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 .
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.
Claim 1 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 -20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,490. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower patented claims anticipate the broader instant application claims.
Patented claim 1 anticipates instant application claim 1.
Patented claim 2 anticipates instant application claim 2.
Patented claim 3 anticipates instant application claim 3.
Patented claim 4 anticipates instant application claim 4.
Patented claim 5 anticipates instant application claim 5.
Patented claim 6 anticipates instant application claim 6.
Patented claim 7 anticipates instant application claim 7.
Patented claim 9 anticipates instant application claim 8.
Patented claim 10 anticipates instant application claim 9.
Patented claim 11 anticipates instant application claim 10.
Patented claim 12 anticipates instant application claim 11.
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) 11 – 16 and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0332296 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Stewart discloses a modular vehicle system comprising:
a lateral support (lateral support frame 34, FIG. 2);
a set of removable wheel assemblies coupled to the lateral support, each removable wheel assembly (10, 32; FIG. 2) comprising a corresponding controller (22, FIG. 1);
a network interface communicatively coupled to the controllers corresponding to the set
of removable wheel assemblies and configured to communicate commands to the
controllers (“The control unit 22 includes wireless receiving means for receiving a signal from a wireless push button control 28, with the wireless communication indicated at 29. In use, the control unit will activate the motor to drive the wheel 12 only when a signal is received from the wireless pushbutton control 28…”¶ 46); and
an attachment arrangement configured to removably attach at least one of the set of
removable wheel assemblies to the lateral support (connecting member extends from the rear of the wheel mounting 14. The connecting member 24 includes a recess 26 in one surface to receive a bolt of a locking device ¶ 45).
Regarding claim 12, Stewart discloses the modular vehicle system, further comprising a motor configured to rotationally drive one or more removeable wheel assemblies (motor provided to drive the wheel ¶ 44).
Regarding claim 13, Stewart discloses the modular vehicle system, further comprising a battery dock configured to provide power to one or more removable wheel assemblies (Battery 20, FIG. 1 and ¶ 44).
Regarding claim 14, Stewart discloses the modular vehicle system, wherein the attachment arrangement comprises a clamp (16, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Stewart discloses the modular vehicle system, wherein the attachment arrangement comprises a slide attachment mechanism (Connecting member 24 including a recess 26 which is interpreted to slide into place of a frame support which allows a locking bolt to be received, FIG. 1 and ¶ 45).
Regarding claim 16, Stewart discloses the modular vehicle system, wherein one or more removeable wheel assemblies include two portions that extend from the removeable wheel assembly to a center axis of a wheel (16, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Stewart discloses the modular vehicle system, wherein at least one removeable wheel assembly comprises a sheet of material folded over a portion of a wheel (12, 16, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Stewart discloses the modular vehicle system, wherein the network interface comprises a data bus interface configured to communicate with other devices on a common data bus (“The control unit 22 includes wireless receiving means for receiving a signal from a wireless push button control 28, with the wireless communication indicated at 29. In use, the control unit will activate the motor to drive the wheel 12 only when a signal is received from the wireless pushbutton control 28…”¶ 46).
Regarding claim 20, Stewart discloses the modular vehicle system, wherein the network interface further comprising a power bus interface configured to receive power from a power bus independent of the common data bus and the data bus interface (control unit and battery are separate units ¶¶ 44, 46 and Device 28, FIG. 1).
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.
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) 1 – 6 and 8 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0332296 A1) in view of Gillett (Pub. No.: US 2014/0318879 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stewart discloses a wheel assembly comprising:
a housing having a top side (Housing 18, FIG. 1);
an attachment arrangement on the housing and configured to be removably attached to an external support (connecting member extends from the rear of the wheel mounting 14. The connecting member 24 includes a recess 26 in one surface to receive a bolt of a locking device ¶ 45);
a wheel supported by the housing and arranged below the top side of the housing (12, FIG. 1);
a motor supported by the housing and configured to move the wheel (motor provided to drive the wheel ¶ 44);
a network interface supported by the housing (control unit includes wireless receiving means ¶ 46); and
a controller in communication with the motor and the network interface, the controller
configured to control the motor based on at least one command received via the network interface (“The control unit 22 includes wireless receiving means for receiving a signal from a wireless push button control 28, with the wireless communication indicated at 29. In use, the control unit will activate the motor to drive the wheel 12 only when a signal is received from the wireless pushbutton control 28…”¶ 46).
Steward is silent to an attachment arrangement on the top side of the housing. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gillett teaches a robotic omniwheel for motion including a wheel motor, brake, hub and axle assemblies and a controller for steering motion of the wheel. Control system may also include sensor arrays, laser and GPS for navigational control (See Abstract). More specifically, wheel housing assembly (strut assemblies 6,7; FIG. 3) includes an attachment type arrangement (motor device 10 and flange plate 13) located on top of the housing (FIGS. 4 and 5) which may be fastened by bolts 12 (¶ 34).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment arrangement taught by Stewart to be arranged on the top side of the housing as taught by Gillett to enhance wheel control by enabling minimal (e.g., stop forward and reverse thrust) thrust momentum (¶ 33).
Regarding claim 2, Gillett teaches the wheel assembly, wherein the motor is configured to move the wheel by at least one of rotationally driving the wheel and turning the wheel at an angle (turning range within mechanism 10 motor which can have zero degree motion ¶ 42).
It would have been obvious to modify Stewart to wherein the motor is configured to move the wheel by at least one of rotationally driving the wheel and turning the wheel at an angle as taught by Gillett to enhance range of movement of the wheel assembly (¶ 42).
Regarding claim 3, Stewart discloses the wheel assembly, further comprising a battery dock supported by the housing and in communication with the motor (20, FIG. 1 and ¶ 44).
Regarding claim 4, Gillett teaches the wheel assembly, further comprising a clamp coupled to the top side of the housing (strut assemblies 6,7; FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to modify Stewart to further comprise a clamp coupled to the top side of the housing as taught by Gillett to enhance range of movement of the wheel assembly (¶ 42).
Regarding claim 5, Gillett teaches the wheel assembly, further comprising a slide attachment mechanism coupled to the top side of the housing (Similarly, swivels 10, 13; FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to modify Stewart to further comprising a slide attachment mechanism coupled to the top side of the housing as taught by Gillett to enhance range of movement of the wheel assembly (¶ 42).
Regarding claim 6, Gillett teaches the wheel assembly, wherein the housing includes two portions that extend downward from the top side of the housing to a center axis of the wheel (6,7; FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to modify Stewart to wherein the housing includes two portions that extend downward from the top side of the housing to a center axis of the wheel
as taught by Gillett to enhance range of movement of the wheel assembly (¶ 42).
Regarding claim 8, Stewart discloses the wheel assembly, wherein the housing comprises a sheet of material folded over a portion of the wheel (16, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Stewart discloses the wheel assembly, further comprising a data bus interface configured to communicate with other devices on a common data bus (¶ 46).
Regarding claim 10, Stewart discloses the wheel assembly, further comprising a power bus interface configured to receive power from a power bus independent of the common data bus and the data bus interface (control unit and battery are separate units ¶¶ 44, 46 and device 28, FIG. 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0332296 A1) in view of Gillett (Pub. No.: US 2014/0318879 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collins (Pub. No.: US 2022/0371819 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Stewart discloses the wheel assembly, wherein the controller is configured to receive commands from at least one other wheel assembly. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Collins teaches a computer-controlled rubbish container including a wheel assembly with an electric motor coupled to a wheel, wherein the wheel rotates upon wireless signal sent from a computer to the control unit (See Abstract). More, specifically, a control circuit that is coupled to the motorized wheel assemblies may receive wireless signals at two motorized wheels to move together in a “forward”, “backward”, “left” and “right” directions and even at different relative speeds and directions in order to match desired movements (¶ 58).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stewart and Gillett wherein the controller is configured to receive commands from at least one other wheel assembly as taught by Collins to prevent any unintended movement of the contained (¶ 58).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0332296 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Collins (Pub. No.: US 2022/0371819 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Stewart is silent to the modular vehicle system, wherein a controller of a removeable wheel assembly is configured to receive commands from at least one other removeable wheel assembly. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Collins teaches a computer-controlled rubbish container including a wheel assembly with an electric motor coupled to a wheel, wherein the wheel rotates upon wireless signal sent from a computer to the control unit (See Abstract). More, specifically, a control circuit that is coupled to the motorized wheel assemblies may receive wireless signals at two motorized wheels to move together in a “forward”, “backward”, “left” and “right” directions and even at different relative speeds and directions in order to match desired movements (¶ 58).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stewart to wherein a controller of a removeable wheel assembly is configured to receive commands from at least one other removeable wheel assembly as taught by Collins to prevent any unintended movement of the contained (¶ 58).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663