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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “27” has been used to designate both “travel rail” and “locator pin”. Also, Reference character “28” is “driven roller guide” on Sheet 13 of Specification, but it points to a “locator pin” in Figure 4 of the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-5 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 limitation "the top surface" in Line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the top surface” is being interpreted as “a top surface”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “∩”. It is not clear what is meant by “∩” rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes “∩” is being interpreted as “inverted U”,
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen et al. 2023/0052440.
In Re Claim 1, Hansen et al. teach a cart lifting device of an autonomous mobile robot, which is installed on the autonomous mobile robot to lift goods, comprising: a plate-shaped base plate (40) which is fixedly installed on the top surface of the autonomous mobile robot (60); an actuator (30, Paragraph 44) which is fixedly installed on the base plate and operated by applied power; a drive bar (Cross Bar, Fig. 2B) which is fixed to an actuator rod moved reciprocally by the actuator to move depending on the movement of the actuator rod; (Paragraph 44) a drive bracket (side walls of 20, Fig. 2B) which is fixedly coupled to the drive bar and has a driving roller (24) fixedly installed on one side to be rotatable; an inclined bracket (22) which is fixedly installed on one side of the drive bracket and has an inclined surface formed at a predetermined angle; an elevating plate (plate attached to 22, Fig. 2b) which is installed on one side of the inclined bracket to perform an elevating action by the movement of the inclined bracket; and a lifting plate (horizontal plate at the bottom of 22, Fig. 2B) which is fixedly coupled to the elevating plate.
In Re Claim 2, Hansen et al. teach wherein guide blocks (44), which are respectively formed in guide grooves (Grooves shown on front of base plate, Fig. 1b), are installed on the square corners of the base plate, and the elevating plate performs an elevating action by being guided with respect to an elevation path by the guide grooves.
In Re Claim 3, Hansen et al. teach wherein the elevating plates (See Fig. 2b) are installed on both sides of the base plate and a plurality of reinforcing bars are installed between the lifting plates, thereby enhancing the durability of the lifting plates and consistently performing the lifting action. (See Crossbars, Fig. 6C)
In Re Claim 4, Hansen et al. teach wherein a driven roller (12) is installed on the elevating plate, such that the elevating plate ascends since the driven roller ascends while rotating along the inclined surface of the inclined bracket by the operation of the drive bracket.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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: Shen et al., Karia and Stubbs et al. teach autonomous vehicles with inclined base lifting devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights