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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 108868265) (English translation included with copy of reference) in view of Huang (CN 107355103) (English translation included with copy of reference).
Chen discloses a parking robot comprising:
a first drive module comprising first driving wheels 31, 31, 47 (FIG. 3: left-most elements);
a second drive module comprising second driving wheels 31, 31, 47 (FIG. 3: right-most elements) and provided rearward of a first drive module;
a first lifting module 34 (one of two shown in FIG. 4) disposed between first and second drive modules; and
a second lifting module 34 (second of two shown in FIG. 4) provided at one side of a first lifting module.
Chen does not disclose that a second lifting module comprises a caster unit. Huang also discloses a parking robot comprising-
a first lifting module E (or C); and
a second lifting module F (or D) provided at one side of a first lifting module,
wherein a second lifting module F (or D) comprises a caster unit 209 (FIG. 4) having a caster wheel supported from a ground surface together with first and second driving wheels 301, 301.
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Huang. Chen provides solutions in the parking robot industry comprising side-by-side lifting modules, but does not explicitly disclose a caster unit as part of a second lifting module. Huang discloses a caster unit as part of a second lifting module However, all of the component parts are known in Chen and Huang, the only difference being the combination of the “old elements” into a single parking robot by adding a caster to a second lifting module, where the second lifting module is provided at one side of a first lifting module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Chen to include the Huang's caster, since the operation of the Chen's parking robot is in no way dependent on the operation of the missing structure, and caster could be used to achieve the predictable result of lifting cars for further movement in and around an automobile parking structure.
Claim(s) 2 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Huang and further in view of Shani (EP 2 937 261) and Zhu (CN 2386127) (English translation included with copy of reference).
Chen does not disclose the positioning of the first, second and third control modules relative to first and second lifting modules and a battery.
Shani discloses a parking robot comprising:
a first control module 222 provided forward of a second lifting module 210;
a battery module 228a provided between first and second lifting modules 210, 210 and provided rearward of a first drive module 234 and a first control module 222; and
a third control module 226 provided between first and second lifting modules 210, 210 and provided forward of a second drive module 238.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Chen to include a first control module provided forward of a second lifting module, a battery module provided between first and second lifting modules and provided rearward of a first drive module and a first control module and a third control module provided between first and second lifting modules and provided forward of a second drive module, as taught by Shani, which enables parking robot navigation along predefined paths without involving undersurface installations of guidance systems.
And, Zhu discloses a parking robot comprising:
a second control module 18 (unlabeled but shown in FIG. 2 reproduced below) provided rearward of a second lifting module (indicated generally as 17 in FIG. 2);
a third control module 15 provided between first and second lifting modules 17, 17 and provided forward of a second drive module 3 and a second control module 18.
[AltContent: textbox (2nd Ctrl module)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st and 2nd lifting modules)][AltContent: textbox (2nd Ctrl module)]
PNG
media_image1.png
320
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zhu. Chen is directed to the solving problems in the field of parking robots and does not explicitly disclose a second control module provided rearward of a second lifting module or a third control provided forward of a second drive module and a second control module. Zhu provides a solution within the field of parking robots disclosing a second control module provided rearward of a second lifting module or a third control provided forward of a second drive module and a second control module as recited in claim 1. However, all of the component parts are known in Chen and Zhu, the only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by adding a positioning a second control module rearward of a second lifting module and a third control module forward of a second drive module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Chen to include the Huang's caster, since the operation of the Chen's parking robot is in no way dependent on the location of a second control module or the addition of a third control module to achieve the predictable result of lifting cars for further transfer into, around and out of an automobile parking structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 & 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights