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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "sensor" (claim 35) and the "biasing means" (claim 34) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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) 23-27, 32-35, 38, 40, 41, 42 & 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulze (DE 10 2014 017 255) (previously cited on Applicants 12/10/2025 IDS).
With respect to claims 23, 27, 38, 40, 41, 42 & 43, Schulze discloses a pair of transport apparatuses 18, 18 (FIG. 2), each comprising-
a lifting mechanism 50, 52, 54 configured for moving a lifting plate 28 between a lowered position and an elevated position in operational use; and
a steering mechanism comprising a pair of two-wheel assemblies 26/26, 26/26 at a mutual distance along a length of a chassis 24, wherein one wheel assembly 26/26 is operatively connected to a drive motor 40, 44, 46 for allowing steering of a transport apparatus; and
a control unit for controlling a drive motor and a lifting mechanism,
wherein a transport apparatus is configured to be movable into and through a cavity 14c (FIG. 2) in a load when a lifting plate is in a lowered position, and
wherein a lifting plate is movable relative to a chassis, wherein a lifting mechanism is connected to a lifting plate and to a chassis, and
wherein a lifting plate 28 covers a top side of a chassis 24 and encloses a portion of a chassis.
With respect to claim 24, Schulze discloses that both front and rear attached wheel assemblies 26/26, 26/26 are operatively connected to a drive motor and are pivotably connected to a chassis so as to pivot about vertical pivot axis 36.
With respect to claim 25, Schulze discloses that two wheel assemblies 26/26, 26/26 are operatively connected to a drive motor 44, 44 and are pivotably connected to a chassis for enhancing steering of a transport apparatus.
With respect to claim 26, Schulze discloses that two wheel assemblies 26/26, 26/26 are pivotable over at least 90 degrees about respective vertical axes 36, 36 to obtain movability and rotatability in a two-dimensional plane supporting the transport apparatus.
With respect to claim 32, Schulze discloses that a length of a chassis 24 is longer than a width of a chassis.
With respect to claim 33, Schulze discloses that a chassis comprises two lifting mechanisms 50/52/54, 50/52/54 connected to a lifting plate 28.
With respect to claim 34, Schulze discloses a tension spring 82, e.g. biasing means, extending between a portion of a chassis 24 and a lifting plate 28.
With respect to claim 35, Schulze discloses a sensor 71, 72.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 36, 37 & 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze in view of Bakker (US 2020/0172139).
With respect to claims 36 & 39, Schulze discloses that a pair of transport apparatus' are coordinated to simultaneously move a single palleted load as shown in FIGS. 1, 2 & 5. Schulze does not disclose explicitly disclose wireless communication with other transport apparatuses. Bakker discloses multiple transport apparatus' 100_1, 100_2, 100_3, 100_4 that are controlled by a "wireless communication module 130" to simultaneously move a single article as shown in FIG. 2. Bakker teaches that wireless communication between individual transport apparatuses working together to move a single article was needed to allow transport apparatuses to be more flexible in volume and shape of an article that is transported. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Schulze to include wireless communication with other transport apparatuses, as taught by Bakker, to improve flexibility in the volume and shape of articles moved simultaneously by multiple transport apparatuses.
With respect to claim 37, Schulze does not disclose external control. Bakker disclose external control comprising 3G positioning, WiFi network position or an IP address positioning as well as a global positioning system module as part of a positioning device 130. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Schulze to include an external control system, as taught by Baker, to improve flexibility in the volume and shape of articles moved simultaneously by multiple transport apparatuses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights