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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber (DE102016014882A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Weber teaches A driverless, automatically guided transport vehicle (Ref. 24, Fig. 1) for transporting a load, comprises:
a chassis (Ref. 16, Fig 1, [0015]) with electrical (Ref. 30, Fig. 1) and electronic control and drive components (Ref. 14&20, Fig. 1, [0016]) arranged therein (Fig. 1) ; and
a front vehicle portion of the chassis (See annotated Fig. 1 below),
a middle vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 below), and
a rear vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the front vehicle portion is separated from the middle vehicle portion by a front partition (See annotated Fig. 1 below), and the rear vehicle portion is separated from the middle vehicle portion by a rear partition (See annotated Fig. 1 below); and
a removable interchangeable module in the chassis (Ref. 22, & 32, Fig. 1, [0021]) in which multiple electrical and/or electronic components are combined ([0016-0018 & 0021] describes having an electric controller and safety modules with electrical components) wherein the interchangeable module is arranged in the middle vehicle portion (Fig. 1 shows all the interchangeable modules are arranged partially within the middle vehicle portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
836
965
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Weber teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the interchangeable module has a module housing (Ref. 12, Fig. 1) in which at least one of the electrical and electronic components are accommodated ([0021] describes the module housing to receive any of the different interchangeable modules depending on function).
Regarding Claim 3, Weber teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the interchangeable module comprises at least one electronic control unit (Ref. 20, Fig. 1, [0016]).
Regarding Claim 5, Weber teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches wherein at least one first sensor (Ref. 26, Fig. 1, [0017]) arrangement for sensing the vehicle surroundings ([0017], Ref. 28), and at least two vehicle wheels (Ref. 18, Fig. 1, [0015]), are arranged in the front vehicle portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Weber teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein electrical and/or electronic components from the front, middle and rear vehicle portions are connected to the interchangeable module via electrical lines ([0016-0021] describes the electric controller (26) are connected to all modules to communicate and change the speed/direction of the vehicle and are electrically connected to one another).
Regarding Claim 10, Weber teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the interchangeable module has at least one combined electrical interface which is designed for the simultaneous connection of multiple electrical and/or electronic components outside the interchangeable module ([0016-0021] describes the electric controller (26) are connected to all modules to communicate and change the speed/direction of the vehicle and are electrically connected to one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber as applied to claims 1-5 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Bo (US 2010/0320010 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Weber teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches different modules can be mounted on the platform (12) and any variation including a holding module (32) (Fig. 1, [0021]). Weber fails to explicitly teach at least one lifting drive for actuating a lifting apparatus. Bo teaches an autonomous vehicle for lifting loads and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Bo teaches wherein at least one lifting drive (Ref. 38, Fig. 1, [0016]) for actuating a lifting apparatus (Ref. 28, Fig. 4) for the purposes of lifting the load is arranged in the middle vehicle portion (Fig. 1&4, [Abastract&0020] and would be capable of actuating a lifting apparatus for the purpose of lifting a load in the middle vehicle portion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the holding module, as taught by Weber, with a lifting apparatus for actuating a lifting apparatus, as taught by Bo, to add further punctuality of leveling the cargo and to adjust the height of the cargo to keep the cargo more stable on the vehicle [0007].
Regarding Claim 8, Weber teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and given the teachings of the lifting apparatus as taught by Bo, Webber as modified further teaches wherein the lifting apparatus is actuated by way of an eccentric drive (Fig. 4, [0020-0021] describes the eccentric displacement of the lifting drive and apparats). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lifting apparatus, as taught by Weber, with an eccentric drive, as taught by Bo, to add further functionality of leveling the cargo and to adjust the height of the cargo to keep the cargo more stable on the vehicle [0007].
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber as applied to claims 1-5 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Ramankutty (US 2016/0368710 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Weber teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Weber further teaches wherein at least one second sensor arrangement (Ref. 26, Fig. 1, [0017]) for sensing the vehicle surroundings ([0017], Ref. 28), and at least two drive wheels (Ref. 18, Fig. 1, [0015]) are arranged in the rear vehicle portion (Fig. 1 above, shows at least two drive wheels and the sensor arrangement in the rear vehicle portion) and at least one traction drive (examiner interprets the traction drive as a mechanism that causes propulsion of a vehicle, [0015] describes a drive motor to drive the wheels). Weber fails to explicitly teach an at least one traction device in the rear vehicle portion. Ramankutty teaches an autonomous vehicle for lifting loads and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Ramankutty teaches at least two drive wheels (Ref. 110, Fig. 1G, the two left side wheels) and at least one traction drive (Ref. 153, Fig. 2A, [0087] describes the motor as a rear motor to drive the motion of each wheel) and are arranged in the area vehicle portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the at least one traction drive, as taught by Weber, to be in the rear vehicle portion, as taught by Ramankutty, by rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C) to simplify manufacturing by reducing the amount of materials by having the traction drive near the wheels to achieve the predictable result of propelling the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification is acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the specification objection.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the claim objections.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 September, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s arguments in regards to the prior art failing to teach the interchangeable module in the chassis and arranged in the middle of the vehicle portion have been fully considered and is not considered persuasive. Examiner has applied Weber to the 35 USC 102 rejection above. Webber teaches a chassis (Ref. 16, Fig 1, [0015]), a front vehicle portion of the chassis (See annotated Fig. 1 above), a middle vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 above), and a rear vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the front vehicle portion is separated from the middle vehicle portion by a front partition (See annotated Fig. 1 above), and the rear vehicle portion is separated from the middle vehicle portion by a rear partition (See annotated Fig. 1 above); and a removable interchangeable module in the chassis (Ref. 22, & 32, Fig. 1, [0021]) in which multiple electrical and/or electronic components are combined ([0016-0018 & 0021] describes having an electric controller and safety modules with electrical components) wherein the interchangeable module is arranged in the middle vehicle portion (Fig. 1 shows all the interchangeable modules are arranged partially within the middle vehicle portion). Examiner notes the limitation of “in the chassis” is broad and the removable interchangeable module is still in the limits of the chassis (16) in a vertical direction and would be considered in the chassis boundaries. If applicant intended for the module to be within and encased by the chassis such a limitation is not required. Further, examiner notes “in the middle vehicle portion”, part of the interchangeable module (32) is at least partially within the middle vehicle portion. if applicant intends for the modules to be only within the boundaries of the middle portion such a limitation is not required.
Further, applicant’s arguments in regards to the prior art fail to teach a front and rear partition have been fully considered and is not considered persuasive. Examiner has applied Weber to the 35 USC 102 rejection above. Webber teaches a rear vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the front vehicle portion is separated from the middle vehicle portion by a front partition (See annotated Fig. 1 above), and the rear vehicle portion is separated from the middle vehicle portion by a rear partition (See annotated Fig. 1 above). Examiner notes a partition is interpreted as part of something that has been divided and Figure 1 of Webber shows a partition a wall at the wheel well as seen in the annotated end of the figures. If applicant intended for the partition to extend all the way across the chassis such a limitation is not required by the claim limitation.
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723