Ex Parte WastelDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 18, 201813659132 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/659, 132 10/24/2012 1218 7590 HESPOS & PORCO LLP 110 West 40th Street Suite 2501 NEW YORK, NY 10018 09/20/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Andreas N. Waste! UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Park Plus 12 3965 EXAMINER JHA, ABDHESH K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/20/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@hpiplaw.com USPTO@dockettrak.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREAS N. WAS TEL Appeal 201 7-008116 Application 13/659,132 Technology Center 3600 Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection2 of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Park Plus, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Appeal is taken from the Non-Final Office Action dated March 28, 2016. Appeal 2017-008116 Application 13/659, 132 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1, 6, and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal, with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis. 1. An automated guided vehicle for use with a tray having a parking platform capable of supporting a vehicle thereon, the automated guided vehicle comprising: a frame having opposite top and bottom surfaces; a plurality of tray support platforms mounted to the frame for movement along a moving direction between an extended position where the tray support platforms are raised above the top surface of the frame and a retracted position where the tray support platforms are lower than in the extended position; a plurality of platform lifts mounted to the frame and operative for moving the tray support platforms between the extended position and the retracted position; a plurality of drive devices mounted to the frame, each drive device including: a turntable rotatable about a rotational axis substantially parallel to the moving direction of the tray support platforms, a plurality of wheels mounted to the turntable and rotatable about axes substantially perpendicular to the rotational axis of the turntable, the wheels projecting below the bottom surface of the frame, a plurality of dedicated drive motors mounted on the turntable of each of the drive devices and disposed so that each of the wheels has one of the drive motors and so that the wheels and the drive motors of each drive device rotate with the turntable, each of the drive motors being independently operable and being selectively reversibly operable; and a controller for controlling rotational direction of the respective wheels and controlling operation of the platform lifts. 2 Appeal 2017-008116 Application 13/659, 132 THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Boomerang Robotic Valet Automated Parking System (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAp-ttE8uko, PDF pages 1- 48) (hereinafter "Boomerang")3 and Swasey (US 2013/0008734 Al; Jan. 10, 2013) (hereinafter "Swasey '734"). 4,5 II. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boomerang, Swasey '734, and Swasey (US 2010/0181136 A 1 ; published July 22, 2010) (hereinafter "Swasey ' 13 6 "). 6 III. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Boomerang, Swasey '734, Swasey' 136, and Checketts (US 2010/0183409 Al; published July 22, 2010). IV. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Boomerang, Swasey '734, and Checketts. 3 We are unable to view the video because the link appears to be no longer available; we rely instead on the 48-page document representing the video, which is provided in the record. 4 The Examiner refers to Swasey '734 as Swasey '13 due to the publication of Swasey '734 in 2013. 5 Although claim 7 is included in the statement of the rejection, there is no analysis provided for the subject matter of claim 7, and claim 7 is rejected pursuant to Rejection II. Therefore, we regard the inclusion of claim 7 in Rejection I as a typographical error. Non-Final Act. 3-14. 6 The Examiner refers to Swasey '13 6 as Swasey '10 due to the publication of Swasey' 136 in 2010. 3 Appeal 2017-008116 Application 13/659, 132 ANALYSIS Rejection I Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Boomerang teaches an automated guided vehicle (AGV) for use with a tray (i.e., vehicle parking platform) comprising a plurality of drive devices, wherein each drive device includes at least a turntable and a plurality of wheels, as claimed. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Boomerang "whole video/Snap Shots"). The Examiner determines that Boomerang "may not expressly teach ... a plurality of dedicated drive motors," as claimed, and relies on Swasey '734 for disclosing, inter alia, this claim limitation. Id. at 4 ( citing Swasey '734 ,r,r 19--22, Figs. 1-3, 6, 8). Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's rationale for incorporating "the dedicated drive motors mounted on the turntable," as disclosed in Swasey '734, into Boomerang's AGV ("[to] help the AGV to tum in any direction") (Non-Final Act. 4), because Appellant submits that Boomerang and Swasey '734 are describing the same commercial parking system, wherein Swasey '734 discloses the dedicated drive motors used in Boomerang's AGVs. Appeal Br. 9 ("[the Swasey '734] device is the drive device intended to be incorporated into the [AGD] illustrated in the Boomerang video"). Appellant interprets steering gear 410 of Swasey '734 as a turntable, 7 and argues that neither Boomerang nor Swasey discloses "a plurality of wheels mounted to the turntable," as claimed. Appeal Br. 11. In support, Appellant submits that "[t]he Boomerang video has no details about the 7 The record is silent as to any finding by the Examiner that a specific structure, as disclosed in either Boomerang or Swasey '734, corresponds to the claimed turntable. Non-Final Act. 3-11; Ans. 2--4. 4 Appeal 2017-008116 Application 13/659, 132 drive device" (id. at 9) and that Swasey '734 discloses "a single wheel mounted on a turntable (steering gear 410)" (id. at 11). The Examiner responds that, concerning the claim limitation "a plurality of wheels mounted to the turntable," the Examiner "cited Boomerang . .. to teach this claim limitation."8 Ans. 2 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that "[ t ]he Boomerang video @O 1:28 minutes clearly shows an omnidirectional AGV (robot) which can rotate 360 degrees and maneuver in perpendicular or parallel direction to park vehicles" and determines that "[i]n order to do that the AGV have to have plurality of wheels [as claimed]." Id. at 2-3. Appellant reiterates that "'[t]he Boomerang video has no details about the drive device,"' ( quoting the Appeal Brief, as set forth supra), and argues that the Examiner's finding with respect to Boomerang's disclosure of a plurality of wheels mounted to a turntable lacks support. Reply Br. 2---6; id. at 3 ("the Examiner has presented no evidence that each of the drive devices of the AGV in Boomerang includes a plurality of wheels driven by a corresponding plurality of drive motors"). The page of the Boomerang video at time 1 :28, as provided in the record, is reproduced below. 8 Notably, to the extent the Examiner relies on Swasey '734 for disclosing a plurality of drive devices, each including a plurality of wheels, as claimed, such a finding is in error. See, e.g., Non-Final Act. 4 (finding that Swasey '734 discloses "a plurality of wheels mounted to the turntable ... "). Swasey '734 discloses and depicts a single wheel associated with the drive and steering units 200, 700, and not a plurality of wheels. Swasey '734 ,r 5 ( disclosing "a steering assembly for steering a wheel and a drive assembly for driving the wheel") (emphasis added)); see also id., Figs. 4---6, 9, 10 (i.e., wheel 310, wheel 710). 5 Appeal 2017-008116 Application 13/659, 132 The page of the Boomerang video at time 1 :28 depicts a vehicle on a tray with an AGV below and presumably moving the tray; however, as correctly submitted by Appellant, details with respect to the drive devices of the tray are not visible. Thus, we agree with Appellant that a preponderance of evidence fails to support the Examiner's finding that Boomerang discloses "a plurality of wheels mounted to [a] turntable," as claimed. Nor is there support for the Examiner's conclusion that because Boomerang's AGV is omni-directional, there must be more than one wheel included in each of Boomerang's drive devices; in fact, Swasey '734 is evidence that only one such wheel is required. See, e.g., Swasey '734 ,r 21 (wheel 310); id. ,r 26 (wheel 710). "[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." 6 Appeal 2017-008116 Application 13/659, 132 In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2-5 depending therefrom. Independent claims 6 and 10 similarly require that each drive device includes a plurality of wheels, and the Examiner applies the same findings with respect to independent claim 6 and 10 as applied to independent claim 1 supra. Appeal Br. 16, 18 (Claims App.); Non-Final Act. 6-7, 9. Therefore, for essentially the same reasons as stated supra, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 6 and 10, and claims 9 and 13-15 depending therefrom. Rejections II-IV The Examiner's reliance on Swasey '136 and Checketts for disclosing rechargeable batteries and a controller, as claimed, does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's findings with respect to independent claims 6 and 10, as discussed supra, and therefore, for essentially the same reasons as set forth supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8, 11, and 12. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 is REVERSED. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation