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 .
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 5-8 and 11-17 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 5 recites “the distance” and “the lower parking platform” which lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 7 recites “the distance” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 11 recites “it” in line 2, but it is not clear to which element the Applicant is referring.
Claim 12 recites “the parking platform arranged below the feeder platform”, “the distance”, and “the minimum distance” which lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 13 recites “the parking platform arranged below the feeder platform” and “the load” which lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 13 recites “it” in line 5, but it is not clear to which element the Applicant is referring.
Claim 14 recites “the parking platform arranged below the feeder platform” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 17 recites “it” in line 2, but it is not clear to which element the Applicant is referring.
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 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viapark Europa S R L (EP 1762674 A2), hereafter referred to as Viapark.
Consider claim 1. Viapark teaches a parking system comprising a first row of parking spaces (8) and a second row of parking spaces (7), wherein access to the first row takes place from an entrance at an entrance level (position of 17 in fig. 21), and wherein access to the second row takes place via a movable feeder platform (17) which bridges a parking space gap in the first row (gap to the left of 8 in figs. 12-24), wherein the feeder platform can be lifted via a lifting mechanism (11) from a lowered home position (position of fig. 19) into a crossing position at a passage level (position of fig. 23).
Consider claim 2. Viapark teaches that the feeder platform at the passage level forms a level passage to the second row (see fig. 23).
Consider claim 3. Viapark teaches that the lifting mechanism has a lift drive (drive of 11, see paragraph [0012]) which drives a lifting movement of a parking platform (16) arranged below the feeder platform (17), and the lifting mechanism has a carrier device (interface between 11 and 16) via which lifting movements of the parking platform arranged below the feeder platform act on the feeder platform.
Consider claim 9. Viapark teaches that the parking platform arranged below the feeder platform can be lifted by the lifting mechanism up to the passage level, wherein the feeder platform is also lifted beyond the passage level (see fig. 24).
Consider claim 10. Viapark teaches that the feeder platform is configured so as to be lowerable or attachable or fixable at the passage level (see fig. 23).
Consider claim 11. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above, Viapark teaches that it has a fixing device (central electronic control unit, see paragraph [0012]) which in controlled and/or switching fashion assumes either a first or a second state, wherein in the first state, the fixing device blocks a lowering of the feeder platform below the passage level and/or fixes the feeder platform at the passage level (see fig. 23), and in the second state of the fixing device, a lowering of the feeder platform below the passage level is permitted (see fig. 17).
Consider claim 12. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above, Viapark teaches that in the first state of the fixing device, the parking platform arranged below the feeder platform can be lowered so far that the distance between the parking platform arranged below the feeder platform and the feeder platform is greater than the minimum distance, wherein the feeder platform is fixed at the passage level (see fig. 23).
Consider claim 13. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above, Viapark teaches that if, in the first state of the fixing device, the feeder platform is held by the fixing device at the passage level, the parking platform arranged below the feeder platform can be lowered so far that it comes to rest and is relieved of the load of the feeder platform (see fig. 23).
Consider claim 14. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above, Viapark teaches that the parking platform arranged below the feeder platform can be lifted so far that the feeder platform is liftable beyond the passage level (see fig. 24), and can be lowered such that in the first state of the fixing device, the feeder platform is positionable at the passage level (see fig. 23).
Consider claim 15. Viapark teaches that the fixing device has at least one locking element via which, in the first state of the fixing device, the feeder platform is locked to a frame of the parking system (locked via 11).
Consider claim 16. Viapark teaches that the fixing device has a switching controller (central electronic control unit, see paragraph [0012]) which switches between the first and second state when the feeder platform exceeds a switching height which is higher than the passage level.
Consider claim 17. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above, Viapark teaches that it has at least one displaceable parking platform (10) in the first row of parking places which is mounted so as to be displaceable along the first row, wherein in the lowered home position of the feeder platform (10 disposed on elevator 11), the displaceable parking platform can move over the feeder platform, and wherein in the crossing position of the feeder platform, the displaceable parking platform cannot move over the feeder platform (10 disposed on one of the levels 6-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
There are no prior art rejections for claims 5-8.
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 parking structures having a elevator for vehicles.
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