enclosure may include a door assembly that is light-weight, low cost and require relatively few moving parts” (col. 3, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the storage module configuration taught by Georgeson with the storage module configuration taught by Naish, such that “wherein a cargo door actuator is positioned on a top surface of at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module, and wherein the cargo door actuator is configured to move the cargo door between the open and closed positions”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing a cost-effective and lightweight storage module. See MPEP 2144.06(II) - Substituting Equivalents Known for the Same Purpose.
Regarding Claim 7, Georgeson and Naish teach the autonomous vehicle assembly of Claim 6,
Naish teaches wherein the cargo door actuator (Figs. 3, 6, 9 and 13; 26) includes at least one powered friction roller (“external drive wheel” 70) that is configured to move a belt (“belt” 30a) that is coupled with the cargo door (22) to move the cargo door (22) between the open and closed positions (see Figs. 3, 6, 9 and 13; see col. 4, line 24 passage above; col. 7, line 61 – “As shown in FIG. 9, each of the enclosure docks 90 includes an actuator 26 and an external drive wheel 70, with the actuator 26 configured to rotate the external drive wheel”).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson (US 18/287,070), in view of Forostovsky (WO 2017/144905).
Regarding Claim 10, Georgeson teaches an autonomous vehicle assembly (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A) comprising,
a chassis assembly (135A and 135B) including a front chassis module (135A) and a rear chassis module (135B) being selectively connectable to one another (via 116, 118);
the front chassis module (135A) including at least one front wheel (see Fig. 7A) and the rear chassis module (135B) including at least one rear wheel (see Fig. 7A);
an EBS assembly (braking and steering portions of 124) located in at least one of the front chassis module (135A) and the rear chassis module (135B) for steering at least one of the at least one front wheel and the at least one rear wheel (see relevant passages above; see relevant figures);
a first propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124) located in at least one of the front chassis module (135A) and the rear chassis module (135B) for driving at least one of the at least one front wheel and the at least one rear wheel to propel the front and rear chassis modules together (see relevant passages above; see relevant figures);
at least one replacement front chassis module (135A) and replacement rear chassis module (135B) with a propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124).
Georgeson does not teach “at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module, wherein one the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis modules has a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module having the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”. In other words, Georgeson teaches interchangeable chassis modules comprising propulsion assemblies; however, Georgeson does not explicitly disclose propulsion assemblies with interchangeable electric motors of different power levels.
Forostovsky teaches “According to current methods of manufacture, when a vehicle manufacturer develops a vehicle they often develop a brand new motor and gearbox suitable for driving the vehicle. Whilst sometimes this may involve entirely changing a motor, in some cases the changes are less notable. For example, in the case of combustion engines, the engine capacity may be changed in order to modify the engine's power output. Alternatively, in vehicles which are driven by electric motors, if more power is required to drive the vehicle, typically an electric motor with a higher power output is developed. Whilst the changes in both examples are sometimes small, the motor is nonetheless changed accordingly. Therefore, even among a fleet of different vehicles developed by a single manufacturer, each vehicle will likely have its own unique motor and gearbox, both of which have been designed for each particular type of vehicle” (emphasis added; p. 1, line 32 – p.2, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the interchangeable chassis modules taught by Georgeson with interchangeable electric motors of differential power levels as suggested by Forostovsky, such that “at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module, wherein one the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis modules has a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module having the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of meeting the individual power needs of different types of vehicles.
Regarding Claim 20, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 16,
further including at least one replacement front chassis module (Figs. 1A-1B and 7A; 135A) and replacement rear chassis module (135B) with a propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124).
Georgeson does not teach “further including at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module with a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module including the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”. In other words, Georgeson teaches interchangeable chassis modules comprising propulsion assemblies; however, Georgeson does not explicitly disclose propulsion assemblies with interchangeable electric motors of different power levels.
Forostovsky teaches “According to current methods of manufacture, when a vehicle manufacturer develops a vehicle they often develop a brand new motor and gearbox suitable for driving the vehicle. Whilst sometimes this may involve entirely changing a motor, in some cases the changes are less notable. For example, in the case of combustion engines, the engine capacity may be changed in order to modify the engine's power output. Alternatively, in vehicles which are driven by electric motors, if more power is required to drive the vehicle, typically an electric motor with a higher power output is developed. Whilst the changes in both examples are sometimes small, the motor is nonetheless changed accordingly. Therefore, even among a fleet of different vehicles developed by a single manufacturer, each vehicle will likely have its own unique motor and gearbox, both of which have been designed for each particular type of vehicle” (emphasis added; p. 1, line 32 – p.2, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the interchangeable chassis modules taught by Georgeson with interchangeable electric motors of differential power levels as suggested by Forostovsky, such that “further including at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module with a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module including the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of meeting the individual power needs of different types of vehicles.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson (US 11,414,002), in view of Gatten (US 8,335,607).
Regarding Claim 21, Georgeson teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 1,
wherein the front and rear chassis modules (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A; 135A, 135B) each have a top surface (“top surface” 111), and
wherein the autonomous driving module (122, 128, 130, 132, 134) and the at least one storage assembly (102, 104) are selectively connectable to the top surfaces (111; see relevant passages above; see relevant figures).
