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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the motor, battery, battery compartment, controller, motors in hubs, omni-wheels, mecanum wheels, sensors, cart docking attachment arm, and connections for electricity or data must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification fails to provide antecedent basis for the first section and the second section (claim 2).
The specification fails to provide antecedent basis for the ledge (claim 3).
The specification fails to provide antecedent basis for the cart docking attachment arm (claim 17).
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 2, 3, 9-11, and 17 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 2 recites: “wherein the end walls further comprise: a first section and a second section; wherein the first section is movable between a position parallel to the base and a position angled upward from the base.” The limitation is not understood. Does each end wall have two sections? Which components are the first and second sections, respectively? The confusion is compounded due to the lack of antecedent basis of claimed terms within the specification.
Claim 3 recites: “wherein the end walls further comprise a ledge in proximity to an edge of the end wall and wherein the side walls further comprise a ledge in proximity to an edge of the side wall.” Due to the lack of antecedent basis of the ledge within the specification, it is unclear which component in Applicant’s disclosure corresponds to the ledge. Absent sufficient understanding of Applicant’s ledge, the metes and bounds of the claimed ledge are indeterminable.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it depends from itself. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the controller” in claim 9, because none of the preceding claims introduce a controller.
In claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the hub.
Claim 17 recites: “a cart docking attachment arm […] wherein the docking attachment arm comprises connections for electricity or data.” Due to the lack of antecedent basis of the cart docking attachment arm within the specification, it is unclear which component in Applicant’s disclosure corresponds to the cart docking attachment arm. Absent sufficient understanding of Applicant’s cart docking attachment arm, the metes and bounds of the claimed cart docking attachment arm are indeterminable.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conyers (US 10,343,794).
Regarding claim 1, Conyers teaches: a system for moving cargo, the system comprising:
a cart, comprising:
a body comprising a battery compartment (the space where battery 810 is placed) and a platform (A);
wheels (125);
a motor (605; Fig. 6) for driving the wheels; and
a battery (810) housed in the battery compartment for powering the motor;
and
a cargo carrier (102) mounted on the platform, comprising:
a base (B), two side walls (C), and two end walls (D);
wherein at least one end wall or side wall is adapted to be moved between different positions to change the shape and/or size of the compartment (see column 6, lines 17-27).
Relevant elements are best shown in the annotated version of Fig. 1, below.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Conyers further teaches: wherein the cart comprises: four arms (130), each articulatably attached at a first end to the body; four wheels (125), each connected to a second end of one of the four arms; and four arm actuators (135), each configured to articulate one of the four arms such that the wheels are moved closer to or further from the body. See Figs. 1-2D.
Regarding claim 6, Conyers further teaches: wherein the four arm actuators each comprises a linear actuator (135) pivotally attached to the body at a first end and to the arm at a second end. See Figs. 2A-2D.
Regarding claim 7, Conyers further teaches: wherein the arm actuators each comprises a piston. See Figs. 2A-2D.
Regarding claim 8, Conyers further teaches: wherein each first end of the four arms is pivotally connected to the body. See Figs. 1-2D.
Regarding claim 9, Conyers further teaches: wherein the four arm actuators are each configured to articulate one of the four arms to move a second end of the arm toward or away from the body, wherein each of the four arm pivot actuators is independently controlled by the controller. See Figs. 1-2D, 8, and column 7, lines 5-23.
Regarding claim 10, Conyers further teaches: wherein the cart comprises four motors each adapted to drive one of the four wheels. See Figs. 1, 6, 8.
Regarding claim 11, Conyers further teaches: wherein the four motors are each located within the hub of the wheel driven by the motor. See Fig. 6, where at least a rotor of the motor extends into the wheel hub.
Regarding claim 18, Conyers further teaches: wherein the end walls are adjustable between a retracted position and an extended position. Hinges between the end walls and base facilitate a number of positions. Hight of the end walls can also be adjusted by pivoting the arms (130). See at least Figs. 7A,B.
Regarding claim 19, Conyers further teaches: wherein the end walls are also adjustable between a raised position and a lowered position. Hinges between the end walls and base facilitate a number of positions. Hight of the end walls can also be adjusted by pivoting the arms (130). See at least Figs. 7A,B.
Regarding claim 20, Conyers further teaches: wherein the end walls are adjustable between a raised position and a lowered position. Hinges between the end walls and base facilitate a number of positions. Hight of the end walls can also be adjusted by pivoting the arms (130). See at least Figs. 7A,B.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (US 12,151,732) in view of Hieber (DE 20 2008 011 671 U1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugimura teaches: a system for moving cargo, the system comprising:
a cart, comprising:
a body comprising a battery compartment (42) and a platform (14);
wheels (16, 18);
a motor (20) for driving the wheels; and
a battery (22) housed in the battery compartment for powering the motor;
and
a cargo carrier (26) mounted on the platform, comprising:
a base, two side walls, and two end walls.
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 1-3.
Sugimura fails to teach: wherein at least one end wall or side wall is adapted to be moved between different positions to change the shape and/or size of the compartment. Hieber teaches: a system for moving cargo having a cargo carrier, wherein at least one end wall or side wall is adapted to be moved between different positions to change the shape and/or size of the compartment. See Figs. 2-3. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide Sugimura with a cargo carrier having at least one end wall or side wall is adapted to be moved between different positions to change the shape and/or size of the compartment, as suggested by Hieber; the motivation being: the movable walls allow the ease of loading the container. For example, when the side(s) is/are folded down, a heavy object would not need to be lifted as high for placement in the cargo container. Additionally, movable walls allow the transport of long/large objects.
Regarding claim 2, the combination further teaches: wherein the end walls further comprise: a first section (3) and a second section (5); wherein the first section is movable between a position parallel to the base and a position angled upward from the base. See Figs. 2-3 from Hieber.
Regarding claim 3, the combination further teaches: wherein the end walls further comprise a ledge (8) in proximity to an edge of the end wall and wherein the side walls further comprise a ledge in proximity to an edge of the side wall. See Figs. 2-3 from Hieber.
Regarding claim 14, the combination further teaches: wherein the battery is a rechargeable battery. See column 10, lines7-9 from Sugimura.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura and Hieber, as relied upon above, in further view of Ifuku (US 11,904,921).
Regarding claim 4, the combination further teaches wherein the cargo carrier is pivotally attached (at pin 28) to the cart. See Fig. 1 from Sugimura. The combination fails to teach at least one actuator, as claimed.
Ifuku teaches a system for moving cargo, wherein at least one actuator (32) connected to the cart at a first end and to the storage compartment at a second end; wherein the cargo carrier is pivotally attached to the cart; wherein the actuator raises an end of the cargo carrier to facilitate dumping out the cargo carrier. See Figs. 1-4. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system from Sugimura with an actuator, as suggested by Ifuku; the motivation being: to reduce strain on the operator during dumping.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conyers, as relied upon above, in further view of Bauer (US 10,899,376).
Regarding claim 12, the combination fails to teach wherein the four wheels comprise omni-wheels. Bauer teaches a system for moving cargo wherein the four wheels comprise omni-wheels. See column 9, lines 18-23. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the wheels from Conyers as omni-wheels, as suggested by Bauer; the motivation being: in order to provide an omnidirectional drive.
Regarding claim 13, the combination fails to teach wherein the four wheels comprise Mecanum wheels. Bauer teaches a system for moving cargo wherein the four wheels comprise Mecanum wheels. See column 9, lines 18-23. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the wheels from Conyers as Mecanum wheels, as suggested by Bauer; the motivation being: in order to provide an omnidirectional drive.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conyers, as relied upon above, in further view of Gillett (US 2021/0276642).
Regarding claim 15, Conyers fails to teach: a navigational system, comprising: one or more sensors adapted to detect obstacles around the cart, and a controller receiving data from the one or more sensors and navigating the cart to avoid contact with obstacles. Gillett teaches a navigational system, comprising: one or more sensors adapted to detect obstacles around the cart, and a controller receiving data from the one or more sensors and navigating the cart to avoid contact with obstacles. See at least [0028, 0035, 0040, 0079]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the control system from Conyers with a navigational system, comprising: one or more sensors adapted to detect obstacles around the cart, and a controller receiving data from the one or more sensors and navigating the cart to avoid contact with obstacles, as suggested by Gillett; the motivation being: to enable safety measures and/or autonomous functionality.
Regarding claim 16, the combination further teaches: wherein the navigational system further comprises a GPS system in communication with the controller whereby the controller is able to locate the cart on a map and navigate to a destination. See at least [0028, 0079, 0096] from Gillett.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conyers, as relied upon above, in further view of Tai (US 7,384,059).
Regarding claim 17, Conyers further teaches: a system for attaching the cart to a carrier vehicle, comprising:
a controller (805);
four arms (130), each pivotably attached at a first end to the body;
four wheels (125), each connected to a second end of one of the four arms;
four arm actuators (135), each configured to pivot one of the four arms such that each wheel can be moved closer to or further away from the body;
wherein the controller adjusts the height of the cart by pivoting one or more of the four arms; and
at least two motors (605), each configured to rotate one of the four wheels, each independently controlled by the controller, whereby the controller can move the cart and control the yaw of the cart by rotating one or more of the four wheels.
See at least Figs. 2A-D, 6, and 8.
Conyers fails to teach a cart docking attachment arm, wherein the docking attachment arm comprises connections for electricity or data. Tai teaches: a cart docking attachment arm (92), wherein the docking attachment arm comprises connections (141, 142) for electricity or data. See Fig. 5. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide Conyers with a cart docking attachment arm, as suggested by Tai; the motivation being: to enable safe towing.
Accordingly, the combination teaches: whereby the cart can be moved into an appropriate position and orientation for connecting the docking attachment arm to a docking station by the controller selectively pivoting the arms and rotating the wheels.
Claim Interpretation/Examiner Comment
Multiple species have been identified in the disclosure of the present application. The claims are drawn only to the species as shown in Figs. 24-31. Accordingly, this species is elected by original presentation. See MPEP 821.03.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art made of record includes carts and/or elements implementable in in carts relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4324. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights