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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palumbo (EP 3 381 773 A1).
Palumbo discloses a hydraulic drive system trailer comprising:
a frame (Fig. 6);
a hydraulic drive system attached to the underside of the frame and having:
a first rotor assembly (6);
a second rotor assembly (6);
a first motor assembly (33) having a first motor actuator (9) and having a first motor actuator ridge (28) arranged circumferentially around the first motor actuator;
a second motor assembly (33) having a second motor actuator (9) and having a second motor actuator ridge (28) arranged circumferentially around the first motor actuator.
As for claim 2, Palumbo further discloses an engagement assembly (21) moving the first motor actuator toward and away from the first rotor assembly to respectively engage and disengage therewith and moving the second motor actuator toward and away from the second rotor assembly to respectively engage and disengage therewith (see Figs. 1a and 1b).
As for claims 3 – 5, Palumbo further discloses motor actuator teeth (17b) and corresponding rotor teeth (13b), separated in the disengagement position and engaged in the engagement position.
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 6 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palumbo (EP 3 381 773 A1) in view of Bennes Marrel (FR 2409162 A1).
As for claim 6, Palumbo discloses a hydraulic drive system trailer comprising:
a frame (Fig. 6);
a pair of drive wheels (Fig. 1a);
a hydraulic drive system extending across an underside of the frame; the hydraulic drive system includes: a first motor assembly (33) and a first rotor assembly (6) extending in a direction; a second motor assembly (33) and a second rotor assembly (6) extending in a second direction; and
an engagement assembly (21) moving a first movable motor actuator (9) toward and away from the first rotor assembly to respectively engage and disengage and moving a second motor actuator (9) toward and away from the second rotor assembly to respectively engage and disengage (see Figs. 1a and 1b).
Palumbo does not disclose a pair of steerable wheels or a body. Bennes Marrel discloses a trailer system with a pair of steerable wheels and a pair of drive wheels (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to use the arrangement of Palumbo in combination with a pair of steerable wheels in order to support and steer the trailer. Bennes Marrel further disclose a body (Fig. 4) enclosing the motor and rotor assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such a body to protect the components from road debris.
As for claims 11 – 13, Bennes Marrel discloses a drive system having a planetary gear drive (“epicyclic train”) driven by a motor shaft and disposed between a motor actuator and a motor (32, 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive system of Palumbo to include the planetary gear drive of Bennes Marrel, arranged on the motor side of the first motor actuator, as it is very well known in the art to provide a gear drive in order to deliver desired speed and torque to drive wheels.
As for claim 14, Bennes Marrel further disclose a bell housing (Fig. 1).
As for claim 15, Palumbo shows a unitary drive shaft and rotor teeth; however, a spline is an old and well-known means of attaching element on a shaft and would be an obvious variant.
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 – 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,097,915. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the present claims are generic to all that is recited in the patented claims; in other words, the patented claims fully encompass the present claims and therefore anticipate the present claims
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
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, J. Allen Shriver can be reached on (303)297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Katy M Ebner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights