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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 2-5, 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the carrier unit" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes this should be changed to “the common carrier”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Blanton, Vorwerk, and Molitor fail to teach or suggest that each independently drivable axle assembly is configured to be height adjustable relative to the common carrier, because a skilled person would have no motivation to modify Blanton’s drive unit 220 and brake unit 240 to be height adjustable per Molitor’s teaching, since Blanton’s caster wheels 150, 250 (which are not part of the independently drivable axle assemblies) do not support comparably height adjustability resulting in misalignment and instability. This is not persuasive. Applicant argues that Blanton’s castor supporting member 250 is a fixed, retained features that would misalign if the driven axle assemblies were made height adjustable. However, Blanton states the brake unit 240 and the at least one supporting member 250 may be omitted entirely (para. 0038). A person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Molitor’s teaching is not constrained to retain a nonadjustable castor support, Blanton teaches that this element can be omitted or in the alternative embodiment Para. 0085, replaced by a second independently drivable unit. The alleged instability does not arise. Additionally, being bodily incorporated is not required. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983) make clear that obviousness does not require that Molitor’s height adjustment mechanism be bodily incorporated into Blanton’s castor mount, only that the combined teachings would have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. Height adjustable wheel/wheelsets structures are old and well known see here included by way of example, US 3246906 and DE 3615118. Height adjustable wheel axles relative to a fixed frame were a longstanding routine feature before the effective filing date. Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) combining known elements according to their established functions to address a known problem (ground unevenness, uneven loading) is obvious absent a showing of unexpected results to a person of ordinary skill in the art. A revised and more fully developed statement of this rejection incorporating the above reasoning is presented below as a new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/1/2026, with respect to rejections over prior art Berzen Ratzel have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of claims 1, and 8-13 has been withdrawn along with 103 rejections reliant on Berzen Ratzel.
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.
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 (drive unit 220, and in alternative embodiment a second drive unit substituted for a brake unit 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)(axle assemblies 220, 240 each have a drive motor and drive wheel with an axle passing through holes 195, 205, in the connecting members 190, 200, the connecting members are fixed to the opposite ends 125, 130 of a structural member 110 of chassis 105 such that the two axle assemblies rotational axes run parallel to one another, i.e. mutually aligned, and are rigidly fixed to the common carrier, see para. 0050, 0051, 0085), a load-bearing unit (3000) with a load-bearing surface (3500)(see fig.1, claim 15, and para. 0078-0079), wherein the common carrier (1000) is connected to the load-bearing unit (3000) such that the carrier (1000) is rotatable (i) relative to the load bearing unit and (ii) about a rotation axis (center) extending orthogonally to the load-bearing surface (3000). Blanton’s claim 1 recites a fixed chassis mount on the drive train… wherein the fixed chassis mount is configured to rotated on the drive train” the rotational connection is provided by the pedestal assembly 2000, intermediate supports 500, and track 3010, which the fixed chassis mount’s central axis 3050, a vertical axis, rotates; because track 3010 lies on a horizontal plane and central axis 3050 is vertical the rotation axis extends orthogonally to the top surface of the fixed chassis mount. Blanton further discloses a control device (see para.008, the transports are controlled) configured to control at least one drive unit of each independently drivable axle assembly (220, and second drive unit in para. 0085). Blanton teaches a drive motor 220 is reversible and may cause the drive wheel 224 to turn depending on how the motor is controlled by an operator, see para. 0052, and in the alternative embodiment the motor and the additional motor may be operated simultaneously to create greater flexibility in controlling the dolly, para. 0085, thereby disclosing a control interface by which an operator selectively actuates the independently drivable axle assemblies.
Blanton fails to disclose a communication device which is configured 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 configured for two-way data exchange with the control device. And wherein
each independently drivable axle assembly of the at least one pair of independently drivable axle assemblies is configured 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. See steerable wheelset 4, driven wheelset 8, fig. 1 height adjustable relative to a vehicle frame 10 that is fixed relative to the transport area via at least one hydraulic cylinder 11. 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 technique so as to allow for even travel on bumpy terrain, with a reasonable expectation of success where each independently drivable axle assembly of the at least one pair of independently drivable axle assemblies is configured to be height adjustable relative to the common carrier.
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 12 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 enabling Blanton’s transports, since Blanton discloses operating in coordinated pairs. 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 at least one pair of independently drivable axle assembles and a further axle assembly (Blanton 220,and second drive unit) are arranged on opposite sides of a plane which runs parallel to the axes of the at least one pair of independently drivable axle assemblies (220 and the additional drive unit para. 0085), runs in the height direction of the carrier (1000), and 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 fail to explicitly 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 the at least one pair of independently drivable axle assemblies, the load bearing unit, the control device, and the communication device are arranged within a substantially circular contour (see fig.1, Blanton) defined by a frame. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13,and 15-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art teaching similar heavy duty transport module vehicles.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights