DETAILED ACTION
In the reply filed 1/27/2026, claims 1, 13, 17, 27 are amended and new claims 34-36 are added. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-36 are currently pending, with claim 26 withdrawn.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/27/2026 has been entered.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,988,154 and claim 6 of US Patent No. 11,465,662.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,988,154 and claim 6 of US Patent No. 11,465,662. encompass all of the limitations from claim 1 of the present application, respectively, and more (some of the claims from the present application may be broader than those of US 10,988,154 and US 11,465,662). Although the wording is slightly different between these patents and the present Application, one of ordinary skill would understand that all limitations from claim 1 from the present application are found in claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,988,154 and claim 6 of US Patent No. 11,465,662.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-20 and 34-35 are 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.
Claim 17 has been amended to recite: “wherein each hub motor abuts each of the associated pair of arms”. Support for this limitation is not found in the original disclosure. Merriam-Webster disctionary defines “abut” as follows: 1: to border on : to touch along an edge; 2: to cause to touch or lean for support (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abut). Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that abutting, as claimed, requires contact between the hub motor and the associated pair of arms. The claimed limitation introduces new matter and contradicts the original disclosure, as the drawings reveal a gap between the arms and hub motor. See the annotated magnified portion from Fig. 8, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
588
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A similar gap is also shown in Fig. 3.
New claim 34 recites: “a first hub motor abutting each of the first arm and the second arm” and “a second hub motor abutting each of the third arm and the fourth arm”. These recitations introduce new matter for the same reasons as expressed regarding claim 17.
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.
Claims 17-20 and 34-35 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.
Claim 17 has been amended to recite: “wherein each hub motor abuts each of the associated pair of arms”. The limitation is not understood because it appears the limitation would render the pallet sled inoperable. Providing wherein each hub motor abuts each of the associated pair of arms, as claimed, would yield frictional engagement between the arms and rotor/moving components of the hub motor. This would yield excessive wear between components, leading to heat and damage.
As expressed above, support for the limitation is not found in the original disclosure. As such, the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be reasonably ascertained.
New claim 34 recites: “a first hub motor abutting each of the first arm and the second arm” and “a second hub motor abutting each of the third arm and the fourth arm”. These limitations are not understood for the same reasons as expressed regarding claim 17.
Due to the nature of indefiniteness, it would be inappropriate to address claim(s) 17-20 and 34-35 with prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 27-33 are allowed.
Claims 3, 4, 6-16, 22-25, 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reasons for indication of allowable subject matter may be found in prior Office Actions. See also Applicant’s remarks regarding the prior art rejection of claim 2 in the After final reply 11/4/2025.
Claim 27 was amended to require the hub motors are within an outer circumference of respective load wheels. It would not be obvious to modify Newell (US 9,908,549) to include hub motors located in tines as suggested by Schwaiger (EP 2 336 075), and then further modify the hub motors from Schwaiger to read on the claim, as amended. Such a modification would be hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered.
The prior art rejection to claim 2 was previously withdrawn; see the advisory mailed 12/10/2025. Claim 1, as amended to include the limitations of claim 2, is not currently allowable because due to the double patenting rejection, discussed above.
The Examiner agrees that Schweiger does not read on amended claims 17, 27, or new claim 34. Claim 27 is allowed, as expressed above. Claims 17 and 34 are rejected for the reasons expressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4324. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613