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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7-26 under 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation and embodiment of the closest related prior art, a new rejection is presented below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wherein all axle assemblies are designed to be height adjustable relative to the common carrier”; “designed to be” may be interpreted as intended use rather than a positive structural limitation, examiner suggests a change to “configured to be” which more clearly ties the limitation to structure. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-5, 7-26 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim introduces “each of the drivable axle assemblies” in line 9-10 , and “all axle assemblies” in line 16. This is indefinite because the scope of these two limitations is unclear relative to the earlier recitation of “at least one pair of independently drivable axle assemblies” in line 2. It is unclear whether additional axle assemblies are included and whether the height adjustable limitation applies to all such assemblies. Claims 2-5, and 7-26 are included due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "all components" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berzen Ratzel (US 20150125252).
In regards to claim 1, Berzen Ratzel discloses a transport module vehicle (see fig. 4, network of crawlers 10), comprising: at least one pair of independently drivable axle assemblies (axle assemblies 12 of the crawlers 10), which are arranged on a common carrier (42,44) with mutually aligned axes and are pivotally fixed relative to the common carrier with respect to a pivoting movement about an axis running in a height direction of the common carrier (see fig. 4, the para. 0075-76, pivotally fixed with the swivel movements of a ball and socket connection between hoist cylinders 18 of the crawlers 10), a load-bearing unit (20) with a load-bearing surface (top surface), wherein the common carrier (42,44) is connected to the load-bearing unit (20) so as to be able to rotate about a rotation axis (Y) extending orthogonally to the load-bearing surface (load bearing unit 20 performs a rotational or swivel movement)(see para. 0065 - 0067, and 0074-0076), a control device (30) which is designed and intended to control at least one drive unit of each of the drivable axle assemblies (drive units 12a, 12b, see para. 0075), and a communication device (38, data interface) which is designed and intended for two-way communication with at least one further, substantially identical heavy-duty transport module vehicle and/or a superordinate external control (see para. 0030-0032, and 0036), wherein the communication device (38) is further designed and intended for two-way data exchange with the control device (38, communication device transmits and receives data), and wherein axle assemblies (12a, 12b on crawlers 10) are designed to be height-adjustable relative to the common carrier (see hoist cylinder 18, adjusting the height of the load bearing unit relative to the wheels, see para. 0013, see fig.4 demonstrating at least one of the axle assemblies adjusted relative to the wheels, crawlers 10). Examiner notes, for evidentiary purposes only Molitor WO-2011128101-A1 teaches drive wheels (6) on a similar transport module vehicle (1)(see fig. 5, 8, 9). The drivable axle assemblies (wheels 6 on the axle 9) are arranged on a common carrier (2) to be height adjustable relative to the common carrier (see fig. 5, hydraulic cylinder 11 or another lifting device where upward or downward movement is hydraulically affected) and teaches it is advantageous to have such adjustment for when the vehicle is moved with a high load even on an uneven ground.
In regards to claim 8, Berzen Ratzel discloses that it furthermore comprises at least one battery pack , arranged substantially entirely within a contour of the common carrier (see para. 0033, drive units driven by electric motor which would need a battery pack and arranged on the crawlers).
In regards to claim 9, Berzen Ratzel discloses wherein the control device (30) can be switched between an individual mode and a collective mode (see para. 0036, para. 0071-79).
In regards to claim 10, Berzen Ratzel discloses wherein the control device (30) is designed and intended to synchronize the heavy-duty transport module vehicle (10) with other heavy-duty transport module vehicles in a synchronization phase after switching to the collective mode (see para. 0036, the network of crawlers moving together through coordinated activation of the chain drive units, see fig. 4, 10, 11, para. 0071-79) .
In regards to claim 11, Berzen Ratzel discloses an environment detection unit (sensor data) is assigned to the control device (30), which is designed and intended to detect a distance and/or a direction and/or to detect an identification of at least one further heavy-duty transport module vehicle (see para. 0030, sensors for determining the respective driving position, see para. 71-79).
In regards to claim 12, Berzen Ratzel discloses the communication device (38) is designed and intended to receive environmental detection data (via the sensors, see para. 0030) from other heavy-duty transport module vehicles and to forward the detection data to the control device (30) (see para. 0032, 0074-79).
In regards to claim 13, Berzen Ratzel discloses a position detection unit (sensor for detecting driving position) is furthermore assigned to the control device (30), which is designed and intended to detect the absolute position of the heavy-duty transport module vehicle and/or the plurality of heavy-duty transport module vehicles orientation in space (see para. 0030).
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.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berzen Ratzel (US 20150125252) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Markel (US 9845110).
In regards to claim 7, Berzen Ratzel teaches wherein the load bearing unit is connected to the common carrier with a ball and socket connection that enables a swivel movement but fails to explicitly teach a slewing ring, a diameter of which is at least 25% of a maximum external dimension of the heavy-duty transport module vehicle determined in the load-bearing state in the horizontal direction. Markel teaches a load bearing unit (frame not shown) of a heavy duty vehicle (10) where the load bearing unit (frame not shown) is connected to a carrier (fig.1 see wheel assembly 14,16, 18, 20, 22, 24 fig.4) via a slewing ring (48, see fig.5), a rolling element slewing ring see col.8 lines 56-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified Berzen Ratzel to include a slewing ring as a rotary manifold, with a reasonable expectation of success. Markel teaches this rotary element (the slewing ring) allows for a simpler structure and therefore less expensive to produce and less susceptible to soiling for heavy duty demands. Although neither Berzen Ratzel and Markel teach the diameter d being at least 25% of a maximum external dimension, absent criticality or unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make different portions of the diameter to whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berzen Ratzel (US 20150125252) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Molitor (WO 2011128101)
In regards to claim 14, Berzen Ratzel teaches all components are arranged in various shapes, see square/rectangular fig. 10 and triangular in fig. 5b but does not explicitly teach wherein all components are in plan view arranged within a substantially circular contour and thereby fails to teach explicitly wherein the diameter (D6) of the circular contour which is at most 300 cm.
Molitor teaches a similar transport vehicle (1, fig.1, fig.3) that utilizes independent drivable axle assemblies (4,6) arranged on a common carrier (2) similar to Berzen Ratzel for transportation, wherein all the components are arranged in a substantially circular contour, see fig. 1, for better turning of the vehicle, see translation provided as NPL. Furthermore, absent criticality or unexpected results the diameter is a design optimization of a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the diameter be at most 300 cm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). This size modification would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for different use limits, such as fitting into standard driving lanes, packages, ISO containers, or other clearances.
Claims 15-21, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berzen Ratzel (US 20150125252) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Westerdale (US 4992013).
In regards to claim 15,Berzen Ratzel teach a plurality of heavy-duty transport module vehicles (10) but fails to teach a transport vehicle for a plurality of heavy-duty transport module vehicle, which has a container for each of the heavy-duty transport module vehicle of the plurality of heavy-duty transport module vehicles. Westerdale teaches a trailer (10) for transporting a plurality of vehicles (see fig.2) similar to Berzen and Ratzel, which has a container (between ceiling, floor, track and framework 14) for each of the heavy duty transport module vehicles (vehicles). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Berzen Ratzel before the effective filing date, in view of Westerdale so as to utilize a trailer with optimized configuration of hauling multiple vehicles.
In regards to claim 16, Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale teach in combination wherein two containers of the plurality of heavy duty transport module vehicles are arranged above one another in the height direction (see fig.2, Westerdale, stacked vehicles).
In regards to claim 17, Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale teach in combination wherein the transport vehicle (trailer 10) comprises at least one lifting device (actuator 30) to lift a heavy duty transport vehicle (see fig.1,2) arranged in a lowest container into the one or more upper container (see Westerdale, col. 3 lines 10-4 line 17).
In regards to claim 18, Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale teach in combination wherein at least one container is assigned at least one securing element (46) which is designed and intended to secure a heavy-duty transport module vehicle arranged in the respective container of the at least one container (see fig.1, and 2).
In regards to claim 19, Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale teach in combination wherein at least one receiving section of the transport vehicle accommodating the containers can be lowered onto the ground ( see Westerdale, fig.1, 46 is lowered onto the ground to receiving containers, lowered into the lowermost position with actuator 30).
In regards to claim 20,Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale teach in combination wherein the lowermost container (see Westerdale, fig.2, bottom left container), has a lateral opening (pivoting door 18) with respect to the direction of travel of the transport vehicle (10) which is dimensioned such that it enables a heavy duty transport vehicle (vehicle see figures) to move through this opening into or out of the container.
In regards to claim 21, Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale teach in combination wherein at least two containers (see 6 containers in Westerdale for vehicular cargo) are arranged behind one another in the longitudinal direction of the transport vehicle (10).
In regards to claim 23, Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale teach in combination wherein the transport vehicle (see Westerdale, 10) as a trailer vehicle (trailer 10) which can be brought into towing connection (20) with a towing vehicle not belonging to the transport vehicle (motorized tractor unit).
In regards to claim 25, Berzen Ratzel fails to teach a receiving section for a plurality of heavy-duty transport module vehicles according to claim 1 (see above), which has a container for each of the heavy duty transport module vehicles. Receiving sections for containers are common and well known, particularly, Westerdale teaches a receiving section (10) for a plurality of heavy duty transport module vehicles (cargo, see vehicles fig. 2) which has a container for each of the heavy duty transport modules (see sections by the frames 14, and 46 for each vehicle fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Berzen Ratzel, with means of bulk shipping or transportation, as Westerdale has taught, with a reasonable expectation of success so as to utilize a trailer with optimized configuration for hauling multiple vehicles.
In regards to claim 26, Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale teaches wherein a container for each of the heavy duty transport module vehicles (vehicles, cargo 10) wherein at least two of the containers are arranged above one another in the height direction (see fig.2).
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berzen Ratzel, and Westerdale as applied to claims above, and further in view of Petzitillo (US 6309153).
In regards to claim 22, Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale fails to teach in combination wherein at least a receiving section (opening 18 and receiving section 46) of the transport vehicle (10, see Westerdale) accommodating the containers (cargo) does not exceed the dimensions of ISO containers. However, Petzitillo teaches trailers dimensioned specifically for carrying intermodal containers according to their standard sizes. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale in view of Petzitillo, to design the trailer to match standard container sizes for seamless handling, stacking, and traveling logistics. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to ensure the accommodating size does not exceed the dimensions of ISO containers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berzen Ratzel, and Westerdale as applied to claims above, and further in view of Salter (US 20230219440).
In regards to claim 24, Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale fail to teach wherein the heavy-duty transport vehicle comprises a power supply unit for charging the battery packs of the heavy-duty transport module vehicles. However, electric cargo often requires charging in transit, Salter teaches a charging trailer comprising a power supply unit (rechargeable battery pack) for charging other batteries of other equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Berzen Ratzel and Westerdale further in view of Salter in order to equip the trailer with means for charging its cargo, such a modification allows for technical advantages of providing means for charging cargo during downtime or transportation, a predictable use of known charging systems.
Claims 1-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanton (US 20130292199) and further in view of Vorwerk (English Translation provided) (EP 2062837) and Molitor (WO 2011128101)(NPL English translation provided).
In regards to claim 1, Blanton discloses a heavy-duty transport module vehicle (10), comprising: at least one pair of independently drivable axle assemblies (220, 240, para. 0085), which are arranged on a common carrier (1000) with mutually aligned axes (400) and are pivotally fixed relative to the common carrier (1000) with respect to a pivoting movement about an axis running in a height direction of the common carrier (see fig.1-7), a load-bearing unit (3000) with a load-bearing surface (3010)(see fig.1, fig. 4B, para 0063), wherein the carrier (1000) is connected to the load-bearing unit (3000) so as to be able to rotate about a rotation axis (center) extending orthogonally to the load-bearing surface (3000), a control device (see para.008, the transports are controlled) which is designed and intended to control at least one drive unit of each of the drivable axle assemblies (220, 240).
Blanton fails to disclose a communication device which is designed and intended for two-way communication with at least one further, substantially identical heavy-duty transport module vehicle and/or a superordinate external control, wherein the communication device is further designed and intended for two-way data exchange with the control device. And wherein all axle assemblies are designed to be height adjustable relative to the common carrier.
Molitor teaches a heavy-duty transport vehicle similar to Blanton, wherein at least one pair of independently drivable axle assemblies arranged on a common carrier is designed to be height adjustable relative to the common carrier. See at least the pair of axle assemblies 8, fig. 1, with height adjustable means fig. 5-9. So that the load can be supported evenly over the wheels of the wheelset for uneven terrain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the axle assemblies of Blanton in view of the improvement technique Molitor teaches with the height adjustable means so as to allow for even travel on bumpy terrain, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, Vorwerk teaches a system of autonomous operating transport units, similar to the heavy duty transport module vehicle (10) with a communication device (communication unit) which is designed and intended for two way communication with at least one transport vehicle or and external control wherein the communication device is further designed and intended for two way exchange with the control device (communication with the control center 12 and at least two other transport units). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Blanton in view of Vorwerk with the inclusion of a communication device, with a reasonable expectation of success, so as to provide remote communication capability. Vorwerk teaches such a device provides the benefit of real-time communication between two parties (controllers, other transports, etc.) for remote monitoring resulting in increased safety, convenience, and operational efficiency.
In regards to claim 2, Blanton, Molitor and Vorwerk in combination teach wherein a further axle assembly (250) is provided, which is arranged on the carrier (1000) so as to be able to pivot about a pivot axis running in the height direction of the carrier (see fig.2A, Blanton, and see fig. 3 Vorwerk with a further axle 24).
In regards to claim 3, Blanton, Molitor and Vorwerk in combination teach the drivable axle assemblies (Blanton 220,240) on the one hand and the further axle assembly (250) on the other hand are arranged on opposite sides of a plane which firstly runs parallel to the axes of the drivable axle assemblies (240, 220),secondly runs in the height direction of the carrier (1000), and thirdly passes through the center of gravity of the heavy load transport module vehicle (10) (see fig.2A, Blanton, and Fig.3 Vorwerk).
In regards to claim 4, Blanton, Molitor and Vorwerk in combination teach wherein the further axle assembly (250,castor wheel with no drive unit) is a non-drivable axle assembly.
In regards to claim 5, Blanton, Molitor and Vorwerk in combination teach the wheel and wheels (251, 252) of the further axle assembly (250) has and have, respectively, a smaller diameter than the wheels (224, 244) of the driven axle assemblies (drive unit 220,240). Although Blanton does not explicitly teach the diameter of the castor wheel (251, 252) is smaller than the wheels of the drive unit, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art in view of the figures 1 and 2A where it is clear the wheels are much smaller. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 14, Blanton, Molitor and Vorwerk teach wherein all components in plan view are arranged within a substantially circular contour (see fig.1, Blanton), Blanton in view of Vorwerk fail to teach explicitly wherein the diameter (D6) which is at most 300 cm. Absent criticality or unexpected results the diameter is a design optimization of a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the diameter D6 be at most 300 cm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). This size modification would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for different use limits, such as fitting into standard driving lanes, packages, ISO containers, or other clearances.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892 provides a list of relevant prior art that teach a heavy duty transport module vehicle and transport vehicles similar to that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614