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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 24-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 24-27, each indent should not be capitalized since they do not begin a sentence (i.e. claim 24, line 4, “Requesting” should be –requesting--).
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 2 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 2 recites the limitation "on tracks" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Are the “tracks” the same as the tracks from claim 1?
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) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,328,315 to Sakamoto et al.
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto et al. disclose a parking facility for vehicles (Fig.1), with parking platforms (P) which are arranged movably in at least two parking levels (1F, 2F, 3F, 4F) arranged one above the other and at least two parking grids (A, B, C, D) arranged next to one another, wherein at least one of the parking grids is a lifting grid (B, C) in which the parking platforms are movable vertically via a vertical drive (5, 15), wherein at least one of the parking grids is a transverse grid (A, D) in which the parking platforms are not driven and/or mounted vertically movably (Fig.1), and wherein the parking platforms are mounted horizontally movably on tracks (70) of the parking levels and are driven movably via a transverse drive (71) horizontally into the lifting grid or at least one of the lifting grids.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the parking platforms are mounted so that they can roll on tracks of the parking levels (rollers 80).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the tracks take the form of rails (70), and the parking platforms have rollers (80) which run on the rails.
Regarding claim 5, wherein drivers (82, 83) via which the parking platforms are coupled horizontally movably are formed between the transverse drive (71) of a parking level and the parking platforms (P) in this parking level.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the drivers are arranged on one or more driver carriages (90) which are mounted horizontally displaceably and are driven via the transverse drive (71).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the driver carriage or carriages have a horizontally extending toothed rack (26) and is displaceably driven by a drive pinion of the transverse drive (71).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the transverse drive is configured in such a way that a parking platform in a parking level is displaceably driven only by a single parking grid (B linked to A; C linked to D).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the vertical drive in a lifting grid has only one or only two drive motors (30).
Regarding claim 12, wherein at least one of the parking levels is a drive-in level which is configured in such a way that a vehicle can be driven onto a parking platform positioned in the lifting grid at the drive-in level (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the parking platforms have coupling devices (6/16) to which the vertical drive is coupled in the lifting grid for the purpose of vertical transport.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the parking facility has a maximum number of parking platforms or the exact number of parking platforms such that one of the parking grids can be completely cleared of parking platforms (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the parking platforms have a fixed assigned parking level (capable of assigning platforms).
Regarding claim 19, wherein a defined vehicle is assigned in each case to the parking platforms and the respective parking platform has wheel stops customized for the defined vehicle (Fig.3; profiled platform has wheel stop).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the parking facility has exactly one row of parking spaces (Fig.2).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9-14, 17-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 100982500 B1 to Kostec.
Regarding claim 1, Kostec discloses a parking facility for vehicles, with parking platforms which are arranged movably in at least two parking levels (floors of Fig.1) arranged one above the other and at least two parking grids (different columns; A, B, C from left to right, Fig.1) arranged next to one another, wherein at least one of the parking grids is a lifting grid (Column B) in which the parking platforms are movable vertically (40) via a vertical drive (31), wherein at least one of the parking grids is a transverse grid in which the parking platforms are not driven and/or mounted vertically movably (Column A and C), and wherein the parking platforms (13) are mounted horizontally movably on tracks (51, 52) of the parking levels and are driven movably via a transverse drive (53) horizontally into the lifting grid or at least one of the lifting grids.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the parking platforms are mounted so that they can roll on tracks of the parking levels (chains 51, 52).
Regarding claim 5, wherein drivers (53) via which the parking platforms are coupled horizontally movably are formed between the transverse drive of a parking level and the parking platforms in this parking level (Fig.1 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the transverse drive is configured in such a way that a parking platform in a parking level is displaceably driven only by a single parking grid (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the vertical drive in a lifting grid has only one or only two drive motors (31).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the transverse drive has in each transverse grid exactly one drive motor per parking level (53).
Regarding claim 12, wherein at least one of the parking levels is a drive-in level which is configured in such a way that a vehicle can be driven onto a parking platform positioned in the lifting grid at the drive-in level (20, Fig.1).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the drive-in level is configured in such a way that a vehicle cannot drive onto at least one, preferably all, of the parking platforms positioned in the transverse grid at the drive-in level (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the parking platforms have coupling devices (attachment points of 61 to the platform, Fig.3) to which the vertical drive is coupled in the lifting grid for the purpose of vertical transport.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the parking facility has a maximum number of parking platforms or the exact number of parking platforms such that one of the parking grids can be completely cleared of parking platforms (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the parking platforms have a fixed assigned parking level (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 19, wherein a defined vehicle is assigned in each case to the parking platforms and the respective parking platform has wheel stops customized for the defined vehicle (grooves formed into the platforms).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the transverse grids and lifting grids are arranged alternately next to one another (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the parking facility has exactly one row of parking spaces (Fig.1).
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.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 21, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100982500 B1 to Kostec.
Regarding claim 15, Kostec discloses wherein the vertical drive in the lifting grid has four circulating cables or chains (61, 62, 63, 64) which has a driver (31),but does not disclose wherein each corner of the platform has a driver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided multiple drivers working each corner of the platform so to enable each individual driver to operate independently, thereby enable the lift to be powered with greater force and further so to provide more safety if one of the four corners breaks or becomes damaged, the other three drivers can hold the vehicle safely.
Regarding claim 16, Kostec does not disclose wherein the four circulating cables or chains in each case have at least one driver per parking level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided drives at each level so to provide greater power and control of the lifting device.
Regarding claim 21, Kostec discloses alternating transverse grids and lifting grids, but does not disclose more than three grids and therefore does not disclose wherein always exactly one transverse grid is arranged between two lifting grids.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have expanded the tower of Kostec to include additional transverse and lifting which would then provide multiple means to access each transverse grid and further to provide additional parking locations.
Regarding claim 23, Kostec does not disclose wherein the lifting grids and transverse grids have at least two rows of parking spaces arranged behind each other, and at least one of the parking platforms of the front row of parking spaces is a transfer platform via which a vehicle can be moved from the drive-in level into the rear row of parking spaces, and vice versa, wherein the transfer platform is not freed as a parking space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided multiple rows of parking thereby increasing the amount of parking spots available and also increasing the means to access the parking spaces.
Regarding claims 24-26, Kostec does not specifically disclose how to use the parking facility, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the facility by requesting a platform, ensuring the lifting grid is clear, arranging the platform into the lifting grid, and requesting the platform so to effectively operate the facility. The steps of using the parking facility are basic steps in operation for using an elevator type storage facility.
Claim(s) 8, 21, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,328,315 to Sakamoto et al.
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto et al. do not disclose wherein at least two adjacently arranged parking platforms of a parking level are driven, with coupled movement, via the transverse drive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been able to operate multiple platforms on the same level when moving platforms into and out of the lift grids. Further, it would have been obvious to have expanded the garage to provide additional parking spaces.
Regarding claim 21, Sakamoto et al. discloses alternating transverse grids and lifting grids but does not disclose wherein always exactly one transverse grid is arranged between two lifting grids.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have expanded the tower of Sakamoto et al. to include additional transverse and lifting which would then provide multiple means to access each transverse grid and further to provide additional parking locations.
Regarding claim 23, Sakamoto et al. do not disclose wherein the lifting grids and transverse grids have at least two rows of parking spaces arranged behind each other, and at least one of the parking platforms of the front row of parking spaces is a transfer platform via which a vehicle can be moved from the drive-in level into the rear row of parking spaces, and vice versa, wherein the transfer platform is not freed as a parking space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided multiple rows of parking thereby increasing the amount of parking spots available and also increasing the means to access the parking spaces.
Regarding claims 24-26, Sakamoto et al. does not specifically disclose how to use the parking facility, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the facility by requesting a platform, ensuring the lifting grid is clear, arranging the platform into the lifting grid, and requesting the platform so to effectively operate the facility. The steps of using the parking facility are basic steps in operation for using an elevator type storage facility.
Claim(s) 4 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,328,315 to Sakamoto et al. in view of DE 10 2020 102 244 A1 to Zangerle.
Regarding claims 4 and 27, Sakamoto et al. do not disclose wherein the tracks in the parking grids which take the form of lifting grids are designed as openable in such a way that they are movably mounted in such a way that they can be moved out of the vertical projection of a parking platform moving vertically through the lifting grid.
Zangerle discloses lifting grids (52, 70) are designed as openable in such a way that they are movably mounted in such a way that they can be moved out of the vertical projection of a parking platform moving vertically through the lifting grid (Fig. 9 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide lifting members within the lifting grid which are capable of moving into and out of the lifting area, thereby aiding in lifting the platforms and concealing themselves from the shaft when not being used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights