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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/22/2025, 04/28/2026, and 05/15/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 03/21/2025.
Claims 1-17 and 20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-17 and 20 are currently rejected.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0065242) in view of Rocholl et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0399058).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0065242) in view of Rocholl et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0399058), further in view of Smith (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0236574).
Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0065242) in view of Rocholl et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0399058), further in view of Kritzer (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0124282).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritzer (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0124282) in view of Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0065242).
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with Robert Gentile on 6/4/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 1-17 and 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0065242) in view of Rocholl et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0399058).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a system for transporting products throughout a manufacturing environment, comprising:
a mobile robot including: a frame including a mounting interface;
Tanaka ¶ 4 discloses “an autonomously traveling vehicle on which a camera is mounted,” wherein the vehicle includes a chassis body having a lower frame and an upper frame, see at least ¶¶ 29-30.
a tractive element coupled to the frame;
Tanaka ¶ 7 discloses “The electric motor vehicle chassis includes a chassis body, a plurality of wheels [i.e., “tractive element”] that are provided as pairs of right and left wheels at the front and rear of the chassis body.”
a motor coupled to the frame and configured to drive the tractive element to propel the mobile robot; and
Tanaka ¶ 61 discloses that “the right and left front wheels 21 and 31 are individually driven and controlled by the two electric motors 41R and 41L.”
a controller configured to control the motor to navigate the mobile robot along a predetermined path;
Tanaka ¶ 55 discloses that “The moving vehicle 1A is configured so as to store information of a map of a region to be traveled and movement route information in advance, and to travel a predetermined route while avoiding obstacles with the use of information acquired from the imaging unit S1a, the distance detecting unit S2a, and GPS (Global Positioning System).”
a first implement including: a first implement interface configured to be coupled to a first type of product; and
Tanaka ¶ 124 discloses a “belt 23 of which an inner surface side has protrusions that engage with [i.e., “coupled to”] a plurality of grooves provided on outer peripheral surfaces of the pulleys 21b and 22b.”
a first base frame configured to be ... coupled to the mounting interface of the frame; and
Tanaka ¶ 29 discloses a “first vibration absorbing member that is provided between the lower frame unit and the upper frame unit and connects the lower frame unit and the upper frame unit together.” Also see Fig. 10 and corresponding ¶ 59.
a second implement including: a second implement interface configured to be coupled to a second type of product; and
Tanaka ¶ 176 discloses “an inner-side upper frame 255 that is connected to a tip of the inner-side lower frame 253 via a second hinge unit 257, an elevating table 258.”
a second base frame configured to be ... coupled to the mounting interface of the frame.
Tanaka ¶ 29 discloses a “first vibration absorbing member that is provided between the lower frame unit and the upper frame unit and connects the lower frame unit and the upper frame unit together.” Also see Fig. 10 and corresponding ¶ 59.
Tanaka does not expressly disclose:
... removably coupled ...
However, Rocholl discloses:
... removably coupled ...
Rocholl ¶ 16 discloses a “telescoping lift arm assembly 100 includes a first lift arm, shown as right lift arm 110, coupled to a first side of the body 14,” wherein the couplings are moveable or removable, see ¶ 27.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the couplings of the mobile robot of Tanaka with the couplings being removable, as disclosed by Rocholl, with reasonable expectation of success, to facilitate arm positioning (Rocholl ¶¶ 4-5), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses a system of Claim 1, wherein:
the first implement interface is a cradle configured to receive and support a portion of the first type of product.
Tanaka Fig. 12 depicts an elevating mechanism 250 [i.e., “a cradle”] that supports the elevating table 258 [i.e., “a portion of”] of chassis body 11 [i.e., “first type of product”], see corresponding ¶ 176.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl discloses a system of Claim 1, wherein:
the second implement interface is configured to engage a cart supporting the second type of product, and
Rocholl ¶ 14 discloses a cab 16 [i.e., “a cart”] coupled to frame 12 and extendable lift arm assembly 100. See Figs. 1-4.
wherein the second implement interface is configured to permit the motor to propel the cart when the second implement interface engages the cart.
Rocholl ¶ 14 discloses that “the refuse vehicle 10 includes a prime mover, shown as engine 18, coupled to the frame 12 at a position beneath the cab 16” such that “the refuse vehicle has to be driven forward such that the forks are received by the fork tubes,” see ¶ 23.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the interface of Tanaka with engaging a cart supporting a second type of product, as disclosed by Rocholl, with reasonable expectation of success, to facilitate utilizing a conventional chassis, reducing the cost of the vehicle (Rocholl ¶ 13), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0065242) in view of Rocholl et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0399058), further in view of Smith (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0236574).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses a system of Claim 2, wherein:
the first type of product is a vehicle including an axle assembly, and
Tanaka ¶ 65 discloses that “axles 21a and 31a and axles 22a and 32a that rotation-support each of the front wheels 21 and 31 and the rear wheels 22 and 32 are provided below the cover 18, in the lower frame unit 11a,” also see at least Fig. 1B.
