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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: link module in claim 1-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-2, 11-13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Birnschein et al. US 2018/0345971.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Birnschein discloses a vehicle (100) including a lifting device (106), the vehicle comprising: a skateboard (104A, 104B) constituting a lower portion of a vehicle body; a cabin (102) detachably coupled to the skateboard forming an internal space of the vehicle body; and a link module (106, scissor jack, ¶0033) coupled to the cabin and configured to lift the cabin from the ground.
As for claim 2, Birnschein discloses wherein the link module comprises a first link module (106) positioned on one side of the cabin and a second link module (106) positioned on an other side of the cabin (102, ¶0033).
As for claim 11, Birnschein discloses a vehicle (100) including a lifting device (106), the vehicle comprising: a vehicle body (102) including a cabin (102) having a boarding space and a skateboard (104A, 104B) coupled to the cabin, and configured to move the cabin; and a vehicle body height adjusting portion (106) configured to adjust a height of the vehicle body (¶0033).
As for claim 12, Birnschein discloses wherein the vehicle body height adjusting portion (106) is fixed to and supported by the cabin (102) to be in the same position as the skateboard (see Fig. 1).
As for claim 13, Birnschein discloses wherein the vehicle body height adjusting portion (106) is provided on a wheel base portion (see Fig. 1, 106 positioned on the wheel base portion curve).
As for claim 17, Birnschein discloses wherein the vehicle body height adjusting portion (106) is configured and capable of lifting the cabin (102) and the skateboard (104A, 104B) together (through coupling interface 500).
As for claim 18, Birnschein discloses wherein the cabin (102) includes a frunk (front space) and a trunk (back space), and the cabin (102) and the skateboard (104A, 104B) are coupled through the frunk and the trunk (coupled via 500, see Figs. 1 and 5).
As for claim 19, Birnschein discloses wherein the cabin (102) and the skateboard (104A, 104B) are detachably coupled (via 500, ¶0062-65), and the vehicle body height adjusting portion (106) lifts only the cabin in a state in which the cabin and the skateboard are separated (see Figs. 1-3).
As for claim 20, Birnschein discloses wherein while the vehicle body height adjusting portion (106) is lifting the cabin (102), the skateboard (104A, 104B) is movable between the vehicle body height adjusting portions (¶30033-36).
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) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birnschein et al. US 2018/0345971 in view of Torres WO 99/40262A1 and evidence by Orth US 4148461.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 4, Birnschein discloses all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the link module includes: a first link and a second link rotatably coupled to each other; a driving unit coupled to the first link and configured to lift the cabin; and a support portion coupled to the first link and the second link and supporting the cabin by contacting the ground when the cabin is lifted. However, the use of scissor jacks for various lifting applications is well known in the art as evidence by Torres who teaches a link module comprising a first link (28, 31) and a second link (28, 31) rotatably coupled to each other (via 30); a driving unit (46) coupled to the first link (at 36, 38 of 28 pg. 5) and configured to lift a platform (24); and a support portion (22) coupled to the first link (28) and the second link (28) and supporting the cabin by contacting the ground when the cabin is lifted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to substitute the scissor jack of Birnschein with the scissor jack as taught by Orth as an alternative scissor jack for lifting and lowering a cabin.
As for claim 5, Torres further teaches wherein one side of the second link (Torres, 28) is rotatably coupled (Torres, via 32) to the support (22) and an other side of the second link is supported by and slidably fixed (via 38 and 42) to the support portion (24), and one side of the first link (28) is rotatably coupled (via 36) to the driving unit (46) and an other side of the first link is rotatably coupled (via 34) to the support portion (24). Thus the modified Birnschein with the substituted scissor jack of Torres teaches the vehicle as claimed.
As for claim 6, the modified Birnschein teaches wherein a distance between a coupling position of the first link and the cabin and a coupling position of the support portion is equal to a distance between a coupling position of the second link and the driving unit and the coupling position of the support portion (see Torres, Fig. 1, X-scissor linkage).
As for claim 14, the modified Birnschein teaches wherein the vehicle body height adjusting portion includes: a link module including a first link (Torres, 28) and a second link (Torres, 28); a driving unit (Torres, 46) coupled to the second link and configured to lift the vehicle body; and a support portion (Birnschein, bottom foot of 106) coupled to the link module and configured to support the ground.
As for claim 15, the modified Birnschein teaches wherein the support portion further includes a shock absorbing portion (bottom of 106) on a lower surface. Birnschein does not specify the material of the foot but shock absorbing bases for engaging a ground is well known in the art as evidence by Orth who teaches a shock absorbing foot (18). It would have been obvious to modify the jack of Birnschein to include a shock absorbing foot as taught by Orth in order to prevent damage to the jack as it engages the ground.
As for claim 16, the modified Birnschein teaches wherein the support portion (bottom of 106) protrudes to an outside of the cabin (protrudes and/or extends from an outside of the cabin 102).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7-10 is/are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims in the application are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art. The claims recite the link module is configured to extend with an inclination to an outside of the cabin; an anti-distortion portion connecting a support portion of a first link module and a support portion of the second link module positioned on both sides of the cabin, and having a length configured to increase or decrease; a reinforcing portion positioned between the link module and the cabin, wherein the reinforcing portion includes a first bent portion and a second bent portion, wherein the first bent portion is positioned between a lower portion of the cabin and a side surface of the cabin, and the second bent portion surrounds the side surface of the cabin and is bent toward an outside of the cabin and wherein the second bent portion further includes a lubricating portion including grooves having a predetermined length in a lateral direction of the cabin. The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or suggest alone or in combination the claimed limitations and therefore the claimed limitations overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723