Georgeson does not teach “wherein the autonomous driving module…are selectively connectable to the top surfaces”. In other words, Georgeson does not disclose whether the autonomous driving module is selectively removeable from the autonomous vehicle assembly.
Gatten teaches “Upgrade improvements in electronic control systems, control algorithms or communication protocols are to be expected as equipment evolves. In order to assure that older vehicles can be upgraded certain defined communication and control functions, especially those containing software will be modularized. Modularization will help to assure that when upgrade improvements are implemented accurate and certifiable control can be assured by control of the upgrade as a module. Software module 208 of host computer 201 is a replaceable non-volatile memory chip module which can be changed-out to upgrade communication and control software. Similarly, software module 207 of programmable logic controller 202 represents a replaceable non-volatile memory chip module that can also be changed out in order to upgrade the linkage system” (col. 8, line 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modularize the autonomous driving module taught by Georgeson as suggested by Gatten, such that “wherein the autonomous driving module…are selectively connectable to the top surfaces”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of providing the means for future upgrade improvements. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) – Making Separable.
Regarding Claim 22, Georgeson and Gatten teaches the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 21,
Georgeson teaches wherein the top surface (Figs. 1A, 1B; 111) of each of the front and rear chassis modules (135A, 135B) includes at least one latch (“couplers” 115; col. 6, line 2 – “For example, each of the first couplers 115 can correspond to a groove that leads to a receptacle that can receive a pin and latch to the pin when substantially received. The first couplers 115 are described below in connection with at least FIGS. 8A-8F, 9A-9J, and 10A-10B”), and
wherein a bottom surface of the at least one storage assembly (Fig. 1F, 102 or Fig. 1J, 104; see Figs. 8A and 8B as well) includes at least one striker (“pin” 818) for being releasably connected to the at least one latch (115) to connect the at least one storage assembly (102 or 104) to the top surface (111).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed January 9th, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed October 1st, 2025. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Objections
Regarding Claims 9, 12-13 and 15, Applicant’s amendment addresses various minor informalities previously indicated in the latest Office Action. As such, the relevant claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s argument that “None of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, disclose this arrangement. Regarding Georgeson, the Office Action alleges that it discloses a chassis assembly with a front chassis module 135A and a rear chassis module 135B, featuring an EBS assembly 124 and a propulsion assembly 124 located in at least one of these modules, configured to drive the wheels of the chassis modules 135A, 135B. However, Georgeson does not disclose an autonomous driving module connectable to one of the chassis modules independently of a storage assembly, as required by amended claim 1. The Office Action suggests that Gatten discloses a modular control module, making it obvious to connect an autonomous driving module to Georgeson's chassis assembly. Yet, Gatten does not disclose that this module is connectable to a chassis module, as required by amended claim 1. It is merely described as a modular control module” (p. 11-12) is not persuasive. As seen in Figs. 2A and 5A of Georgeson, the autonomous driving module (122) is clearly connected to the front and rear chassis modules (135A, 135B; see Figs. 2A and 5A); therefore, Georgeson teaches “an autonomous driving module connectable to one of the front and rear chassis modules independently of the storage assembly” (emphasis added; claim 1, last clause). Examiner would also note that the prior art of Gatten (US 8,335,607) is no longer relied upon to reject claim 1 as Applicant has removed the term “selectively” from the claim (previously recited in claim 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant’s argument that “The Office Action acknowledges that Georgeson does not disclose replacement chassis modules but alleges they are shown in Forostovsky. However, Forostovsky merely explains that automobile manufacturers offer different engine and gearbox arrangements, without suggesting the swapping of chassis modules in an autonomous vehicle” (p. 12) is not persuasive and incorrect. In order to clarify the record, Examiner previously stated that “In other words, Georgeson teaches interchangeable chassis modules comprising propulsion assemblies; however, Georgeson does not explicitly disclose propulsion assemblies with interchangeable electric motors” (emphasis added; Office Action mailed 10/01/2025, see p. 13). The prior art of Forostovsky (WO 2017/144905) was relied upon to teach propulsion assemblies having different power levels. Examiner still believes it would have been obvious to provide the interchangeable chassis modules taught by Georgeson with interchangeable electric motors of different power levels as suggested by Forostovsky.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant’s argument that “None of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, disclose this arrangement. As illustrated below, the Office Action alleges that Georgeson discloses a chassis assembly with modules 135A and 135B, featuring an EBS assembly 124 and a propulsion assembly 124. However, Georgeson fails to disclose a flush contact between the rear end of the front chassis module 18 and the front end of the rear chassis module 20 as required by amended claim 16. Instead, the modules are connected via protruding magnets 116C, 166D, not flush and in contact” (p. 13) is not persuasive. As seen in Figs. 6A, 6D and 7A of Georgeson, the rear end of the front chassis module (135A) contacts and is flush with the front end of the rear chassis module (135B) when the front and rear chassis modules are connected to one another (via “magnetic couplers” 116, 118). Terms such as “assembly”, “module”, “end” and “planar” are considered broad and do not distinguish from the structure disclosed by Georgeson. Examiner understands what Applicant intends to recite; however, the intended subject matter is clearly disclosed by the prior art previously cited by Examiner.
In conclusion, amended claims 1, 3, 5-10 and 13-23 are rejected. See detailed and relevant rejections set forth above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, 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 J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655