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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "175B" (Paragraph 0016) and "174B" (Paragraph 0017) have both been used to designate back powered wheels. The drawings do not contain a reference 175B. 175 is referred to a clusters.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “744” has been used to designate both a stator magnet and a rotor magnet in Paragraph 0031. It appears as though the second instance of 744 in Paragraph 0031 was meant to be 774 which would be consistent with Figure 8.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “710” has been used to designate both a bearing and a kingpin in Paragraph 0031. Additionally Paragraph 0019 refers to the bearing as reference 720.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 should read: A caster mount. Claims 2-9 should read: The caster mount. Claim 10 should read: An autonomous vehicle. Claim 11 should read: The autonomous vehicle. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 6 should read “wherein the magnetic poles of said rotary element and magnetic poles of said fixed element…” for the purpose of consistency because north magnetic poles have previously been introduced in claim 1 for the rotary element, but no magnetic poles have been previously recited for the fixed element.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites: “wherein said rotary element is oriented radially relative to said second part”. Additionally, claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites a second part comprising a rotary element. This renders claim 7 indefinite because it is unclear how the rotary element can be oriented radially relative to itself if it is or is part of the second part. The drawings do not differentiate between a second part and a rotary element.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11926175 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent contains every element recited in claims 1 and 2 of the instant application.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11926175 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the patent contains every element recited in claim 3 of the instant application.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11926175 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the patent contains every element recited in claim 4 of the instant application.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11926175 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the patent contains every element recited in claim 5 of the instant application.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11926175 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the patent contains every element recited in claim 6 of the instant application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11926175 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the patent contains every element recited in claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11926175 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the patent contains every element recited in claim 9 of the instant application.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster (US 7383611 B2).
In regards to claim 1: Foster teaches a caster mount (Shown generally in Figures 1 and 2) comprising: a first part (5) comprising a fixed element (21a and 21b); and a second part (3, 9, 15, and 17) rotatably mounted in said first part (See Figures 1 and 2 and Column 3 lines 57-63: “Support bracket 3 is formed with annular grooves 11, 13 to its opposite sides to receive respective sets of balls 15, 17 constituting bearing means of the castor assembly. One set of balls engage with the securing washer 9, whilst the other set engage with the under side of cap 5. Thus in the installed position the support bracket 3 is located rotatably between the cap and the securing washer.”) comprising a rotary element (23a and 23b); wherein said rotary element comprises a first magnet (23a) having a first north pole oriented outwardly (See annotated Figure 2) and a second magnet (23b)having a second north pole oriented inwardly (See annotated Figure 2), Column 4 lines 42-45: “Where this is not required, the components 21a, and 23a can be polarized in the opposite way to components 21b and 23b. Thus when component 23b approaches component 21a there will be repulsion.”). Examiner notes that Foster states: “In FIG. 2 the components 21a, 23a have been marked with the letters N and S to show as an example the polarization of the two components at that point.” However, Figure 2 of Foster does not have these labels. Additionally, as quoted above, Foster states that components 21a and 23a can be polarized in the opposite way to components 21b and 23b. Annotated Figure 2 is an example of the embodiment discussed, but not labeled, in Foster. If 23a and 23b are 180 degrees apart, and arranged with opposite polarizations as stated by Foster, then one will have a north pole facing inwardly relative to the wheel and mount and one will have a north pole facing outwardly relative to the wheel and mount in the linear direction shown in annotated Figure 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
379
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2: The caster mount of claim 1 is taught by Foster. Foster further teaches wherein a magnetic force between said first part and said second part increases with angular difference therebetween (Column 4 lines 33-35: “Thus the components 21 and 23 will be attracted to one another whenever their magnetic fluxes are sufficiently close to interact.”). Examiner notes that the magnetic flux does not necessarily increase as an angular difference increases, but the claim only requires that the flux increases with an angular difference. An angular difference decreasing is still an angular difference. Additionally, with the 360 degree rotation setup between the first and second parts in both the application and prior art, the claim does not require any particular point of reference from which the angular distance between the first and second parts is calculated or relative to.
In regards to claim 3: The caster mount of claim 1 is taught by Foster. Foster further teaches wherein said fixed element comprises a permanent magnet (21a and 21b, Column 4 lines 16-18: “In the embodiment of FIGS. 1 and 2, components 21 and 23 each comprise two pairs of permanent magnets 21a, 23a, 21b, 23b.”).
In regards to claim 6: The caster mount of claim 1 is taught by Foster. Foster further teaches wherein magnetic poles of said rotary element and said fixed element are axially aligned with an axis of said second part (See Figures 1 and 2 where the magnetic poles revolve around the vertical axis of the second part).
In regards to claim 7: The caster mount of claim 1 is taught by Foster. Foster further teaches wherein said rotary element is oriented radially relative to said second part (See Figures 1 and 2 where second parts and rotary elements are all radially aligned).
In regards to claim 9: The caster mount of claim 1 is taught by Foster. Foster further teaches wherein the first magnet is arranged on a sector (Right sector of 3 holding 23a in Figures 1 and 2) of the second part and the second magnet is arranged on a second sector (Left sector of 3 holding 23b in Figures 1 and 2) of the second part.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster.
In regards to claim 4: The caster mount of claim 1 is taught by Foster. The relied upon embodiment of Foster fails to teach an electro-magnet for the fixed element. However, an alternate embodiment of Foster teaches an electromagnet and the means to control it (Column 3 lines 22-24: “In another embodiment at least one of the magnets may be an electromagnet and means may be provided to selectively energize and de-energize it.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fixed magnet be an electromagnet that can be controlled selectively thereby allowing a more versatile caster mount that can be adjusted and turned on and off at will based on the needs of the user.
In regards to claim 5: The caster mount of claim 4 is taught by Foster and an alternate embodiment of Foster. The combination further teaches a controller configured to vary a voltage applied to said electro-magnet (Quote above: “means may be provided to selectively energize and de-energize it.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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. Claim 10 recites an autonomous vehicle with two controllers. One controller contained in a container base and one contained in a power base. The closest prior art found was Claretti (US 11059373 B1) which teaches a control system in the lower body/chassis of the autonomous vehicle, but fails to teach two separate controllers, one in the container base and one in the power base as required by the claim. Additionally, it would not be obvious and there is no motivation to modify Claretti in this way. Furthermore, claim 10 is not subject to a double patenting rejection because claims 10-19 of the patent, directed towards the autonomous vehicle, do not require the specifics of claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, regarding the magnetic poles and orientations. Claim 11 depends from claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL R HYMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0389. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/A.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights