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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, Claim 15 recites the broad recitation
“each side portion has a depth which is greater than a corresponding depth of a kiosk”
and the claim also recites
“wherein the depth of each side portion is approximately twice the corresponding depth of the kiosk”
which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 15, recites the phrase:
"in particular"
This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 26, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Dees (US 10654396 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Dees discloses:
A device (102) comprising:
a support portion (111 & 606) for supporting an article (100);
one or more wheels (106 & 107 & 108 & 109); and
at least one actuator mechanism (1000) [Column 3 Lines 9-18] coupled to the support portion and the one or more wheels (Fig. 8), the at least one actuator mechanism being configured to move the support portion between a first position and a second position [Column 4 Lines 49-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-27], wherein the first position is offset from the second position such that the support portion is raised relative to the one or more wheels when moved from the first position to the second position to allow at least a portion of the one or more wheels to protrude through the support portion beyond a plane defined by the support portion (Fig. 10) [Column 1 Lines 44-51 & Column 2 Lines 50-67 & Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 4 Lines 37-57 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 2, Dees discloses:
the device further comprises one or more side members (1001).
Regarding Claim 3, Dees discloses:
the at least one actuator mechanism is coupled to the support portion via one of one or more side members (Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 4, Dees discloses:
the device comprises two actuator mechanisms (Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 5, Dees discloses:
two actuator mechanisms are located on opposing sides of the device (Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 6, Dees discloses:
the at least one actuator mechanism is offset from a base of the article. (Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 7, Dees discloses:
the one or more wheels are coupled to the support portion via at least one of the side members (Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 8, Dees discloses:
the side members are situated on opposing sides of the device and the article (Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 9, Dees discloses:
the one or more side members are offset from a base of the article (Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 10, Dees discloses:
the support portion comprises one or more apertures (1002).
Regarding Claim 11, Dees discloses:
each of the one or more apertures aligns with each of the one or more wheels (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 12, Dees discloses:
the support portion is substantially flat and preferably wherein a footprint of the support portion is greater than the footprint of the article (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 13, Dees discloses:
wherein each side portion has a width and wherein the support portion has a width and wherein a ratio of the width of each side portion is between approximately 0.15 and approximately 1/3 of the corresponding width of the support portion (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 14, Dees discloses:
the article has a width and wherein the width of the article is between approximately 1/3 and approximately 1 of the or a corresponding width of the support portion (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Dees discloses:
the at least one actuator mechanism is coupled to at least one hinge bracket (708) such that actuation of the at least one actuator causes the at least one hinge bracket to rotate [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 17, Dees discloses:
the at least one hinge bracket has an axis of rotation and the axis of rotation of the at least one hinge bracket is configured such that rotation of the at least one hinge bracket causes the at least a portion of the one or more wheels to protrude beyond the plane defined by the support portion (Fig. 10) [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 4 Lines 43-67 & Column 5 Lines 25-29 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 18, Dees teaches:
the at least one hinge bracket comprises a forward hinge bracket and a rear hinge bracket (Fig. 4 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 20, Dees discloses:
the one or more wheels are positioned such that they are substantially equidistant from a combined center of gravity of the article and the device (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 26, Dees discloses:
the device comprises four wheels (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 31, Dees discloses:
the device is configured to be retrofitted to the article [platform is designed for temporary support of an variety of articles].
Regarding Claim 32, Dees discloses:
the device is configured to be attached to the article when the device and article are moved from a first location to a second location and wherein the device is configured to be attached to the article when the at least one actuator mechanism moves the support portion between the first position and the second position (Fig. 5) [Column 2 Lines 39-67 & Column 3 Lines 63-67 & Column 5 Lines 30-36 & Column 6 Lines 5-20].
Regarding Claim 35, Dees discloses:
in the first position, the one or more wheels do not protrude beyond the plane defined by the support portion, such that the support portion is in contact with a ground (Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 36, Dees discloses:
A method of modifying an article comprising the steps of: coupling the device according to claim 1 to an article (Fig. 5) [Column 1 Lines 44-51 & Column 2 Lines 39-67 & Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 3 Lines 63-67 & Column 4 Lines 37-57 & Column 5 Lines 30-36 & Column 6 Lines 5-20 & Column 6 Lines 46-56] [Column 1 Lines 44-51 & Column 2 Lines 50-67 & Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 4 Lines 37-57 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 37, Dees discloses:
the coupling the device to the article comprises the steps of:
supporting the article on the support portion (Fig. 2 & Fig. 5); and
coupling the at least one actuator to the support portion and to the one or more wheels (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 39, Dees discloses:
a height of the article is not substantially increased by the device when the support portion is in the first position (Fig. 1 & Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 41, Dees discloses:
the movement of the support portion between the first position and the second position is controlled by user input [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Regarding Claim 42, Dees discloses:
a hinge bracket (708) is coupled to the support portion and wherein each side member is coupled to the hinge bracket via a pivot (Fig. 7 & Fig. 9 & Fig. 10) and preferably wherein an axis of rotation of each wheel is offset from the axis of rotation of the pivot (Fig. 7 & Fig. 8 & Fig. 9 & Fig. 10).
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 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 of this title, 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) 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dees (US 10654396 B2).
Regarding Claim 15, Dees teaches:
each side portion has a depth which is greater than a corresponding depth of a carried article (Fig. 9) [Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims as outlined in MPEP 2115 the kiosk is the article being worked upon which does not limit the apparatus. As the apparatus of Dees would be capable of working on a kiosk as claimed without changes to the structure and therefore meets the limitations of the claim per MPEP 2115 as referenced above].
Dees does not teach:
in particular wherein the depth of each side portion is approximately twice the corresponding depth of the kiosk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide side portions that are approximately twice the corresponding depth of the carried object in order to increase the capacity of the platform without increasing the number of wheels or brackets thereby limiting the cost increase relative to the capacity, since it has been held that changing the size or proportions of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding Claim 19, Dees teaches:
the forward hinge bracket and the rear hinge bracket are located near the front and rear and sides of the support portion and are perpendicular to the articulation path of the wheels (Fig. 4 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8).
Dees does not explicitly teach:
the forward hinge bracket and the rear hinge bracket are substantially parallel relative to the plane of the support portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the forward hinge bracket and the rear hinge bracket are substantially parallel relative to the plane of the support portion in order to provide a means of articulating the wheels that maintains the posture of the support portion in order to prevent tipping of the supported article, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 21, Dees does not teach:
a distance between the first position and the second position is between 20mm and 70mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a drive system which moves the platform from the first position to a second position which is between 20mm and 70mm from the first position in order to provide adequate clearance for transporting the system, since it has been held that changing the size or proportions of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding Claim 22, Dees discloses:
the at least one actuator mechanism is cranked mechanism [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Dees does not teach:
the at least one actuator mechanism is electrically powered.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide linear electrically powered actuators in place of manual actuators to provide a system which has greater positioning accuracy and preventing backlash in the system while increasing the ease of operation for a user since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that electrically powered actuators for imparting motion to a system were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 23, Dees discloses:
the at least one actuator mechanism is cranked mechanism [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Dees does not teach:
the electrical power is provided by one or more of: a battery coupled to the device; the article; or an external AC or DC power supply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide linear electrically powered actuators where the electrical power is provided by one or more of: a battery coupled to the device; the article; or an external AC or DC power supply in place of manual actuators to provide a system which has greater positioning accuracy and preventing backlash in the system while increasing the ease of operation for a user since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that electrically powered actuators for imparting motion to a system were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 24, Dees discloses:
the at least one actuator mechanism is cranked mechanism [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Dees does not teach:
the device comprises a battery and the battery provides electrical power to the article.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a means to prevent battery failure in the article by providing maintenance power to the article since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that battery maintainers for preventing battery failure were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 25, Dees teaches:
the at least one actuator mechanism are coupled together to operate in parallel so that one mechanism may control the raising or lowering of more than one wheel. [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Dees does not explicitly teach:
the at least one actuator mechanism is wired in parallel [Column 4 Lines 49-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-27].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide linear electrically powered actuators wired in parallel in place of manual actuators coupled together to operate in parallel to provide a system which has greater positioning accuracy and preventing backlash in the system while increasing the ease of operation for a user since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that electrically powered actuators for imparting motion to a system were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 27, Dees teaches:
the four wheels comprises four wheels (42) configured to swivel [Column 4 Lines 49-68 & Column 5 Lines 1-27].
Dees does not teach:
the four wheels comprises two fixed wheels and two wheels configured to swivel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide only two wheels configured to swivel and two fixed wheels in order to provide a system capable of maneuvering that is also capable of sustained travel in a straight line with minimal operator input since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that traveling cargo support systems utilizing two fixed wheels and two wheels configured to swivel were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 28, Dees does not teach:
an electric motor configured to drive rotation of the one or more wheels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electric motor configured to drive rotation of the one or more wheels in order to provide a means for imparting motion to the system in order to facilitate motion without requiring forceful user input in order to prevent user injury due to overexertion since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that electric drive motors for driving vehicles were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 33, Dees does not teach:
the support portion is coupled to the article with screws.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide screws for coupling the support portion to the article with screws to prevent detachment or shifting of the article during transit since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that screws for fastening articles to other articles or supports were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 34, Dees does not teach:
the at least one actuator mechanism is cranked mechanism [Column 3 Lines 9-18 & Column 6 Lines 46-56].
Dees does not teach:
the actuator mechanism comprises a linear screw actuator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide electrically powered linear screw actuators in place of manual actuators to provide a system which has greater positioning accuracy and preventing backlash in the system while increasing the ease of operation for a user since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE of the equivalence of manual actuators and electrically powered actuators for their use in the support positioning art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to effect support position changes would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electrically powered linear screw actuators in place of manual actuators to provide a system which has greater positioning accuracy and preventing backlash in the system while increasing the ease of operation for a user since it has been held that providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(III))
Regarding Claim 38, Dees does not teach:
the article is a kiosk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a kiosk on the device for transport in order to increase the utility of the device since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that utilizing wheeled supports to transport kiosks were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 40, Dees does not teach:
one or more of braking, slowing, or locking is applied to the one or more wheels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide locking devices applied to the wheels in order to provide a means of position control for the device in order to arrest the article in a planned position in order to prevent dislodging of the position of the device since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that locking devices for maintaining the stopped position of traveling systems were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dees (US 10654396 B2) in view of Justice (US 20030059282 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Dees does not teach:
the device is further configured to provide a wireless communication connection.
Justice teaches:
A device (10) comprising:
a support portion (12) for supporting an article (86);
one or more wheels (44); and
at least one actuator mechanism (30 & 32 & 58) coupled to the support portion and the one or more wheels (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3a & Fig. 3b), the at least one actuator mechanism being configured to move the support portion between a first position and a second position [0039 & 0040 & 0042 & 0045 & 0046], wherein the first position is offset from the second position such that the support portion is raised relative to the one or more wheels when moved from the first position to the second position to allow at least a portion of the one or more wheels to protrude below the support portion beyond a plane defined by the support portion (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3a & Fig. 3b);
the device is further configured to provide a wireless communication connection [0039].
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 wheeled transfer system taught by Dees with the wheeled transfer system having a means of providing a wireless communication connection taught by Justice in order to provide a wheeled transfer system capable of being remotely controlled to increase the operational range of the system.
Regarding Claim 30, Dees does not teach:
the wireless communication connection is provided between the article and an external network and/or device.
Justice teaches:
the wireless communication connection is provided between the article and an external network and/or device [0039].
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 wheeled transfer system taught by Dees with the wheeled transfer system having a means of providing a wireless communication connection where the wireless communication connection is provided between the article and an external network and/or device taught by Justice in order to provide a wheeled transfer system capable of being remotely controlled to increase the operational range of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-42 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 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 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.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652