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) submitted on 5/18/2026 and 4/27/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the vehicle support module is configured to” should read “the vehicle support module is further configured to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a vehicle support module” in claims 1, 14, and 19. Applicant’s specification discloses “a charger (e.g., charging banks, batteries, fuel cells, generators, etc.), energy supply module, charging module, auxiliary power unit, refueler, external pump, support vehicle, or power take-off module, is shown as vehicle support module 2000” in paragraph [0083].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “power take of shaft” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to. In a good faith effort to proceed with compact prosecution, Examiner interprets “power take of shaft” as “power take off shaft.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Messina et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0234462 A1; hereinafter Messina).
Regarding claim 1, Messina discloses:
A vehicle system comprising: a vehicle support module (charging implement 170, see at least [0024]) configured to supply at least one of electrical energy, pressurized fluid, or rotational mechanical energy to a work vehicle (charging implement includes electrical power source, see at least [0018]); and
a vehicle (service vehicle 100, see at least [0019]) including:
a chassis (chassis 120, see at least [0019]);
a body coupled to the chassis and configured to support the vehicle support module (frame, see [0019] and Fig. 1);
a plurality of tractive elements rotatably coupled to the chassis and configured to support the chassis (tractive elements 130, see at least [0019]);
a prime mover configured to drive one or more of the tractive elements to propel the vehicle (vehicle includes electric motors 132 to drive tractive elements, see at least [0020]);
a first actuator selectively engageable with the vehicle support module (boom assembly 160 (actuator assembly) with telescope section is displaceable between retracted and extended position, see at least [0024]); and
a second actuator configured to reposition the vehicle support module relative to the body (boom base 161 coupled to chassis facilitates rotation of boom base relative to chassis about a first horizontal and vertical axis, see at least [0024]).
Regarding claim 2, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the vehicle support module is configured to electrically couple with the work vehicle and supply the electrical energy to charge the work vehicle (charging lift devices 700 using service vehicle, see Fig. 7 and [0038] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the vehicle support module includes a generator (generator, see at least [0018]) and an internal combustion engine configured to drive the generator to supply the electrical energy (electrical cabinet 110 houses an internal combustion engine and generator to produce and supply power, see at least [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the vehicle support module includes a battery configured to supply the electrical energy (charging implement includes battery assembly, see at least [0018]).
Regarding claim 10, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
further comprising a sensor configured to acquire sensor data regarding a location of the work vehicle and one or more processing circuits (controller 150 of service vehicle includes processing circuit, see at least [0032]) configured to control the second actuator to position the vehicle support module at a position and an orientation relative to the work vehicle based on the sensor data (implement sensors 155 provide implement position data indicating a position of charging implement 170 relative to a portion of another vehicle, see at least [0036]; vehicle extends or pivots a boom assembly until antenna coil is positioned above the induction coil of charging pad, see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 11, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the one or more processing circuits are configured to control the second actuator to position the vehicle support module at the position and the orientation such that a charging interface of the vehicle support module is within range to engage with the work vehicle (vehicle extends or pivots a boom assembly until antenna coil is positioned above the induction coil of charging pad, see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the vehicle support module includes a drivetrain (actuators or drivers shown as electric motor 132 coupled to controller for navigation, see at least [0020]) configured to facilitate autonomously navigating the vehicle support module to a position and an orientation relative to the work vehicle (controller communicates with service vehicle 100 for autonomously driving into proximity with lift devices, see at least [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the vehicle support module includes a charging interface that is configured to wirelessly transfer energy to the work vehicle (wireless charging interface to wirelessly transfer energy to recipient vehicle, see at least [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Messina discloses:
A vehicle system comprising: a vehicle support module (charging implement 170, see at least [0024]) configured to supply at least one of electrical energy, pressurized fluid, or rotational mechanical energy to a work vehicle (charging implement includes electrical power source, see at least [0018]), the vehicle support module including:
an energy storage device (battery assembly 112, see at least [0019]);
at least one charging interface configured to facilitate transferring electrical energy to and from the energy storage device (charging implement includes battery assembly, see at least [0018]);
at least one of a generator, a compressor, pump, or a power take off shaft (electrical cabinet 110 houses an internal combustion engine and generator to produce and supply power, see at least [0022]); and
a driveline configured to facilitate autonomously navigating the vehicle support module to a position and an orientation relative to the work vehicle (actuators or drivers shown as electric motor 132 coupled to controller for navigation, see at least [0020]; controller communicates with service vehicle 100 for autonomously driving into proximity with lift devices, see at least [0039]).
Regarding claim 15, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
further comprising a vehicle (service vehicle 100, see at least [0019]) including:
a chassis (chassis 120, see at least [0019]);
a body coupled to the chassis and configured to support the vehicle support module (frame, see [0019] and Fig. 1);
a plurality of tractive elements rotatably coupled to the chassis and configured to support the chassis (tractive elements 130, see at least [0019]);
a prime mover configured to drive one or more of the tractive elements to propel the vehicle (vehicle includes electric motors 132 to drive tractive elements, see at least [0020]); and
at least one actuator configured to reposition the vehicle support module relative to the body (boom assembly 160 (actuator assembly) with telescope section is displaceable between retracted and extended position, boom base 161 coupled to chassis facilitates rotation of boom base relative to chassis about a first horizontal and vertical axis, see at least [0024]).
Regarding claim 16, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the vehicle includes a steering system configured to steer one or more of the tractive elements (controlling navigation such as steering and propulsion of service vehicle, see at least [0020]), and wherein the vehicle system further comprises one or more processing circuits (controller 150 of service vehicle includes processing circuit, see at least [0032]) configured to control the prime mover and the steering system to autonomously navigate along a route to a location adjacent to the work vehicle (controller communicates with service vehicle 100 for autonomously driving into proximity with lift devices, see at least [0039])
Regarding claim 17, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
further comprising one or more processing circuits configured to control the at least one actuator to autonomously position the vehicle support module relative to the body at the position and the orientation relative to the work vehicle (implement sensors 155 provide implement position data indicating a position of charging implement 170 relative to a portion of another vehicle, see at least [0036]; vehicle extends or pivots a boom assembly until antenna coil is positioned above the induction coil of charging pad, see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Messina discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the vehicle support module includes an interface actuator configured to move the at least one charging interface, and wherein the vehicle system includes one or more processing circuits configured to control the interface actuator to autonomously electrically couple the at least one charging interface with the work vehicle (implement sensors 155 provide implement position data indicating a position of charging implement 170 relative to a portion of another vehicle, see at least [0036]; vehicle extends or pivots a boom assembly until antenna coil is positioned above the induction coil of charging pad, see at least [0041])
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messina in view of Wilkinson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0362195 A1; hereinafter Wilkinson).
Regarding claim 5, Messina discloses the elements above but does not disclose:
the vehicle support module is configured to fluidly couple with the work vehicle to supply the pressurized fluid to the work vehicle.
However, Wilkinson teaches:
the vehicle support module is configured to fluidly couple with the work vehicle to supply the pressurized fluid to the work vehicle (attachment device connecting to item to be refueled, see at least [0027]; flexible fuel transfer hose is connected via pressure hose, see at least [0026]; fuel delivery, see at least [0032])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the service vehicle supplying power disclosed by Messina by adding the fuel supply vehicle taught by Wilkinson with a reasonable expectation of success. The power supplied by the service vehicle could be fuel instead of electric energy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “efficiently and inexpensively transferring fuel from a fuel tank to an item to be refueled” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Messina and Wilkinson teaches the elements above but Messina does not disclose:
the pressurized fluid is supplied by a pump
However, Wilkinson teaches:
the pressurized fluid is supplied by a pump (known av-gas trucks carry a pump, see at least [0003])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the service vehicle supplying power disclosed by Messina by adding the pump taught by Wilkinson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it is known that current av-gas trucks carry a pump (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Messina and Wilkinson teaches the elements above but Messina does not disclose:
the pressurized fluid is supplied by a compressor
However, Wilkinson teaches:
the pressurized fluid is supplied by a compressor (compressor 20 delivers volume of air at flow rate determined by desired flow of rate of fuel out of tank, see at least [0036])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the service vehicle supplying power disclosed by Messina by adding the compressor taught by Wilkinson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it “improves an efficiency of the fuel transfer operation by monitoring the pressure within the tank 14 during the fuel transfer operation” (see [0041]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messina in view of Wilkinson and Morselli (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0300326 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Messina discloses the elements above but does not disclose:
the vehicle support module is configured to mechanically couple with the work vehicle to provide the rotational mechanical energy to the work vehicle.
However, Wilkinson teaches:
the vehicle support module is configured to mechanically couple with the work vehicle (known Av-gas trucks carry power takeoff (PTO) wherein rotational motion of drive shaft is transferred to pump by means of the PTO, PTO includes rotatable shaft caused to engage a corresponding aperture formed in pump, see at least [0003])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the service vehicle supplying power disclosed by Messina by adding the power takeoff taught by Wilkinson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it is known that current av-gas trucks carry a power takeoff (see [0003]).
Furthermore, Morselli teaches:
provide the rotational mechanical energy to the work vehicle (convert mechanical energy of rotation of power takeoff shaft into electrical energy, transmit torque to power takeoff shaft which may be used to drive a second power takeoff or generate electricity for an external consumer, see at least [0056])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the service vehicle supplying power disclosed by Messina and the power takeoff taught by Wilkinson by adding the mechanical energy conversion from a power takeoff taught by Morselli with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate electricity using the power takeoff (see [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Messina, Wilkinson, and Morselli teaches the elements above but Messina does not disclose:
the rotational mechanical energy is supplied by a power take of shaft
However, Morselli teaches:
the rotational mechanical energy is supplied by a power take of shaft (convert mechanical energy of rotation of power takeoff shaft into electrical energy, transmit torque to power takeoff shaft which may be used to drive a second power takeoff or generate electricity for an external consumer, see at least [0056])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the service vehicle supplying power disclosed by Messina and the power takeoff taught by Wilkinson by adding the mechanical energy conversion from a power takeoff taught by Morselli with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate electricity using the power takeoff (see [0056]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messina.
Regarding claim 19, Messina discloses:
A vehicle system comprising: a plurality of vehicle support modules (charging implement 170, see at least [0024]; secondary assembly to charge two or more external vehicles simultaneously, see fig. 4 and [0029]), each being configured to supply at least one of electrical energy, pressurized fluid, or rotational mechanical energy to a work vehicle (charging implement includes electrical power source, see at least [0018]);
a vehicle (service vehicle 100, see at least [0019]) including a driveline configured to navigate the vehicle throughout an area (actuators or drivers shown as electric motor 132 coupled to controller for navigation, see at least [0020]; controller communicates with service vehicle 100 for autonomously driving into proximity with lift devices, see at least [0039]) and a body configured to support the plurality of vehicle support modules (frame, see [0019] and Fig. 1); and
one or more processing circuits (controller 150 of service vehicle includes processing circuit, see at least [0032]) configured to:
monitor a first location of a first work vehicle of the work vehicles and a second location of a second work vehicle of the work vehicles relative to the area (receive location data from one or more external vehicles such as lift devices, see at least [0034]); and
control at least one of a driveline of the plurality of vehicle support modules or an implement of the vehicle to deliver (i) a first vehicle support module of the plurality of vehicle support modules to the first work vehicle and (ii) a second vehicle support module of the plurality of vehicle support modules to the second work vehicle (controller communicates with service vehicle 100 for autonomously driving into proximity with lift devices, see at least [0039]);
wherein delivering the plurality of vehicle support modules includes positioning the plurality of vehicle support modules relative to the work vehicles such that the plurality of vehicle support modules are within a range of the work vehicles to supply the at least one of electrical energy, pressurized fluid, or rotational mechanical energy to the work vehicles (implement sensors 155 provide implement position data indicating a position of charging implement 170 relative to a portion of another vehicle, see at least [0036]; vehicle extends or pivots a boom assembly until antenna coil is positioned above the induction coil of charging pad, see at least [0041]).
Although Messina does not explicitly disclose delivering a first support module and a second support module, Messina teaches two external vehicles may be charged simultaneously and that there could be more than one lift on the jobsite. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the service vehicle disclosed by Messina would be capable of charging two lifts.
Regarding claim 20, Messina teaches the elements above and further discloses:
the plurality of vehicle support modules are positioned within the range of the work vehicles such that transfer interfaces of the plurality of vehicle support modules are within range to engage with the work vehicles (vehicle extends or pivots a boom assembly until antenna coil is positioned above the induction coil of charging pad, see at least [0041])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kizaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0088915 A1) teaches a vehicle assistance system including an assistance vehicle with a power source which electrically connects the assistance vehicle to the assisted vehicle and the power source is supplied to the assisted vehicle via an electric cable.
Van Vleck (U.S. Patent No. 2,472,450 A) teaches that a power takeoff shaft is coupled to a generator such that the rotation of the shaft permits generation of electrical current.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights