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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 2 discusses a “preset threshold” with respect to a weight sensor being used to provide audio or visual indicator feedback to a user. This is not explicitly discussed in the specification. The specification discusses using the vehicle weight in such determinations (fully loaded on platform vs not fully loaded) but not a preset threshold, as in a value that is not specifically associated with a given/particular vehicle.
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 and 3-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,180,739. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued claims include the same limitations but merely vary in scope.
Claims 1, 3-17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,781,335. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued claims include the same limitations but merely vary in scope.
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) 9, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 202194412, hereafter referred to as CN412.
Regarding claim 9 CN412 discloses a multi-level parking apparatus, comprising: a plurality of support elements (6), each including a top end and a bottom end; a plurality of support arms (8), each including a first end and a second end; at least one base (9); and a platform (see figure 1); wherein the bottom end of each of the plurality of support elements is attached to the at least one base (see figure 1); wherein the top end of each of the plurality of support elements is attached to the first end of one of the plurality of support arms (see figure 1 and element 7); wherein the second end of each of the plurality of support arms is attached to the platform (see figure 1); wherein the multi-level parking apparatus is operable to move between a stacked configuration and an unstacked configuration; and wherein, in moving from the stacked configuration to the unstacked configuration, the plurality of support arms rotate about the top ends of the plurality of support elements (see figure 1 and 7, 7’).
Regarding claim 13 CN412 discloses the platform remains substantially parallel with a ground surface when the multi-level parking apparatus moves between the stacked configuration and the unstacked configuration (see figure 1 and 7, 7’).
Regarding claim 14 CN412 discloses the at least one base is fixedly attached to a ground surface (page 2 of translation provided by Applicant).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN412 in view of US 5,129,776 to Peng.
Regarding claim CN412 discloses all the limitations of the claim except the multi-level parking apparatus is in network communication with at least one remote device, and wherein the multi-level parking apparatus is operable to receive a command from the at least one remote device.
Peng teaches a system including the multi-level parking apparatus is in network communication with at least one remote device (col. 4 lines 5-10), and wherein the multi-level parking apparatus is operable to receive a command from the at least one remote device (col.4 lines 5-10) in order to control the apparatus and secure payment from the user (col. 4 lines 5-10 and col. 5 lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claim to have modified CN412 to include the multi-level parking apparatus is in network communication with at least one remote device, and wherein the multi-level parking apparatus is operable to receive a command from the at least one remote device, as taught by Peng, in order to control the apparatus and secure payment from the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
At least claims 1 and 15, as well as those claims that depend therefrom would be allowable over the prior art if the double patenting (and any 112) rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The configuration required by both claims 1 and 15 with the support arms parallel to the support elements and extending outwardly therefrom differentiates the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights