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 § 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 of this title, 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 23-24, 28, 31-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Karlen (US Pub App 2010/0247275).
Regarding claim 23, Lindbo discloses a method of moving objects to be processed, said method comprising:
providing a base structure of a carrier (130) on which an object is supported (Fig.8A);
providing the carrier with at least two wheels (36) mounted to at least two motors to provide at least two wheel assemblies (Para.52); and
wheel assemblies, from a first position to a second position to effect a change in direction of movement of the carrier from a first direction to a second direction that is generally orthogonal to the first direction (Para.51-52).
Lindbo does not further specifically disclose pivoting each of said wheel assemblies.
Karlen teaches a carrier (Figs. 17A, 17B) for supporting an object/payload, comprising plural wheels (530), plural motors (564), plural wheels assemblies, and pivoting wheels (562).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Karlen to allow for pivoting each of said wheel assemblies in order to reduce the number of wheel assemblies for the purpose of simplifying the system.
Regarding claim 24, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses the step of providing tracks (22) along which the carrier is movable (Fig.6a).
Regarding claims 28, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses guide rollers (36) for engaging the tracks (22).
Regarding claims 31, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses at least one openable bottom trap door through which an object is dropped from the carrier (Fig.17).
Regarding claims 32, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses providing a vacuum source that provides vacuum on an underside of the carrier (Para.69 & Fig.6A).
Regarding claims 33, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses retrieving objects from outside of the carrier, and for placing the retrieved objects into a bin of the carrier (Figs.6A-8A).
Regarding claims 34, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses detecting objects in an environment of the carrier (Para.66, 90, 96, 110, 124, 132, 172).
Claims 25-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Karlen (US Pub App 2010/0247275) as applied above and further in view of Ingram-Tedd (US 11,377,309).
Regarding claims 25, Lindbo does not further specifically disclose intermittent tracks that are not mutually connected.
Ingram-Tedd teaches a track for a bin (10) wherein the track (21, 31) is of intermittent structure (Fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Ingram-Tedd in order allow space for other elements, and further to increase efficiency of conveyance of the bin.
Regarding claims 26, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses said tracks are generally in the shape of a closed square (Lindbo, 22, Fig.1, Para.83).
Regarding claims 27, Lindbo does not further specifically disclose detecting identifiable indicia associated with a track section.
Ingram-Tedd further teaches a track for a bin (10) wherein indicia is detected (Ingram-Tedd, Col.46, lines 42+; Col.23, lines 7+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Ingram-Tedd in order to increase safety of the system.
Claim 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Karlen (US Pub App 2010/0247275) as applied above and further in view of Sibley (US Pub App 2018/0330325).
Regarding claim 29, Lindbo does not further specifically disclose a conveyor that is engageable to move a load in one of two directions off of the carrier.
Sibley teaches a method of delivery wherein a delivery container may contain a conveyor belt for offloading goods (Fig.23, Para.119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Sibley in order to increase efficiency during offloading of goods.
Claim 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Karlen (US Pub App 2010/0247275) as applied above and further in view of Hartlepp (US 4,846,335).
Regarding claim 30, Lindbo does not further specifically disclose a tilt portion that is engageable to dump a load off of the carrier.
Hartlepp teaches a conveyor system for use in transporting cargo wherein cars have trays and a tray support structure mounted pivotally below the tray for transverse angular movement between an upright position for carrying cargo on the tray and a tilted position for dumping the cargo at a selected location (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Hartlepp in order to more easily empty the contents.
Claim 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Karlen (US Pub App 2010/0247275) as applied above and further in view of Lert et al (US Pub App 2016/0355337).
Regarding claim 35, Lindbo does not further specifically disclose retrieving a disabled carrier.
Lert teaches a storage and retrieval system wherein maintenance hoists removed disable robotic vehicles (Para.187).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Lert to retrieve a disabled carrier in order to prevent conveying disruption.
Claims 36-37, 44-47, 49-50, 60 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Maynard (US Pub App 2006/0045672).
Regarding claim 36, Lindbo discloses a method of moving objects to be processed, said method comprising
providing a base structure (130) of a carrier on which an object is supported (Fig.8A);
providing the carrier with at least two wheels (36) mounted to at least two motors to provide at least two wheel assemblies (Para.52);
moving the carrier over a first track section while the at least two wheel assemblies travel outside of the first track section; and moving the carrier away from the first track section as the carrier is moved toward a second track section (Fig.9D),
wherein the first track section and the second track section are raised, closed square track sections (22, Fig.1, Para.83).
Lindbo does not further specifically disclose the track sections are spaced apart on a floor.
Maynard teaches a track and carriage system that includes a pair of spaced apart parallel rails on a floor and a carriage rollingly mounted on the rails (Fig.8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Maynard to include a pair of spaced apart parallel rails on a floor in order allow space for other elements, allow for movement and rotation, and further to increase efficiency of conveyance of the bin.
Regarding claim 37, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses the first track section and the second track section section are included among a plurality of raised, closed square shaped track sections (Lindbo, 22, Fig.1, Para.83), spaced apart on a floor wherein the floor comprises a plurality of connectable floor modules (Maynard, Fig.8).
Regarding claims 44, 57, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses at least one openable bottom trap door through which an object is dropped from the carrier (Fig.17).
Regarding claims 45, 58, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses providing a vacuum source that provides vacuum on an underside of the carrier (Para.69 & Fig.6A).
Regarding claims 46, 59, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses retrieving objects from outside of the carrier, and for placing the retrieved objects into a bin of the carrier (Figs.6A-8A).
Regarding claims 47, 60, Lindbo, as modified above, further discloses detecting objects in an environment of the carrier (Para.66, 90, 96, 110, 124, 132, 172).
Regarding claim 49, Lindbo discloses a method of moving objects to be processed, said method comprising
providing a base structure of a carrier (130) on which an object is supported (Fig.8A);
providing the carrier with at least two wheels (36) mounted to at least two motors to provide at least two wheel assemblies (Para.52);
moving the carrier away from a first track section (Paras.51-52); and
aligning the at least two wheels of the carrier as the carrier is moved toward a second track section (Fig.9D),
Lindbo does not further specifically disclose wherein each of the at least two wheel assemblies includes a guide roller that engages an outer portion of the second track section to align the at least two wheels of the carrier with the second track section.
Maynard teaches a track and carriage system that includes a pair of spaced apart parallel rails and a carriage rollingly mounted on the rails wherein guide rollers to engage a track section and maintain a necessary selected gap of about 0.020 of an inch between the motor and rail magnets in order to drive the unit back and forth in the X-axis with high speed and precision. (Fig.2, Para.14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Maynard to include a guide roller that engages an outer portion of the second track section to align the at least two wheels of the carrier with the second track section in order to guide the direction of the carrier by being urged against the track for the purpose of preventing stopped movement.
Regarding claim 50, Lindbo further discloses the first track section and the second track section are included among a plurality of raised, closed square shaped track sections (22, Fig.1, Para.83).
Lindbo does not further specifically disclose the track sections are spaced apart on a floor wherein the floor comprises a plurality of connectable floor modules.
Maynard teaches a track and carriage system that includes a pair of spaced apart parallel rails on a floor and a carriage rollingly mounted on the rails (Fig.8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Maynard to include a pair of spaced apart parallel rails on a floor in order allow space for other elements, allow for movement and rotation, and further to increase efficiency of conveyance of the bin.
Claim 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Maynard (US Pub App 2006/0045672) as applied above and further in view of Ingram-Tedd (US 11,377,309).
Regarding claims 40, Lindbo, as modified above, a track section of the plurality of raised, closed shaped track sections by the carrier
Lindbo, as modified above, does not further specifically disclose detecting identifiable indicia associated with a track section.
Ingram-Tedd teaches a track for a bin (10) wherein indicia is detected (Ingram-Tedd, Col.46, lines 42+; Col.23, lines 7+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Ingram-Tedd in order to increase safety of the system.
Claim 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Maynard (US Pub App 2006/0045672) as applied above and further in view of Karlen (US Pub App 2010/0247275).
Regarding claim 41, Lindbo, as modified above, does not further specifically disclose guide rollers for engaging the tracks.
Karlen teaches a carrier (Figs. 17A, 17B) for supporting an object/payload, comprising plural wheels (530), plural motors (564), plural wheels assemblies, and pivoting wheels (562).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Karlen to allow for pivoting each of said wheel assemblies in order to reduce the number of wheel assemblies for the purpose of simplifying the system.
Claims 42, 55 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Maynard (US Pub App 2006/0045672) as applied above and further in view of Sibley (US Pub App 2018/0330325).
Regarding claims 42, 55, Lindbo does not further specifically disclose a conveyor that is engageable to move a load in one of two directions off of the carrier.
Sibley teaches a method of delivery wherein a delivery container may contain a conveyor belt for offloading goods (Fig.23, Para.119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Sibley in order to increase efficiency during offloading of goods.
Claims 43, 56 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Maynard (US Pub App 2006/0045672) as applied above and further in view of Hartlepp (US 4,846,335).
Regarding claims 43, 56, Lindbo does not further specifically disclose a tilt portion that is engageable to dump a load off of the carrier.
Hartlepp teaches a conveyor system for use in transporting cargo wherein cars have trays and a tray support structure mounted pivotally below the tray for transverse angular movement between an upright position for carrying cargo on the tray and a tilted position for dumping the cargo at a selected location (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Hartlepp in order to more easily empty the contents.
Claims 48, 61 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Maynard (US Pub App 2006/0045672) as applied above and further in view of Lert et al (US Pub App 2016/0355337).
Regarding claims 48, 61, Lindbo does not further specifically disclose retrieving a disabled carrier.
Lert teaches a storage and retrieval system wherein maintenance hoists removed disable robotic vehicles (Para.187).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Lert to retrieve a disabled carrier in order to prevent conveying disruption.
Claims 51, 53 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2018/0354717) in view of Maynard (US Pub App 2006/0045672) as applied above and further in view of Ingram-Tedd (US 11,377,309).
Regarding claim 51, Lindbo does not further specifically disclose said plurality of raised, closed square shaped track sections are not mutually connected.
Ingram-Tedd teaches a track for a bin (10) wherein the track (21, 31) is of intermittent structure (Fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Ingram-Tedd in order allow space for other elements, and further to increase efficiency of conveyance of the bin.
Regarding claim 53, Lindbo, as modified above, a track section of the plurality of raised, closed shaped track sections by the carrier
Lindbo, as modified above, does not further specifically disclose detecting identifiable indicia associated with a track section.
Ingram-Tedd teaches a track for a bin (10) wherein indicia is detected (Ingram-Tedd, Col.46, lines 42+; Col.23, lines 7+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Lindbo in view of Ingram-Tedd in order to increase safety of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/1/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 23 that incorporating the pivoting wheels into Lindbo would undermine Lindbo’s reliance on fixed wheel alignment, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, it should be noted that Lindbo et al already discloses means for changing the trajectory of the carrier (Par 51) while Karlen merely offers a compatible substitution of such means.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument regarding claim 36 that any space apart parallel rail structure modification of Lindbo would render the Lindbo system inoperable as the carriers would not maintain access to a desired stacked storage location, again the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Further, in response to applicant's argument regarding claim 49 that the Maynard reference would render the Lindbo system inoperable, again the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY K ROMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/ASHLEY K ROMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3652