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 § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (EP 2190714 B1 from IDS) in view of Anders (CH 365332 A).
Regarding claim 1, Weber teaches a transporter system (Fig. 1, elements 1 and 1’) comprising:
a top wall (Fig. 1, elements 2);
a pair of drive trucks (see attached annotated Fig. 2) supporting the top wall and positioned toward opposite ends of the top wall (it can be seen in fig. 2), wherein each drive truck includes a pair of drive wheels (Fig. 2, elements 6, 7 and 8, 9) and a lift device positioned (it can be seen in Fig. 3 and 4) and actuatable to move the top wall between a first position (it can be seen in Fig.3) and a second position that is higher than the first position (it can be seen in Fig.4).
Weber does not explicitly teach one or more outrigger assemblies movable to contact a support surface when the top wall is in the first position, and to be spaced apart from the support surface when the top wall is in the second position.
Anders teaches one or more outrigger assemblies (see attached annotated fig.1) movable to contact a support surface when the top wall is in the first position (it can be seen in fig.1), and to be spaced apart from the support surface when the top wall is in the second position (it can be seen in fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Weber by incorporating one or more outrigger assemblies movable to contact a support surface when the top wall is in the first position, and to be spaced apart from the support surface when the top wall is in the second position in view of Anders in order to provide support to the transporter while it is not carrying load (as per fig. 1 and page 3, lines 8-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
662
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, combination of Weber and Anders teaches all the limitation of the claim 1 except for the one or more outrigger assemblies are positionable between the drive trucks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber and Anders by rearranging the one or more outrigger assemblies are positionable between the drive trucks in order to provide support to transporter while it is not carrying load (as per fig. 1 and page 3, lines 8-10), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP section 2144. VI section C.
Regarding claim 3, combination of Weber and Anders teaches all the limitation of the claim 1. Weber does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the one or more outrigger assemblies comprises: a first arm carrying a first movable surface contact portion for contacting the support surface; and a second arm carrying a second movable surface contact portion for contacting the support surface, wherein the second arm is movably connected to the first arm at a joint.
Anders teaches wherein at least one of the one or more outrigger assemblies (see attached annotated fig) comprises:
a first arm carrying a first movable surface contact portion for contacting the support surface (see attached annotated fig); and
a second arm carrying a second movable surface contact portion for contacting the support surface (see attached annotated fig), wherein the second arm is movably connected to the first arm at a joint (see attached annotated fig).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Weber by incorporating at least one of the one or more outrigger assemblies comprises: a first arm carrying a first movable surface contact portion for contacting the support surface; and a second arm carrying a second movable surface contact portion for contacting the support surface, wherein the second arm is movably connected to the first arm at a joint in view of Anders in order to provide support to the transporter while it is not carrying load (as per fig. 1 and page 3, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 4, combination of Weber and Anders teaches all the limitation of the claim 3. Weber teaches top wall (Fig. 1, element 2); however, Weber does not explicitly teach a specific arrangement of arms as one or more damping devices connecting each of the first arm and the second arm to the top wall.
Anders teaches one or more damping devices (Fig.1, element 17) connecting each of the first arm and the second arm (see attached annotated fig.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Weber’s top wall by incorporating one or more damping devices connecting each of the first arm and the second arm in view of Anders in order to achieve relative movement of the lifting body (page 3, lines 15-16).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Weber and Anders teaches all the limitation of the claim 1. Weber also teaches at least one sidewall connected to the top wall (it can be seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Weber teaches a method of moving a load, the method comprising:
(a) positioning a plurality of separate transporters (Fig. 1, elements 1and 1’) under the load, wherein positioning the transporters comprises operating one or more drive motors (Fig.2, elements 10, 11, 12, 13) to drive one or more drive wheels (Fig.2, elements 6,7,8, 9) of each of the transporters (1, 1’);
(b) raising a body of each transporter to contact and lift the load (it can be seen in fig. 4), wherein raising each body comprises operating a lifting device (15) attached to each body (it can be seen in fig. 3 and 4);
(d) operating the one or more drive motors to drive the one or more drive wheels to move the load along the surface (¶0019, lines 21-22); and
(e) lowering the bodies to lower the load until the load is supported on the surface (it can be seen in fig. 3). Weber does not explicitly teach (c) lifting one or more outrigger assemblies away from a surface, wherein at least one of the bodies carries each of the one or more outrigger assemblies. Anders teaches (c) lifting one or more outrigger assemblies (see attached annotated fig.) away from a surface (it can be seen in Fig.2), wherein at least one of the bodies carries each of the one or more outrigger assemblies (it can be seen in fig. 1 and 2);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Weber by incorporating (c) lifting one or more outrigger assemblies away from a surface, wherein at least one of the bodies carries each of the one or more outrigger assemblies in view of Anders in order to transfer the load pressure to the lifting device (page 4, lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 18, Weber teaches operating the one or more drive motors (elements 10-13) comprises operating the one or more drive motors to steer the transporters (elements 1, 1’) by at least one of:
(a) moving a first wheel in a first direction about an axis, and moving a second wheel in a second direction about the axis, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction (¶0021, lines 18-20); or
(b) moving a first wheel at a first speed, and moving a second wheel at a second speed that is different from the first speed (¶0021, lines 18-20).
13. Regarding claim 19, Weber does not explicitly teach lifting the one or more outrigger assemblies comprises lifting each of the outrigger assemblies by a distance greater than a maximum travel distance of the outrigger assemblies.
Anders teaches lifting the one or more outrigger assemblies comprises lifting each of the outrigger assemblies (see Fig. 2) by a distance greater than a maximum travel distance of the outrigger assemblies (it can be seen in fig. 2, the lifting distance of 13 is greater than travel distance of the 14 and 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Weber by incorporating lifting the one or more outrigger assemblies comprises lifting each of the outrigger assemblies by a distance greater than a maximum travel distance of the outrigger assemblies in view of Anders in order to transfer the load pressure to the lifting device (page 4, lines 7-9).
Regrading claim 20, Weber does not explicitly teach lifting the one or more outrigger assemblies comprises: supporting the one or more outrigger assemblies on one or more damping devices having a maximum travel length; and separating the one or more outrigger assemblies from the surface when the one or more damping devices reach the maximum travel length.
Anders teaches lifting the one or more outrigger assemblies (see above attached annotated fig.) comprises: supporting the one or more outrigger assemblies on one or more damping devices (17) having a maximum travel length (it can be seen in fig. 1 and 2 the difference of height of 14 and 15 between fig. 1and 2 is a maximum travel length of 17); and separating the one or more outrigger assemblies from the surface when the one or more damping devices reach the maximum travel length (it can be seen in fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Weber by incorporating lifting the one or more outrigger assemblies comprises: supporting the one or more outrigger assemblies on one or more damping devices having a maximum travel length; and separating the one or more outrigger assemblies from the surface when the one or more damping devices reach the maximum travel length in view of Anders in order to transfer the load pressure to the lifting device (page 4, lines 7-9).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (EP 2190714 B1 from IDS) in view of Anders (CH 365332 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paschall et al. (US 12122652 B1).
Regarding claim 5, combination of Weber and Anders teaches all the limitation of the claim 1. Anders teaches each of the first movable surface contact portion and the second movable surface contact portion (see attached annotated fig.), combination of Weber and Anders do not explicitly teach each of the first movable surface contact portion and the second movable surface contact portion (see attached annotated fig.) includes a caster.
Paschall et al. teaches each of the first movable surface contact portion and the second movable surface contact portion (it can be seen in fig. 1B) includes a caster (Fig. 1B, element 116, column 5 lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber and Anders by incorporating a caster in view of Paschall et al. in order to achieve unidirectional steering of the transporter.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (EP 2190714 B1 from IDS) in view of Anders (CH 365332 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terry (US 5379842 A).
Regarding claim 7, combination of Weber and Anders teaches all the limitation of the claim 1. Weber teaches drive wheels and drive trucks (see rejection of claim 1), Weber does not explicitly teach the drive wheels of at least one of the drive trucks are pivotable about a pivot axis to tilt drive axles of the drive wheels relative to the support surface.
Terry teaches the drive wheels (Fig. 4, element 34) of at least one of the drive trucks are pivotable about a pivot axis (Fig.4, element 42) to tilt drive axles of the drive wheels relative to the support surface (it can be seen in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber (Weber’s drive wheels of drive truck) and Anders by incorporating the drive wheels of at least one of the drive trucks are pivotable about a pivot axis to tilt drive axles of the drive wheels relative to the support surface in view of Terry in order to maintain a load in under uniform position by absorbing irregularities of support surface (column 1, lines 8-12).
Claim(s) 8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (EP 2190714 B1 from IDS) in view of Terry (US 5379842 A).
Regarding claim 8, Weber teaches a transporter system (Fig.1, elements 1 and 1’), comprising:
a body (see above attached annotated fig.); and
a plurality of drive trucks attachable to the body (see above attached annotated fig.);
wherein at least one of the drive trucks (It can be seen in see Fig. 2) comprises:
a first drive wheel (Fig. 2, element 6); a first drive motor (Fig. 2, elements 10) operatively connected to the first drive wheel for driving the first drive wheel (¶0019, lines 21-22);
a second drive wheel (Fig. 2, element 7);
a second drive motor (Fig. 2, element 11) operatively connected to the second drive wheel for driving the second drive wheel (¶0019, lines 21-22); and
a lift device (Fig.3, 15, ¶0020, line 40) actuatable to move the body away from a surface (it can be seen in Fig. 3 and 4);
Weber does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second drive wheels are pivotable about a pivot axis extending transversely to drive axes of the first and second drive wheels to tilt the drive axes relative to a support surface.
Terry teaches wherein the first and second drive wheels (Fig.4, element 34) are pivotable about a pivot axis extending transversely to drive axes of the first and second drive wheels to tilt the drive axes relative to a support surface (it can be seen in Fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber’s drive wheels of drive truck by incorporating the first and second drive wheels are pivotable about a pivot axis extending transversely to drive axes of the first and second drive wheels to tilt the drive axes relative to a support surface in view of Terry in order to maintain a load in under uniform position by absorbing irregularities of support surface (column 1, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 14, Weber teaches further comprising a wireless controller configured to control (¶0018, lines 1-2) the first drive motor, the second drive motor, and the lift device (¶0007, lines 2-3).
Claim(s) 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (EP 2190714 B1 from IDS) in view of Terry (US 5379842 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Anders (CH 365332 A).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Weber and Terry teaches all the limitations of claim 8. combination of Weber and Terry does not explicitly teach one or more outrigger assemblies carried by the body and positionable to contact the support surface when the body is in a first position, and positionable to separate from the support surface when the body is in a second position that is higher than the first position.
Anders teaches one or more outrigger assemblies carried by the body and positionable to contact the support surface when the body is in a first position (see above attached annotated fig.), and
positionable to separate from the support surface when the body is in a second position (it can be seen in Fig.2) that is higher than the first position (see above attached annotated fig.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber and Terry by incorporating one or more outrigger assemblies carried by the body and positionable to contact the support surface when the body is in a first position, and positionable to separate from the support surface when the body is in a second position that is higher than the first position in view of Anders in order to provide support to the transporter while it is not carrying load (as per fig. 1 and page 3, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Weber and Terry does not explicitly teach at least one of the outrigger assemblies comprises: an arm carrying a movable surface contact portion for contacting the support surface; and one or more damping devices connecting the arm to the body.
Anders teaches at least one of the outrigger assemblies comprises (see above attached annotated fig.): an arm carrying a movable surface contact portion for contacting the support surface (see above attached annotated fig.); and one or more damping devices (17) connecting the arm to the body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber and Terry by incorporating an arm carrying a movable surface contact portion for contacting the support surface; and one or more damping devices connecting the arm to the body in view of Anders in order to achieve proper steering and relative movement of the lifting body (lines 15-16).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Weber and Terry does not explicitly teach at least one of the one or more damping devices has a maximum travel length that is less than a distance between the first position and the second position.
Anders teaches at least one of the one or more damping devices (17) has a maximum travel length that is less than a distance between the first position and the second position (it can be seen in Fig. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber and Terry by incorporating at least one of the one or more damping devices has a maximum travel length that is less than a distance between the first position and the second position in view of Anders in order to provide support to the transporter while it is not carrying load (as per fig. 1 and page 3, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 13, combination of Weber and Terry does not explicitly teach wherein the arm is a first arm, and wherein at least one of the outrigger assemblies comprises a second arm carrying a second movable surface contact portion, wherein the second arm is pivotably connected to the first arm.
Anders teaches wherein the arm is a first arm, and wherein at least one of the outrigger assemblies comprises a second arm carrying a second movable surface contact portion, wherein the second arm is pivotably connected to the first arm (it can be seen in above attached annotated fig.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber and Terry by incorporating the arm is a first arm, and wherein at least one of the outrigger assemblies comprises a second arm carrying a second movable surface contact portion, wherein the second arm is pivotably connected to the first arm in view of Anders in order to provide support to the transporter while it is not carrying load (as per fig. 1 and page 3, lines 8-10).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (EP 2190714 B1 from IDS) in view of Terry (US 5379842 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Anders (CH 365332 A) and further in view of Paschall et al. (US 12122652 B1).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Weber, Terry and Anders teaches the movable surface contact portion (see above attached annotated fig. of Anders), but fails to teach a caster.
Paschall et al. teaches a caster (Fig. 1B, element 116)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber, Terry and Anders by incorporating a caster in view of Paschall et al. in order to achieve unidirectional steering of the transporter.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (EP 2190714 B1 from IDS) in view of Terry (US 5379842 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Haug Hans (EP 3205620 A1, from IDS).
Regrading claim 15, combination of Weber and Terry teaches all the limitations of claim 8. Weber also teaches the body comprises a top wall (2, it can be seen in Fig. 3 and 4, and one or more sidewalls (It can be seen in Fig. 3 and 4) to at least partially enclose the drive trucks.
Weber does not explicitly teach one or more end walls.
Haug teaches one or more end walls it (can be seen in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber and Terry by incorporating one or more end walls in view of Haug in order to provide enclosed case (as it can be seen in Fig.1 of Haug) to protect the drive elements from environmental dust.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (EP 2190714 B1 from IDS) in view of Terry (US 5379842 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Paschall et al. (US 12122652 B1).
Regarding claim 16, combination of Weber and Terry teaches all the limitations of claim 8. Weber also teaches the lift device (Fig. 3, element 15). It does not explicitly teach the lift device comprises a hydraulic jack.
Paschall et al. teaches the lift device comprises a hydraulic jack (column 5, lines 41-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Weber (Weber’s lift device 15) and Terry by incorporating the lift device comprises a hydraulic jack in view of Paschall et al. in order to achieve raise and lower the body of the transporter (column 5, line 46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other cited prior art on PTO 892 form shows other transporter system. Specially, Vathne et al. (US 20250187888 A1) teaches a transporter as which comprise a plurality of drive trucks, drive wheels, individual drive motor, top wall, side wall, end wall, wireless communication as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 517-272-7097. 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.
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights