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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 4/2/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2021-0043428 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the side” and “the rotation shafts” which lack proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claims 2-20 are dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the other side” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 16 recites “the distance” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 17 recites “the side” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 19 recites “the first wheel” and “the second wheel”, which do not agree in number with “a pair of first wheels” and “a pair of second wheels” from claim 1.
Claim 20 recites “the first wheel” and “the second wheel”, which do not agree in number with “a pair of first wheels” and “a pair of second wheels” from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meirer et al. (US 9,702,159 B2), hereafter referred to as Meirer.
Consider claim 1. Meirer teaches a robot for parking a vehicle, which lifts a vehicle having a pair of first wheels and a pair of second wheels to park in a parking lot, the robot comprising: a first module (proximate “11” in fig. 1) for lifting the pair of first wheels by moving to the side of a first direction as a direction in which the rotation shafts of the pair of first wheels of the vehicle extend; a second module (proximate “9” in fig. 1) which is disposed on the side of a second direction as a direction from the pair of first wheels of the first module toward the pair of second wheels and lifts the pair of second wheels by moving toward the side of the first direction of the pair of second wheels of the vehicle; a connection link (5) for connecting the first module and the second module; and a controller (“Central control”, see column 4, line 67-column 5, line 1; and controller of driverless transport vehicle 1) for controlling the first module and the second module.
Consider claim 3. Meirer teaches that the connection link is formed such that the first module is reciprocally movable in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction relative to the second module (via 5).
Consider claim 4. Meirer teaches that the first module comprises: a first body (body proximate “11” in fig. 1) extending in the second direction; and a first front fork and a first rear fork (left pair of forks 3 in fig. 1) coupled to the first body and supporting the pair of first wheels, and wherein the second module comprises: a second body (body proximate “9” in fig. 1) extending in the second direction; and a second front fork and a second rear fork (right pair of forks 3 in fig. 1) coupled to the second body and supporting the pair of second wheels.
Consider claim 5. Meirer teaches that the first body comprises a first rail (upper horizontal rail proximate “11” in fig. 1) extending in the second direction, wherein the first front fork comprises a first front fork body (vertical portion of one of the forks 2 which couples to the rail) coupled to the first rail so as to be reciprocally movable in the second direction, and a first front fork bar (horizontal tine of one of the forks 2) extending from the first front fork body in the first direction and supporting one side of the pair of first wheels, and wherein the first rear fork comprises a first rear fork body (vertical portion of other fork 2) coupled to the first rail so as to be reciprocally movable in the second direction, and a first rear fork bar (horizontal tine of other fork 2) extending from the first rear fork body in the first direction and supporting the other side of the pair of first wheels.
Consider claim 8. Meirer teaches that the first front fork further comprises a first front support member (portion of one 2 which engages the rail, see fig. 1) disposed on one side of the first front fork bar toward the first rear fork bar, and wherein the first rear fork further comprises a first rear support member (portion of other 2 which engages the rail, see fig. 1) disposed on one side of the first rear fork bar toward the first front fork bar.
Consider claim 9. Meirer teaches that the controller places the pair of first wheels between the first front support member and the first rear support member such that the pair of first wheels are spaced apart from a ground of the parking lot, and moves the first front support member and the first rear support member to be adjacent to each other (see column 4, lines 42-52).
Consider claim 15. Meirer teaches a first ground height recognition sensor (6) disposed at an end of the second direction of the first rear fork to recognize an object in two dimensions within a predetermined area perpendicular to the second direction (see column 4, lines 17-20).
Consider claim 16. Meirer teaches that when the distance between the lower surface of the vehicle and the ground of the parking lot through the first ground height recognition sensor is greater than the distance from the upper surface of the first rear fork to the ground of the parking lot, the controller moves the first module and the second module in the first direction such that the first front fork and the first rear fork support the first wheel and the second front fork and the second rear fork support the second wheel (see column 4, lines 20-27).
Consider claim 19. Meirer teaches a wheel recognition sensor (6) disposed between the first module and the second module to recognize the first wheel and the second wheel of the vehicle.
Consider claim 20. Meirer teaches that the controller moves the first module and the second module such that a midpoint between the first module and the second module is arranged side by side with a midpoint between the first wheel and the second wheel along the first direction (see column 4, lines 20-27).
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 10-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meirer (US 9,702,159 B2).
Consider claim 10. Meirer teaches an object recognition sensor (6) disposed on a side of the second direction of the first and second body to recognize an object in three dimensions within a predetermined area. Meirer does not explicitly teach two separate object recognition sensors. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Meirer’s robot to have two separate object recognition sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Consider claim 11. Meirer teaches that the controller analyzes information collected by the object recognition sensor to drive the first module and the second module (see column 4, lines 20-27).
Consider claim 12. Meirer teaches that the object recognition sensor (6) recognizes an object in two dimensions within a predetermined area perpendicular to a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction and recognizes an object in two dimensions within a predetermined area perpendicular to the third direction (see column 4, lines 17-20), wherein the controller further analyzes information collected by the object recognition sensor to drive the first module and the second module (see column 4, lines 20-27). Meirer does not explicitly teach auxiliary sensors in addition to the object recognition sensor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Meirer’s robot to have additional auxiliary sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Consider claims 13 and 14. Meirer’s object recognition sensor and controller are capable of performing the recited functional language: recognizing a marker and comparing location information collected by the object recognition sensor with location information of a marker to correct location information collected by the object recognition sensor (see column 4, lines 17-27). Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims. Meirer does not explicitly teach a marker sensor in addition to the object recognition sensor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Meirer’s robot to have an additional marker sensor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Consider claim 17. Meirer teaches that the first ground height recognition sensor (6) measures a distance between the vehicle and the first module (see column 4, lines 17-20). Meirer does not explicitly teach a first distance recognition sensor in addition to the first ground height recognition sensor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Meirer’s robot to have an additional first distance recognition sensor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Consider claim 18. Meirer teaches that the controller moves the first module and the second module in the first direction until the distance measured by the sensor becomes a predetermined distance (see column 4, lines 20-27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The attached PTO-892 lists references which teach various devices for lifting and parking a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (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 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652