DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 05/12/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 05/12/2025.
Claim 1 is pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional application 62/984,581, filed on 03/03/2020; is a 371 of PCT/US2021/020482, filed on 03/02/2021; and is continuation of 17/794,103, filed on 07/20/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,297,089. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the term “first end” and “second end” are another way of saying “rear end” and “front end”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US 2018/0118409) in view of Osswald (WO 2009/020509), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Bradley discloses an automated conveyance robot {“automated guided vehicles (AGVs)” [0042]} comprising: a main frame {1200}; a rear drive assembly {1212} coupled to the main frame {1200} near a first end {rear end (1202)} of the main frame {1200}; a front drive assembly {1218: “Hydraulic caster assembly 1218 comprises frame connector 1302, vertical shaft 1304 (shown in phantom), hydraulically actuated sleeve 1306, caster 1308, and tubing 1310” [0077]} coupled to the main frame {1200} near a second end {front end (1204)} of the main frame {1200} opposite the first end {rear end (1202)}; a power system {1210+1224} for powering the rear drive assembly {1212: “The power for hydraulic power unit 1212 can be supplied from either power supply 1210” [0072]} and the front drive assembly {1218: “Hydraulics junction box 1224 is connected to hydraulics power unit 1212 on conveyance vehicle section 1202 (e.g., through tubing) and provides the hydraulics used to operate hydraulic caster assemblies 1218” [0074]}; a lift carriage {1204 (Fig. 12A)} pivotally coupled to the main frame {1200} at the second end {front end (1204)} of the main frame {1200} by a pivot joint {1214: “Conveyance vehicle section 1202 further comprises vertical pivot joint 1214 which allows conveyance vehicle section 1202 to pivot with respect MP section 1204” [0073]}, wherein the lift carriage {1204} is configured to removably couple to a moveable platform {MP: “MP section 1204 comprises MP frame 1216 which connects MP section 1204 to conveyance vehicle section 1202” [0074]}.
However, Bradley does not explicitly disclose a counterweight assembly removably coupled to the first end of the main frame.
Osswald teaches a counterweight assembly {52} removably coupled {the counterweight assembly is capable of being removed from the main frame 16} to the first end {rear end} of the main frame {16: “The secondary counterweight 52 includes features found at the back end of the rear portion 16” [0068]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated conveyance robot, as disclosed by Bradley, to include a counterweight assembly removably coupled to the first end of the main frame, as taught by Osswald, in order “to rapidly extend or deploy a counterweight load from the back of the vehicle in one configuration, to extend the wheelbase in another configuration or combine them in a third configuration to counteract potential instability” [0068].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614