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 4, 11, 12 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.
Each of claims 4, 11 and 12 include “an outer diameter of one of the front and
rear wheels is larger than an outer diameter of the other of the front and rear wheels.” This is unclear as it suggests (or at least includes the possibility) that one of the front wheels is a different size from the other front wheel (or the same with respect to rear wheels). As best understood (and consistent with the disclosure), the claim is intended to mean one of: the front wheels have a diameter larger than the rear wheels, or the rear wheels have a diameter larger than the front wheels, but the current claim language is not clear on this point.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN201823250U to Guangzhou Panyu Polytechnic (hereafter Guangzhou).
Regarding claim 1 Guangzhou discloses a collector comprising a main body (see figures 6-7 comprising: a travel device including front and rear wheels (6-1 and 43); an electric driving device to drive the travel device (39); a battery (26) to supply electric power to the driving device; a collection device (see figures 1-2) to pick up a collection target on a surface of ground; and a collection container (17) to accommodate the collection target, wherein at least part of the battery and at least part of the collection container are disposed between respective axles for the front and rear wheels (see figures 6-7), and respective positions of centers of gravity of the battery and the collection container are situated in an area defined between a first tangential line tangent to an upper portion of the front wheel and an upper portion of the rear wheel and a second tangential line tangent to a lower portion of the front wheel and a lower portion of the rear wheel (see figure 6-7 showing relative height of 26/17 relative to rear wheel).
Regarding claims 4 Guangzhou discloses an outer diameter of one of the front and rear wheels is larger than an outer diameter of the other of the front and rear wheels, and at least part of the battery is disposed in front of or behind an intermediate position between the respective axles for the front and rear wheels in a side view of the main body (see figure 6, rear wheels are larger than front wheels).
Regarding claims 5 Guangzhou discloses at least part of the battery is disposed in an area with a height less than or equal to a half of a maximum height of the main body in a side view of the main body (see figure 6, compare 26 with 45).
Regarding claims 6, 17 and 18 Guangzhou discloses wherein at least part of the battery and at least part of the collection container are disposed inside of right and left ends of the travel device in a lateral direction in a plan view of the main body (see figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 7 Guangzhou discloses at least part of the collection device is disposed between the respective axles for the front and rear wheels in a side view of the travel device (see figure 1, at least 6.2 and 7 meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 8 Guangzhou discloses at least part of the battery is disposed between the collection device and the axle for the rear wheel in a side view of the travel device (see 26 in figures 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 9 Guangzhou discloses the collection target includes a golf ball, and the collection device is configured to pick up the ball. It is noted that the golf ball is the article being handled and does not limit the device. See MPEP 2115. The Guangzhou would be capable of handling golf balls.
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) 2, 11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guangzhou in view of CN 103830890B to Sun.
Regarding claim 2 Guangzhou discloses all the limitations of the claim except at least part of the battery and at least part of the collection container are disposed so as to overlap with each other in a vertical direction.
Sun teaches a collector including at least part of the battery and at least part of the collection container are disposed so as to overlap with each other in a vertical direction (see figures 3 and 5 showing battery 27 nested into the bottom of the collection container 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claim to have modified Guangzhou, to include at least part of the battery and at least part of the collection container are disposed so as to overlap with each other in a vertical direction, as taught by Sun as doing so merely entails replacing one known arrangement of the battery with another to yield predictable results. See also MPEP 2144.04 V C. It is further noted that placing batteries closer to the ground is common in electric vehicles in order to lower the center of gravity and maximize stability.
Regarding claim 11 see discussion of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13 see discussion of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15 see discussion of claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 12, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guangzhou in view of US 2020/0086182 to New and CN 103830890B to Sun.
Regarding claim 3 Guangzhou discloses all the limitations of the claim except a bottom surface of the collection container is inclined such that one side of the bottom surface is lower than the other side of the bottom surface in a longitudinal direction, and at least part of the battery is disposed above or below an area on the one side of the bottom surface of the collection container.
New teaches a collector including a bottom surface of the collection container is inclined such that one side of the bottom surface is lower than the other side of the bottom surface in a longitudinal direction (see 14 and para 0022) in order to funnel collected items to an outlet (para 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claim to have modified Guangzhou, to include a bottom surface of the collection container is inclined such that one side of the bottom surface is lower than the other side of the bottom surface in a longitudinal direction, as taught by New, in order to funnel collected items to an outlet.
Neither Guangzhou or Sun disclose at least part of the battery is disposed above or below an area on the one side of the bottom surface of the collection container.
Sun teaches a collector including at least part of the battery is disposed above or below an area on the one side of the bottom surface of the collection container (see figures 3 and 5 showing battery 27 nested into the bottom of the collection container 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claim to have modified Guangzhou and New, to include at least part of the battery and at least part of the collection container are disposed so as to overlap with each other in a vertical direction, as taught by Sun as doing so merely entails replacing one known arrangement of the battery with another to yield predictable results. See also MPEP 2144.04 V C. It is further noted that placing batteries closer to the ground is common in electric vehicles in order to lower the center of gravity and maximize stability.
Regarding claim 10 see discussion of claims 2 and 3 above.
Regarding claim 12 see discussion of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 14 see discussion of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 16 see discussion of claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other collectors with similar features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652