Tanaka in combination with Rocholl does not expressly disclose:
wherein the cradle is configured to receive and support the axle assembly of the vehicle.
However, Smith discloses:
wherein the cradle is configured to receive and support the axle assembly of the vehicle.
Smith ¶ 30 discloses “front arms 7 and hooks 12 form a cradle for the axle as the front arms 7 are rotated from a horizontal to a vertical position ... which facilitates the lifting of the front or back of a vehicle by placing force in a direction away from the vehicle”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the cradle of Tanaka, of the combination of Tanaka and Rocholl, to be configured to receive and support the axle assembly of the vehicle, as disclosed by Smith, with reasonable expectation of success, to facilitate the servicing of non-commercial and commercial lawn mowers, tractors and similar light vehicles (Smith ¶ 2), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka in view of Rocholl does not expressly disclose a system of Claim 2, wherein:
the first implement includes a lift assembly configured to raise the cradle relative to the frame of the mobile robot.
However, Smith discloses:
the first implement includes a lift assembly configured to raise the cradle relative to the frame of the mobile robot.
Smith ¶ 30 discloses that “When front arms 7 are attached to frame 1, they are fixed such that they may bear the weight of the vehicle being lifted.” Also see Fig. 4A, wherein the cradle is comprised of the front arms 7 and hooks 12, see ¶ 30.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the lift assembly of Tanaka with the lift assembly being configured to raise the cradle relative to the frame of the mobile robot, as disclosed by Smith, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a means for tilting larger riding mowers, tractors and the like, when performing routine maintenance procedures (Smith ¶ 9), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl and Smith discloses a system of Claim 4, wherein the lift assembly is a scissor assembly including:
a plurality of lift arms coupling the cradle to the first base frame, the plurality of lift arms including a first lift arm pivotably coupled to a second lift arm; and
Smith ¶ 30 discloses that “Front arms 7 are also removably attached at the bottom end of frame 1 at the sides thereof, being spaced apart from frame 1 by means of spacers 6.” Also see ¶¶ 32-33 and Fig. 2.
a lift actuator configured to cause the first lift arm to rotate relative to the second lift arm.
Smith ¶ 30 discloses that “front arms 7 and hooks 12 form a cradle for the axle as the front arms 7 are rotated from a horizontal to a vertical position, as shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B,” wherein the lifting device is to be operated by the average person [i.e., “a lift actuator”], see ¶ 16. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a person may be an actuator in that the person using the lifting device puts the lifting device into mechanical action or motion, thereby actuating the lifting. See Merriam Webster, “actuate.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the lift arm of Tanaka, of the combination of Tanaka and Rocholl, with a plurality of lift arms coupling the cradle to the first base frame, the plurality of lift arms including a first lift arm pivotably coupled to a second lift arm, as disclosed by Smith, with reasonable expectation of success, for simple and easy operation for lifting a vehicle (Smith ¶ 10), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0065242) in view of Rocholl et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0399058), further in view of Kritzer (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0124282).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl does not expressly disclose a system of Claim 6, wherein:
the second implement interface is a pin repositionable between a raised position and a lowered position,
Kritzer ¶ 22 discloses a mobile lift apparatus in which “a respective caster lock pin is removably positioned between a respective lock mount and a lock aperture” wherein “The retainer tabs 544 have aligned apertures which removably receive retainer pins 546 which pass through apertures (not shown) formed through the handle arms 526 to secure the handle 520 in the raised position which is angled relative to the base frame 504 at a set angle to facilitate use of the steering handle,” see ¶ 102.
wherein the second implement includes an actuator assembly configured to move the pin from the lowered position to the raised position to engage the pin with the cart.
Kritzer ¶ 106 discloses “A caster unit crank 654 extends into the gear mechanism 652 and engages the jack screw 650 by way of gears (not shown) within the gear mechanism 652 whereby rotation of the crank 654 causes the jack screw 650 to extend and retract from the gear mechanism 652 to thereby raise and lower the respective corner of the cart frame 610,” wherein retainer pins 546 are passed pass through apertures (not shown) formed through the handle arms 526 to secure the handle 520 in the raised position which is angled relative to the base frame 504, see ¶ 102.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the attachments of Tanaka, of the combination of Tanaka and Rocholl, to include a pin repositionable between a raised position and a lowered position, as disclosed by Kritzer, with reasonable expectation of success, to facilitate relative movement of the load support platform (Kritzer ¶ 97), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl and Kritzer discloses a system of Claim 7, wherein:
the actuator assembly is configured to move the pin from the raised position to the lowered position to disengage the pin from the cart.
Kritzer ¶ 96 discloses that “A pair of laterally spaced tubular caster lock pin mounts 444 (such as the caster lock pin mounts shown mounted on the rear base frame member 51,” wherein the “respective caster lock pin is removably positioned between a respective lock mount and a lock aperture aligned therewith,” see ¶ 22. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a removable or releasable coupling between the lift assembly and the chassis would disengage the coupling from the chassis, or cart, upon being removed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the fastenings of Tanaka with moving the pin from the raised position to the lowered position to disengage the pin from the cart, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable raising or lowering the load deck relative to the base frame (Kritzer ¶ 23), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl and Kritzer discloses a system of Claim 7, wherein:
the pin is a first pin, further comprising a second pin configured to be raised to engage the second pin with the cart.
Kritzer ¶ 96 discloses a castor lock pin aperture 440 which receives castor lock pin 442, wherein when castor lock pin 442 extends between a caster pin mount 444 and a caster pin aperture 440, prevents the respective caster plate 432 from rotating which moves the lift apparatus 400 in a straight path, such as being raised, see at least ¶ 74.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the fastening of Tanaka with a pin being a first pin, further comprising a second pin configured to be raised to engage the second pin with the cart, as disclosed by Kritzer, with reasonable expectation of success, to facilitate movement of the mobile lift apparatus in a substantially straight path along the support surface of the apparatus (Kritzer ¶ 22), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl and Kritzer discloses a system of Claim 9, wherein:
the actuator assembly includes an actuator configured to raise both the first pin and the second pin.
Kritzer ¶ 102 discloses retainer tabs 544 that “have aligned apertures which removably receive retainer pins 546 [i.e., a first and second pin] which pass through apertures (not shown) formed through the handle arms 526 to secure the handle 520 in the raised position which is angled relative to the base frame 504 at a set angle to facilitate use of the steering handle,” wherein the tilt of the frame is operable by a “tilt actuator,” see at least ¶ 9.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the controller of Tanaka with an actuator configured to raise both the first pin and the second pin, as disclosed by Kritzer, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable tilting of the frame front end to thereby lift the legs out of support surface contact for movement of the apparatus and to lower the legs to support surface contact to stabilize the apparatus for operation of the powered lift mechanism (Kritzer ¶ 9), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl and Kritzer discloses a system of Claim 9, wherein:
the actuator assembly includes a first actuator configured to move the first pin from the lowered position to the raised position and a second actuator configured to raise the second pin.
Kritzer ¶ 15 discloses “three swivel casters pivotally engaged with the caster plate” wherein such fastenings are aligned for orienting a load 10, see ¶ 78, wherein the fastenings are removable, see at least ¶ 6, and further wherein the lift mechanism includes an actuator that is “engaged with the scissor linkage in such a manner as to enable selective extension and retraction of the scissor linkage,” see ¶ 23. Also see ¶ 70.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the fastenings of Tanaka with a third fastener aperture of a second frame configured to align with the first fastener aperture and receive the fastener to removably couple the second implement to the frame, as disclosed by Kritzer, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a high degree of precise movements of the apparatus and components of the apparatus to facilitate lifting loads (Kritzer ¶ 81), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl does not expressly disclose a system of Claim 1, wherein:
the frame defines a recess extending downward into the frame,
wherein the recess is configured to receive the first base frame when the first base frame is coupled to the mounting interface, and
wherein the recess is configured to receive the second base frame when the second base frame is coupled to the mounting interface.
However, Kritzer discloses:
the frame defines a recess extending downward into the frame,
Kritzer ¶ 21 discloses that “each of the side members may have an elongated channel extending therealong, each channel having a stop member positioned adjacent the front member of the base frame and having a respective slide block slidably positioned therein.”
wherein the recess is configured to receive the first base frame when the first base frame is coupled to the mounting interface, and
Kritzer ¶ 74 discloses a lift apparatus 140 that includes “a modified lift platform assembly 142 having a pair of separated tool channels 144 on each of a pair of side members 146 of the assembly 142,” the platform assembly 142 mounted on base frame 16. See at least Fig. 3 and Fig. 6.
wherein the recess is configured to receive the second base frame when the second base frame is coupled to the mounting interface.
Kritzer ¶ 89 discloses that the channels or pans 338 are “attached to the side frame members 332,” also see Fig. 18.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combinedthe frame of Tanaka, of the combination of Tanaka and Rocholl, with the frame defines a recess extending downward into the frame, as disclosed by Kritzer, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable selective movement of the apparatus about a support surface (Kritzer ¶ 21), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl and Kritzer discloses a system of Claim 12, wherein:
the mounting interface includes a mounting flange extending along a bottom side of the recess.
Kritzer ¶ 102 discloses an angled flange plate 542 that extends from front end member 516, wherein “Outer ends of the angled flange plate 542 are provided with spaced apart pairs retainer tabs 544 which are aligned with the arms 526 to receive them therebetween when the handle 520,” wherein the upper and lower flanges 554 form a track slot 556 [i.e., a recess].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the mounting interface of Tanaka to include a mounting flange extending along a bottom side of the recess, as disclosed by Kritzer, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable selective extension and retraction of the scissor linkage (Kritzer ¶ 23), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl and Kritzer discloses a system of Claim 13, wherein:
the mounting flange defines a first fastener aperture, and wherein the first base frame defines a second fastener aperture configured to align with the first fastener aperture and receive a fastener to removably couple the first implement to the frame.
Kritzer ¶ 104 discloses upper and lower flanges 554, wherein “Inner ends of the flanges 554 are spaced apart to form a track slot 556 therebetween which opens into the main channel 558 formed in the guide channel member 532,” wherein “surface contact pads 40 may also be used to adjust the orientation of the upper deck plate 78 and a part 10 supported thereon fore and aft and side to side to align the orientation of the part 10 with the portion of the vehicle to which it is to be attached,” see ¶ 70. Also see Figs. 24 and 27.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the fastenings of Tanaka with a first fastener aperture, and wherein the first base frame defines a second fastener aperture configured to align with the first fastener aperture and receive a fastener to removably couple the first implement to the frame, as disclosed by Kritzer, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a high degree of precise movements of the apparatus and components of the apparatus to facilitate lifting loads (Kritzer ¶ 81), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka discloses a system of Claim 14, wherein:
the second base frame defines a third fastener aperture configured to align with the first fastener aperture and receive the fastener to removably couple the second implement to the frame.
Kritzer ¶ 15 discloses “three swivel casters pivotally engaged with the caster plate” wherein such fastenings are aligned for orienting a load 10, see ¶ 78, wherein the fastenings are removable, see at least ¶ 6. Also see ¶ 70.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the fastenings of Tanaka with a third fastener aperture of a second frame configured to align with the first fastener aperture and receive the fastener to removably couple the second implement to the frame, as disclosed by Kritzer, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a high degree of precise movements of the apparatus and components of the apparatus to facilitate lifting loads (Kritzer ¶ 81), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl and Kritzer discloses a system of Claim 12, wherein:
the tractive element is a first tractive element, wherein the frame includes a first drive module receiving the first tractive element and a second drive module receiving a second tractive element,
Tanaka ¶ 59 discloses that “The chassis body 11 has a lower frame unit 11a having the plurality of wheels and the driving unit, an upper frame unit lib provided above the lower frame unit 11a, and the first vibration absorbing members 61 that are provided between the lower frame unit 11a and the upper frame unit 11b and connects the lower frame unit and the upper frame unit together.”
wherein the first drive module is laterally offset from the second drive module, and wherein the recess is positioned between the first drive module and the second drive module.
Tanaka ¶ 169 discloses “the lower second tip shaft f.sub.114 of the hinge unit 152C is drawn to the second lower frame 152Ab by the second lower frame 152Ab shifting a position [i.e., a lateral offset] thereof in parallel with the first lower frame 152Aa.”
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka in combination with Rocholl and Kritzer discloses a system of Claim 16, wherein:
the frame further includes a cross member extending laterally between the first drive module and the second drive module and a fastener removably coupling the first drive module to the cross member.
Kritzer ¶ 63 discloses a riser member 60 that supports “a cross member 62 extending between upper ends of the riser members 60,” also see at least Fig. 1, wherein “Each of the caster plates of the rear caster units has a lock aperture formed therethrough, and a respective caster lock pin is removably positioned between a respective lock mount and a lock aperture aligned therewith,” see ¶ 22. Also see Fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the frame of Tanaka with a cross member extending laterally between the first drive module and the second drive module and a fastener removably coupling the first drive module to the cross member, as disclosed by Kritzer, with reasonable expectation of success, to support a load which has an irregular shape in a desired orientation on the deck plate during lifting or lowering of the load (Kritzer ¶ 75), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritzer (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0124282) in view of Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0065242).
Regarding claim 20, Kritzer discloses a vehicle system, comprising:
a vehicle including: a frame defining a recess (Kritzer ¶ 70 discloses bolt holes on the vehicle frame), the frame including a mounting flange positioned along a bottom side of the recess, the mounting flange defining a first fastener aperture;
Kritzer ¶ 102 discloses an angled flange plate 542 that extends from front end member 516, wherein “Outer ends of the angled flange plate 542 are provided with spaced apart pairs retainer tabs 544 which are aligned with the arms 526 to receive them therebetween when the handle 520,” wherein the upper and lower flanges 554 form a track slot 556 [i.e., a recess].
a tractive element coupled to the frame; and
Kritzer Fig. 1 front wheels or rollers 65 and rear wheels 28.
a motor coupled to the frame ... ;
Kritzer ¶ 11 discloses “a linear lift motor engaged with the scissor linkage in such a manner as to selectively extend and retract the scissor linkage to respectively raise and lower the deck”
a first implement including: a cradle configured to support a product; and
Kritzer ¶ 59 discloses a powered lift assembly 6 [i.e., a cradle]. See Fig. 1.
a first base frame coupled to the cradle and configured to be inserted into the recess, the first base frame defining a second fastener aperture configured to align with the first fastener aperture and receive a fastener to removably couple the cradle to the frame; and
Kritzer ¶ 89 discloses that “Structurally, the load deck 325 is substantially similar to the lift platform assembly 78 (FIG. 1) and 142 (FIG. 6). The load deck 325 includes a rectangular load deck frame 330 formed by laterally spaced side frame members or plates 332 which are joined to fore and aft spaced end frame members or plates 334. An upper deck plate 336 is joined to top surfaces of the load deck frame members 332 and 334. The illustrated load deck 325 is provided with tool channels or pans 338 attached to the side frame members 332.”
[a fastener configured to] receive the fastener to removably couple the interface member to the frame.
Kritzer ¶ 15 discloses “three swivel casters pivotally engaged with the caster plate” wherein such fastenings are aligned for orienting a load 10, see ¶ 78, wherein the fastenings are removable, see at least ¶ 6. Also see ¶ 70.
Kritzer does not expressly disclose:
[a motor] configured to drive the tractive element to propel the vehicle
a second implement including: an interface member configured to configured to engage a cart to propel the cart as the motor drives the tractive element; and
a second base frame coupled to the interface member and configured to be inserted into the recess, the second base frame defining a third fastener aperture configured to align with the first fastener aperture ...
However, Tanaka discloses:
[a motor] configured to drive the tractive element to propel the vehicle
Tanaka ¶ 61 discloses that “the right and left front wheels 21 and 31 are individually driven and controlled by the two electric motors 41R and 41L.”
a second implement including: an interface member configured to configured to engage a cart to propel the cart as the motor drives the tractive element; and
Tanaka ¶ 55 discloses that “The moving vehicle 1A is configured so as to store information of a map of a region to be traveled and movement route information in advance, and to travel a predetermined route while avoiding obstacles with the use of information acquired from the imaging unit S1a, the distance detecting unit S2a, and GPS (Global Positioning System).”
a second base frame coupled to the interface member and configured to be inserted into the recess, the second base frame defining a third fastener aperture configured to align with the first fastener aperture ...
Tanaka ¶ 103 discloses a plurality of insertion holes wherein each of the helical vibration isolators 61A is fixed by passing bolts through the pair of hole portions for attachment 61A.sub.211 of the lower support plate 61A.sub.2 and hole portions for attachment (not illustrated) of the lower frame unit 11a and fastening by means of nuts.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the motor of Kritzer to be a motor configured to drive the tractive element to propel the vehicle, as disclosed by Tanaka, with reasonable expectation of success, because the modification would result in a moving vehicle capable of traveling autonomously (Tanaka ¶ 2).
Further, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified an interfacing member of the assembly of Kritzer to engage a cart to propel the cart as the motor drives the tractive element and configure a base frame to be inserted into a recess, as disclosed by Tanaka, with reasonable expectation of success, so that a clearance is provided between the lower frame unit and the upper frame unit, and shaking caused by vibration may be suppressed (Tanaka ¶ 30), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cassway et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0031266) discloses a lift mechanism moveable with respect to the first end of the frame body, the lift mechanism comprising: a lift body having a first end and a second end, a lifting surface on the first end of the lift body and the second end of the lift body being positioned so as to be movable with respect to the first end of the frame body, wherein the lifting surface is positioned to engage an underside of a cargo container when placed on an upper side of the frame body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights