DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-19 are pending.
Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
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, 7, 9-10, 13, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Blouin et al (“Blouin”) (US 2015/0233136).
Re claim 1, Blouin discloses a vehicle service facility (10) comprising:
a structure (10) with an entrance (at 20) adjacent an entry road (20) and an exit (at 65A, at 65B) adjacent an exit road (65A/65B) for passage of one or more vehicles (Fig. 1); and
a plurality of bays (50A-H) within the structure (10) configured to be utilized to service ([0048]) the one or more vehicles ([0048]);
wherein the plurality of bays (50A-H) are angled in a non-perpendicular orientation (Fig. 1) with the entry road (20) and exit road (65A/B); and
wherein the plurality of bays (50A-H) are angled in a non-perpendicular orientation (Fig. 1) with respect to the structure (10).
Re claim 7, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of service doors ([0058]) for the plurality of bays (50A-H), comprising: one or more entry service doors ([0058]); and one or more exit service doors ([0058]).
Re claim 9, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of bays (50A-H) have an entry service door ([0058]) or an exit service door ([0058]), and wherein each of the plurality of bays (50A-H) is aligned perpendicularly with (Fig. 1, the bays extending horizontally, the doors extending vertically) the exit service door ([0058]) or the entry service door ([0058]).
Re claim 10, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of bays (50A-H) have an entry service door ([0058]) and an exit service door ([0058]), and wherein each of the plurality of bays (50A-H) is aligned perpendicularly with (Fig. 1, the bays extending horizontally, the doors extending vertically) the exit service door ([0058]) and the entry service door ([0058]).
Re claim 13, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 1, wherein the plurality of bays (50A-H) comprise: a first bay (50A) and a second bay (50B) in series (Fig. 1); and a third bay (50C) and a fourth bay (50D) in series (Fig. 1); wherein the first bay (50A) and the second bay (50B) are parallel with (Fig. 1) the third bay (50C) and the fourth bay (50D); and wherein the first bay (50A), the second bay (50B), the third bay (50C), and the fourth bay (50D) are angled in a non-perpendicular orientation (Fig. 1) with respect to the structure (10).
Re claim 15, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 1, wherein the entry road (20) defines a first clearance distance (see examiner comments) between the entry road (20) and a first adjacent boundary (see examiner comments), and wherein the exit road (65A, 65B) defines a second clearance distance (see examiner comments) between the exit road (65A, 65B) and a second adjacent boundary (see examiner comments).
Re claim 18, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 15 further comprising: a parcel of land defining a land area suitable to support the structure and the first and second clearance distances (10 must be used on a parcel of land as it cannot exist otherwise, and it must be used suitable for the first and second clearance distances otherwise it would not function). In the event the examiner over broadly construed the features of this claim, see alternative rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blouin et al (“Blouin”) (US 2015/0233136) in view of Osterman (US 4,188,985).
Re claim 4, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of bays comprise one or more pits located at least partially under the plurality of bays.
However, Osterman discloses wherein the plurality of bays (61, 62) comprise one or more pits (61B, 62B) located at least partially under (Fig. 3) the plurality of bays (61, 62).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle service facility of Blouin wherein the plurality of bays comprise one or more pits located at least partially under the plurality of bays as disclosed by Osterman in order to allow for lubricating, repairing, or tuning of the vehicles without hoisting (Col 1 lines 6-11).
Re claim 5, Blouin as modified discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 4, Osterman discloses wherein the plurality of bays (61, 62) are aligned with (Fig. 3) the one or more pits (61B, 62B).
Re claim 6, Blouin as modified discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 4, Osterman discloses wherein the plurality of bays (61, 62) are angled (any angle with respect to anything else, as the language doesn’t compare to what these are angled with respect to) with one or more pits (61B, 62B).
Re claim 11, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of bays comprise one or more lifts configured to raise or lower a vehicle of the one or more vehicles.
However, Osterman discloses wherein the plurality of bays (61, 62) comprise one or more lifts (Col 3 lines 21-25, Col 4 lines 1-3) configured to raise or lower a vehicle of the one or more vehicles (Col 3 lines 21-25, Col 4 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle service facility of Blouin wherein the plurality of bays comprise one or more lifts configured to raise or lower a vehicle of the one or more vehicles as disclosed by Osterman in order to provide additional access to the underside of the vehicles, as lifts are extremely well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 12, Blouin as modified discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 11, 11, wherein the one or lifts may be moveable between the plurality of bays (as this is optional/conditional language).
Additionally, the language “may be” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blouin et al (“Blouin”) (US 2015/0233136) in view of Osterman (US 4,188,985).
Re claim 8, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of bays are angled with respect to the one or more entry service doors or the one or more exits service doors.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle service facility of Blouin wherein the plurality of bays are angled with respect to the one or more entry service doors or the one or more exits service doors in order to simplify access to and containment of the bays. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blouin et al (“Blouin”) (US 2015/0233136) in view of Hanson (US 2015/0259941).
Re claim 14, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of support columns are offset to allow for the plurality of bays to be angled within the structure.
However, Hanson discloses wherein the plurality of support columns (6) are offset (from the walls and/or each other) to allow for the plurality of bays (39; Blouin: 50A-H) to be angled within (perpendicularly; Blouin: Fig. 1) the structure (1)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle service facility of Blouin wherein the plurality of support columns are offset to allow for the plurality of bays to be angled within the structure as disclosed by Hanson in order to distribute loading around the bays.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blouin et al (“Blouin”) (US 2015/0233136) in view of Hanson (US 2015/0259941).
Re claim 16, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein as a result of the plurality of bays being angled in the non-perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure, the first clearance distance is reduced by between 5% and 50% relative to a first clearance distance of a same structure in which the plurality of bays are in a perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure at a same turning radius.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle service facility of Blouin wherein as a result of the plurality of bays being angled in the non-perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure, the first clearance distance is reduced by between 5% and 50% relative to a first clearance distance of a same structure in which the plurality of bays are in a perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure at a same turning radius in order to reduce the footprint of the structure saving costs for construction and materials. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 17, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein as a result of the plurality of bays being angled in the non-perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure, the second clearance distance is reduced by between 5% and 50% relative to a second clearance distance of a same structure in which the plurality of bays are in a perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure at a same turning radius.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle service facility of Blouin wherein as a result of the plurality of bays being angled in the non-perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure, the second clearance distance is reduced by between 5% and 50% relative to a second clearance distance of a same structure in which the plurality of bays are in a perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure at a same turning radius in order to reduce the footprint of the structure saving costs for construction and materials. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blouin et al (“Blouin”) (US 2015/0233136) in view of Sasaki (US 5,185,978).
Re claim 18, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 15, but fails to disclose further comprising: a parcel of land defining a land area suitable to support the structure and the first and second clearance distances.
However, Sasaki discloses further comprising: a parcel of land defining a land area suitable to support the structure and the first and second clearance distances (Fig. 1, Col 1 lines 12-22; notably, to be usable, the first and second clearance distances must be used on a suitable piece of land).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle service facility of Blouin further comprising: a parcel of land defining a land area suitable to support the structure and the first and second clearance distances as disclosed by Sasaki in order to utilize the vehicle service facility, as is the normal and logical manner of use of using land suitable for the facility.
Re claim 19, Blouin discloses the vehicle service facility of claim 18, but fails to disclose wherein as a result of the plurality of bays being angled in the non-perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure, the land area is reduced by between 5% and 50% when compared with a structure having a same number of bays that are in a perpendicular orientation with a traditional structure.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle service facility of Blouin wherein as a result of the plurality of bays being angled in the non-perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure, the land area is reduced by between 5% and 50% when compared with a structure having a same number of bays that are in a perpendicular orientation with a traditional structure in order to reduce the footprint of the structure saving costs for construction and materials. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102/103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Blouin fails to disclose a structure with bays in a non-perpendicular orientation with respect to the structure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Blouin ties every angular relationship to the driveway and not a structure. Applicant contends that Blouin contains no disclosure of any angular relationship between a bay and a structure or building wall. First, the claims do not require an angular relationship between a bay and a building wall. Second, the claims make no mention of any particulars regarding how the angular relationship corresponds to any portion of a building. No matter the arrangement of walls of a building, due to the angular disposition of the bays, the bays will be at a non-perpendicular relationship to at least one wall of any building. The fact that Blouin does not expressly state this relationship does not preclude the fact that the disposition of the bays necessarily are disposed at a non-perpendicular relationship to at least one wall of any building.
Next, Applicant argues that Blouin fails to disclose a structure, and that 10 is not a structure, and that whether 10 is enclosed is optional. Applicant then continues to state that [0051] states that the section is “located at an indoor facility” but may also be used outdoors. Applicant states that [0058] states that the facility can be completely indoors. It is unclear how an “indoor facility” that is completely indoors” is somehow not a structure. If 10 is being disclosed as at an indoor facility, then it is not readily apparent how that is not a structure. Moreover, it would appear as though Applicant argues that the term, “structure” requires a building. The term, “structure” is broader than a building. Merriam-Webster defines “structure” as “something that is constructed.” 10 satisfies this definition even if paragraph [0051] expressly identifying a building is ignored.
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 10, Applicant argues the orientation of the doors with respect to the bays because Blouin doesn’t expressly identify the orientation. Blouin need not expressly identify the orientation to teach it. An explanation of how Blouin reads on these features was provided in the previous rejection and is again provided in the above.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that the Examiner supplied no textual citation, but Blouin nowhere discloses a clearance distance, adjacent boundary or property line. Again, there is no requirement that Blouin expressly identify the features to teach it. An explanation of how Blouin reads on these features was provided in the previous rejection (and the Examiner comments) and is again provided in the above.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 4-6, 11-12 are addressed by the above.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that that rationale is internally inconsistent. Applicant states that the reason relates to a different reference and a different limitation. Applicant pointed out a typographical error which has been corrected in the above.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that the rejection rests solely on In re Japikse with no evidence that Blouin’s bays could be angled relative to the doors. An explanation of obviousness was provided in the previous rejection and the above. Again, there is no requirement that Blouin expressly identify the features to teach it.
Regarding claims 16, 17 and 19, Applicant argues that Blouin does not disclose the claimed features, and that the Examiner’s rationale constitutes impermissible hindsight. Again, there is no requirement that Blouin expressly identify to show obviousness. In addition, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Motivation was provided in the previous rejection and the above.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
604
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights