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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 April, 2026 has been entered.
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, 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 1-3, 5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (DE102016014882A1, previously presented) and Gunselmann (DE102018212725A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Weber teaches A driverless automatically guided transport vehicle (Ref. 24, Fig. 1) for transporting a load comprises:
an integral chassis (Ref. 16, Fig 1, [0015]) in which electrical (Ref. 30, Fig. 1), electronic control (Ref. 20, Fig. 1, [0016]), and drive components of the transport vehicle (Ref. 14, Fig. 1, [0016]) are arranged, wherein the chassis of the transport vehicle has:
a front vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 below),
a middle vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 below), and
a rear vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 below);
an interchangeable module (Ref. 22 &32, Fig. 1, [0021]) removably mounted within an interior of the middle vehicle portion of the chassis (Fig. 1 shows all the interchangeable modules are arranged partially within the middle vehicle portion), the interchangeable module having multiple electrical and/or electronic components ([0016-0018 & 0021] describes having an electric controller and safety modules with electrical components).
Weber fails to explicitly teach wherein the front vehicle portion is structurally divided from the middle vehicle portion by a front partition between the front vehicle portion and the middle vehicle portion, and the rear vehicle portion is structurally divided from the middle vehicle portion by a rear partition between the rear vehicle portion and the middle vehicle portion. Gunselmann teaches a driverless modular vehicle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of driverless transport vehicles. Gunselmann teaches a driverless automatically guided transport vehicle (Fig. 1) for transporting a load ([0004]): comprising a vehicle (Fig. 1) wherein the front vehicle portion (Ref. 10 left side, Fig. 1) is structurally divided from the middle vehicle portion (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) by a front partition (Ref. 30, Fig. 1, left side) between the front vehicle portion and the middle vehicle portion (Fig. 1), and the rear vehicle portion (Ref. 10, right side, Fig. 1) is structurally divided from the middle vehicle portion (20) by a rear partition (Ref. 30, Fig. 1, right side) between the rear vehicle portion and the middle vehicle portion (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the integral chassis, as taught by Weber, to have a front partition and a rear portion to structurally divide the middle vehicle portion from the front and rear portions, as taught by Gunselmann, to simplify maintenance and repair of the vehicle and increase operating time of the vehicles ([0003]).
PNG
media_image1.png
836
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Weber as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Webber 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 as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Webber further teaches wherein the interchangeable module comprises at least one electronic control unit (Ref. 20, Fig. 1, [0016]).
Regarding Claim 5, Weber as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Webber 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 as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Webber 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 as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Webber 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 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramankutty (US 2016/0368710 A1, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 6, Weber as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, 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 as modified, 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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bo (US 2010/0320010 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Weber as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Weber further teaches different modules can be mounted on the platform (12) and any variation including a holding module (32) (Fig. 1, [0021]). Weber as modified 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 as modified, 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 as modified 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have changed the scope of the invention thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that Weber and Gunselmann fails to explicitly teach the front and rear vehicle portions are structurally divided from the middle vehicle portion and Gunselmann lacks any chassis in the center module has been fully considered and is not persuasive have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Weber in view of Gunselmann to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Webber teaches an integral chassis (Ref. 16, Fig 1, [0015]) in which electrical (Ref. 30, Fig. 1), electronic control (Ref. 20, Fig. 1, [0016]), and drive components of the transport vehicle (Ref. 14, Fig. 1, [0016]) are arranged, wherein the chassis of the transport vehicle has a front vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 above), a middle vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 above), and a rear vehicle portion (See annotated Fig. 1 above). Gunselmann teaches a vehicle (Fig. 1) wherein the front vehicle portion (Ref. 10 left side, Fig. 1) is structurally divided from the middle vehicle portion (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) by a front partition (Ref. 30, Fig. 1, left side) between the front vehicle portion and the middle vehicle portion (Fig. 1), and the rear vehicle portion (Ref. 10, right side, Fig. 1) is structurally divided from the middle vehicle portion (20) by a rear partition (Ref. 30, Fig. 1, right side) between the rear vehicle portion and the middle vehicle portion (Fig. 1). Examiner notes, Gunselmann is not being used to teach the chassis rather that a vehicle having a front, middle, and rear portion can be structurally divided by partitions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the integral chassis, as taught by Weber, to have a front partition and a rear portion to structurally divide the middle vehicle portion from the front and rear portions, as taught by Gunselmann, to simplify maintenance and repair of the vehicle and increase operating time of the vehicles ([0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hawkins (4,614,251) and Haddix (10,000,368) teaches a driverless automatically guided transport vehicles with a chassis having a front vehicle portion, a middle vehicle portion, and a rear vehicle portion and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of driverless transport vehicles.
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
Prosecution Insights