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 .
Comment re Proposed Examiner’s Amendment
As noted in the Interview Summary attached to this Office Action, on January 5, 2026, Examiner emailed a proposed Examiner’s Amendment to Applicant’s representative. On January 7, 2026, Applicant’s representative indicated to Examiner that Applicant would be unable to provide an answer regarding the acceptability of the proposed Examiner’s Amendment in the timeframe required by the Examiner. That said, attention is directed to that proposed Examiner’s Amendment (which proposal was incorporated into the attached Interview Summary) for details and suggestions as to how to overcome any issues outlined in this Office Action.
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (drawn to “an unloading or loading device”), and species (i) (a first species shown in Figures 1A-B) in the reply filed on December 20, 2024 has been acknowledged.
It is noted that the non-elected claims of Group II were canceled in the response filed December 20, 2024.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 20, 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the “wireless transceiver” set forth in claim 19;
the “driverless control” set forth in claim 19 (noting that such appears to be claimed as an object, noting the limitation “the transport vehicle including at least one of a driverless control of the transport vehicle”).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not provide antecedent basis for the term “wireless transceiver” (in the event that Applicant is able to identify support for this limitation).
Information Disclosure Statement
The letter that was filed June 4, 2025 and that was (apparently mistakenly) identified as an “information disclosure statement” fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires (among other things) the following: a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; each page of the list being required to include a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials.
That said, the letter that was filed on June 4, 2025 and identified as an “information disclosure statement” does not include a list of the document(s) to be considered, nor does it include a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, as required by 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1).
It is noted that the letter filed 6/4/2025 that was identified by Applicant as an “Information Disclosure Statement” further fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks a timing statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e). Additionally, while the letter mentions authorizing a charge to a deposit account for the fee under 37 CFR 1.97(c), it is noted that such fee has not (yet) been charged, and given that what was filed is a letter, rather than an Information Disclosure Statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98 (as noted above), it does not appear that charging this fee at this time would be helpful as the IDS letter could not be considered because it is not in the form of a proper IDS that is in the form required by 37 CFR 1.98. Thus, the letter has been lined through and not considered.
In any event, it is noted that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0296047 is in the same patent family as EP 2750828 (which was mentioned in the IDS letter filed 6/4/2025), which was cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) mailed 3/25/2025.
That said, the “information disclosure statement” (i.e., the letter identified as an “information disclosure statement”) filed 6/4/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because of the reasons set forth above. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Comment on Claims 5-7
It is noted that each of claims 5-7 presently include a limitation regarding a position alignment of the handover unit in various directions (what direction depends on the claim) being able to be achieved “in a docked state”. Given the breadth of such limitations, at present, they are being treated as being readable on the elected species of Figures 1A-B, noting, for example, that in a docked state such as a docked state in which the docking sections of the transport vehicle 510 are docked with corresponding docking sections of the supply unit 400, the position of the handover unit (including, per claim 1, the receiving section 530 having a plurality of retainers arranged in a row) is/has been inherently “aligned” in the claimed direction(s) with some axis or frame of reference in existence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-8 and 19-21 are 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.
In claim 1, line 5, it is unclear what is meant by “retainers arranged entirely only in a row in a transverse direction…”. For example, in particular, it is unclear what effect the term “only” is intended to have.
In claim 2, the claim recites that “the row of retainers of the receiving section extends in a transverse direction with respect to the transport vehicle or transversely to a direction of travel of the transport vehicle”. However, it is unclear as claimed how or in what regard a transverse direction that is transverse “with respect to the transverse vehicle” is to be determined, i.e., transverse with respect to what axis or frame of reference of the transport vehicle?
In claim 2, lines 4-5, it is unclear whether “a row in the transverse direction…” is intended to be the same row previously set forth in line 5 of claim 1, or whether the “row” in claim 2, lines 4-5, is instead intended to be additional to the row previously set forth in claim 1.
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are:
“the transverse direction” in claim 2, penultimate line (noting that plural transverse directions were previously recited, such as in claim 1, line 5, and in claim 2, lines 2-3 re “a transverse direction with respect to the transport vehicle”, and it is thus unclear which specific transverse direction is intended to be referenced);
“the mechanical docking interfaces of a supply magazine” in claim 3, lines 2-3; and
“the direction of travel of the transport vehicle” in claim 7, line 5.
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 2, last two lines, the claim recites “the retainers being arranged next to one another in a row in the transverse direction or in a direction transverse to the direction of travel of the transport vehicle”. However, it is unclear as set forth in this limitation as to what the alternative limitation “or in a direction transverse to the direction of travel of the transport vehicle” is alternative, e.g., it is unclear whether the claim intends to recite “the retainers being arranged next to one another in a row in the transverse direction or” (the retainers being arranged next to one another in a row) “in a direction transverse to the direction of travel of the transport vehicle”, vs. whether the claim intends to recite “the retainers being arranged next to one another in a row in the transverse direction or” (the retainers being arranged) “in a direction transverse to the direction of travel of the transport vehicle”, for example.
In claim 3, line 5, in the limitation “with regard to which the row…”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim as to what “which” is intended to refer.
In claim 5, the claim recites “the mechanical docking connectors of the transport vehicle are configured to dock with the corresponding mechanical docking interfaces of the supply magazine via one of a mechanical connection and a stop contact blocking at least one movement in a direction of travel of the transport vehicle, including while blocking in a form-fitting manner in the direction of travel”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “blocking at least one movement in a direction of travel of the transport vehicle, including while blocking in a form-fitting manner in the direction of travel” is intended to go only with “a stop contact”, or whether “blocking at least one movement in a direction of travel of the transport vehicle, including while blocking in a form-fitting manner in the direction of travel” is also intended to go with “a mechanical connection”.
In claim 5, in the limitation “including while blocking in a form-fitting manner in the direction of travel”, it is unclear how or in what regard the prevention or blocking of movement (i.e., an action) in a particular direction is to be considered to be “in a form-fitting manner”.
In claim 6, lines 5-6, the claim recites “while blocking horizontally laterally or transversely to the direction of travel”. However, it is unclear as set forth in this limitation whether “to the direction of travel” is intended to only go with “transversely”, or whether “to the direction of travel” is also intended to go with “laterally” (or “horizontally laterally”). Additionally, there is no clear frame of reference provided in the claim for determining what is meant by “laterally”, i.e., laterally with respect to what axis or frame of reference?
In claim 6, last three lines, it is unclear as claimed whether or not “a docked state” is intended to be required to refer to the docking of the mechanical docking connectors of the transport vehicle with the corresponding mechanical docking interfaces of the supply magazine, noting that the claim does not expressly recite what the docked state is of (i.e., a docked state of what and what else?).
In claim 7, lines 4-5, the claim sets forth “blocking in one or more directions transverse to the direction of travel of the transport vehicle”. However, it is unclear as claimed what (element or action) is being “blocked in one or more directions transverse to the direction of travel of the transport vehicle”.
In claim 7, lines 5-6, the claim sets forth “while blocking in a form-fitting manner transverse to the direction of travel”. However, it is unclear as claimed what (element or action) is being “blocked in a form-fitting manner transverse to the direction of travel”. Additionally, it is unclear how or in what regard the action of “blocking” is to be considered to be “in a form-fitting manner”.
In claim 7, last two lines, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “one or more directions transverse to the direction of travel” is/are intended to the same as the “one or more directions transverse to the direction of travel of the transport vehicle” previously recited in claim 7, lines 4-5, or whether “one or more directions transverse to the direction of travel” is/are intended to be additional to the “one or more directions transverse to the direction of travel of the transport vehicle” previously recited in claim 7, lines 4-5.
In claim 7, last three lines, the claim recites “wherein, in a docked state, a position alignment of the handover unit in one or more directions transverse to the direction of travel of the transport vehicle can be achieved”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether or not “a docked state” is intended to be required to refer to the docking of the mechanical docking connectors of the transport vehicle with the corresponding mechanical docking interfaces of the supply magazine, noting that the claim does not expressly recite what the docked state is of (i.e., a docked state of what and what else?).
In claim 8, lines 4-5, the claim sets forth “while blocking in a form-fitting manner transversely to a direction of travel”. However, it is unclear as claimed what (element or action) is being “blocked in a form-fitting manner transversely to the direction of travel”. Additionally, it is unclear how or in what regard the action of “blocking” is to be considered to be “in a form-fitting manner”.
In claim 8, penultimate line, the claim refers to a “docked state”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether or not “a docked state” is intended to be required to refer to the docking of the mechanical docking connectors of the transport vehicle with the corresponding mechanical docking interfaces of the supply magazine, noting that the claim does not expressly recite what the docked state is of (i.e., a docked state of what and what else?).
In claim 21, the claim sets forth that “the transport vehicle has at least one of automated steering assistance and steering control”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “automated” is intended to go only with “steering assistance”, or whether “automated” is also intended to go with “steering control”.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 19, the claim now recites “the transport vehicle including at least one of a driverless control of the transport vehicle and a wireless transceiver for wireless connection”. However, noting that the term “transceiver” indicates that the wireless transceiver must be capable of both sending and receiving signals, the specification as originally filed does not appear to provide support for the transport vehicle including a “wireless transceiver for wireless connection”.
It is noted that paragraph 0035 of the specification as originally filed provides support for the transport vehicle including a “communication unit for wireless connection…”. However, such, in and of itself, does not provide support for a “wireless transceiver”, i.e., that can both send and receive signals.
Additionally, paragraph 0242 of the specification as filed is as follows:
[0242] It should also be mentioned here that advantageous exemplary embodiments may be provided in which docked transport vehicles (e.g. via the connected data interface in the docked state or also via wireless signal transmission, e.g. via RFID, WLAN, Bluetooth or radio) can read information measured on the measuring unit 583 as a tool and/or workpiece data. It is possible, for example, for the transport vehicle 510-1 in FIG. 4 to read tool data about the tool WZ1 measured on the measuring unit 583 via the data interface of the docking section 590-4. Such a data readout function may also be made possible for independent measuring unit or presetting unit stations that can be approached by transport vehicles.
Such likewise does not appear to provide support, specifically, for a wireless transceiver, i.e., that can both send and receive signals, as opposed to only providing support for receiving wireless signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112(b), would be allowable if rewritten or amended (without broadening in any way) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-8 and 20-21, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112(b) would be allowable if rewritten (without broadening) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claim 19, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of elected claim 19 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 11, 2025, have been fully considered
In particular, with respect to 35 USC 112(a), Applicant stated the following (on page 10 of the 9/11/2025 reply):
Applicant submits that the amended claim language, supported by the original disclosure, provides a clear and definite description of the claimed invention that satisfies the written description requirement. A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the specification, would understand that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
However, attention is directed to the above rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC 112(a), which rejection arose as a result of the amendments filed 9/11/2025.
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant indicates (on page 12 of the 9/11/2025 reply) that the amended claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, attention is directed to the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) for any issues with respect thereto that either remain, or that newly arose via the amendment filed 9/11/2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached on (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
January 7, 2026