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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 5/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
These rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boussard et al. (“Boussard”)(US 2018/0142488 A1) in view of and Cord et al. (“Cord”)(US 11,981,554), and Choi et al. (“Choi”)(CN 117166828 A)(with text citations to English translation previously provided).
Boussard (fig. 1-8) teaches a vehicle transport device comprising:
(re: base claim 1) a carriage (2, 3) capable of entering under a vehicle to be transported;
a first arm portion (3) provided to the carriage, the first arm portion having a pair of arms (near 31, 32) capable of supporting one of a front wheel or a rear wheel of the vehicle;
a second arm portion (2) provided to the carriage, the second arm portion having a pair of arms (near 21, 22 or 23, 24) capable of supporting the other of the front wheel or the rear wheel of the vehicle;
an acquisition unit that acquires size information of the vehicle (fig. 1 showing sensors 10, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49; para. 22, 30, 32 teaching various sensors for gathering vehicle size related information, such as laser range finder, ultrasonic telemetry sensors, force sensors, and short-range scanning laser telemetry sensors)
a distance adjusting device that adjusts a distance between the first arm portion and the second arm portion according to the acquired size information of the vehicle while the vehicle transport device is moving toward a location of the vehicle (Cf. fig. 2-5 showing vehicle transport device with carriage that enters underneath vehicle; para. 22, 30-36 teaching sensors providing real-time information while vehicle transport is in process of aligning vehicle with para. 35 expressly teaching that “arm (2) adjusts its length according to the length of the front overhang estimated by the ultrasonic range finders” and that the length of the rear arm is also adjusted based on sensor measurements).
Further, Applicant is respectfully reminded that claim language consisting of functional language and/or intended use phrasing is given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP 2111.04 (stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure), 2114 (stating that manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art). Here, the device cited above is certainly capable of (re: certain elements of claim 1) adjusting a distance before the carriage enters under a vehicle.
Boussard further teaches-
(re: certain elements claim 5) wherein the pair of arms of the first arm portion has a first arm and a second arm extending along a left-right direction of the carriage (near 31, 32),
wherein the pair of arms of the second arm portion has a third arm and a fourth arm (near 23, 24),
wherein the second arm, the third arm, and the fourth arm are each rotatable between a first position extending along a front-rear direction of the carriage and a second position extending along the left-right direction of the carriage (Cf. fig. 2 and 5; para. 34-36),
wherein the first arm, the second arm, the third arm, and the fourth arm are arranged along the front-rear direction in this order (Id.),
wherein the carriage enters under the vehicle from the fourth arm side with the second arm, the third arm, and the fourth arm in the first position, when the vehicle transport device arrives in front of or behind the vehicle (Id.),
wherein the third arm rotates to the second position and the carriage moves until the third arm hits the other wheel when the third arm enters between the front wheel and the rear wheel of the vehicle (Id.),
wherein the fourth arm rotates to the second position when the carriage stops, whereby the third arm and the fourth arm clamp the other wheel (Cf. fig. 2-5),
wherein the distance adjusting device moves the first arm portion toward the second arm until the first arm hits the one wheel, when the third arm and the fourth arm clamp the other wheel (Id. with para. 34-35 teaching adjusting length of arm portions and para. 36 teaching clamping of wheels with respective arms), and
wherein the second arm rotates to the second position when the first arm section stops, whereby the first arm and the second arm clamp the one wheel (Id.).
Boussard as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 2) a height adjusting device that adjusts a height of the carriage, wherein the height adjusting device lowers the carriage to a position where the carriage can enter under the vehicle while the vehicle transport device is moving toward the location of the vehicle;
(re: claim 3) wherein the height adjusting device starts an operation of lowering the carriage when an estimated time until the vehicle transport device arrives in front of or behind the vehicle becomes a time required for the operation of lowering the carriage;
(re: claim 4) wherein the distance adjusting device adjusts the distance between the first arm portion and the second arm portion to a distance obtained by adding a wheelbase of the vehicle to a predetermined length for fine adjustment;
(re: claim 6) a communication device that wirelessly receives a transport instruction from a management device, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the size information of the vehicle from the transport instruction received by the communication device.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, Boussard may be regarded as not teaching (re: certain elements of claim 1) adjusting a distance before the carriage enters under a vehicle.
Choi, however, teaches it is well-known in the vehicle transport arts
(re: claims 1 and 6):
to use a communication device to wirelessly receives a transport instruction from a management device related to size information to allow greater flexibility in operation—including the ability to sense size information and make distance adjustments before the adjustment element enters under a vehicle (fig. 1 and p. 13-17 teaching configuring control elements with wireless connections to allow the distance adjusting elements to operate more freely, wherein multiple sensing elements transmit vehicle information that allows the control elements to make fine control changes to the adjusting elements and verify vehicle measurements); and
(re: claims 4 and 5):
to use vehicle information, such as a wheelbase data, to make fine adjustments to front and rear transport elements to better secure the vehicle for transport (fig. 3 showing first 100 and second 600 arm portions set at wheelbase distance d1 and fig. 4 showing sensors verifying wheelbase measurements d2, d3; p. 13-17 teaching multiple sensor measurements, e.g., cameras, to verify wheelbase measurements and to make fine adjustment to arm elements that were initially set to conventional vehicle).
Re: claims 2 and 3:
Cord further teaches that it is well-known in the vehicle transport arts to integrate height adjusting elements to lift the carriage element relative to a front drive element, thus better preparing the vehicle for transport after the respective arms have immobilized the vehicle (fig. 1 near 132 and 211, 212; col. 4, ln. 60-65; col. 5, ln. 40-col. 6, ln. 15 teaching a front 132 and rear 211, 212 adjusting means capable of lowering the position of the carriage to enter under a vehicle during an estimated time the vehicle transport device is moving to arrive in front of vehicle).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above-- as Choi expressly teaches sensing wheelbase vehicle information to adjust the relative position of arm portions to better secure a vehicle for transport--and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., height adjusting elements) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Boussard for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach amended the claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejection set forth above. In particular, with respect to the limitation of the adjusting device configured to adjust in a specific timeframe, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions. See Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970). Further, Examiner seeks clarification on if Applicant is invoking “means-plus-function” 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the distance and height adjusting elements in the claims and the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, as it is unclear if Applicant is defining these elements to include control/communication elements that allow “adjusting” within a specific timeframe, or otherwise. In any case, the reformulated prior art rejection renders the amendments as obvious modifications as Choi expressly teaches wirelessly connected control and adjusting elements configured to control the adjusting elements in the claimed timeframe. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art renders Applicant claimed invention as obvious, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
June 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights