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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/07/2026 has been entered.
The objections and rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 1, 4, 6-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim et al. (“Austrheim”)(US 2019/0322452) in view of Ingram-Tedd et al. (“Ingram”) (US 2019/0161273); Hognaland et al. (“Hognaland”)(WO 2018/082971 A1) and legal precedent.
Austrheim (fig. 1-14) teaches a system and method comprising:
(re: claims 1, 14) in combination:
a storage structure including, above stacks of containers,
a first set of tracks extending in a first direction and a second set of tracks extending in a second direction which is transverse to the first direction, the load-handling device being configured to move on the tracks above the stacks (fig. 1-2 showing devices 4 on first and second set of tracks above a storage structure and para. 6-8, 44-46 teaching device 4 with independent wheel drives), and
a load-handling device for lifting and moving containers stacked in stacks in a storage structure comprising:
a body having an upper portion and a lower portion, the upper portion being configured to house one or more operation components, the lower portion being arranged beneath the upper portion, the lower portion including a container-receiving space for accommodating at least part of a container (fig. 3, 5 showing load element 4 including upper portion with operation components, e.g., belts and drive shafts, and lower portion having a container-receiving space);
a wheel assembly arranged to support the body, the wheel assembly including a first set of wheels configured for engaging with a first set of tracks to guide movement of the load-handling device in a first direction, and a second set of wheels configured for engaging with a second set of tracks to guide movement of the load-handling device in a second direction (fig. 3 showing wheel assemblies near 10, 13; para. 46, 47 teaching wheel assemblies for engaging tracks in a first and second direction);
a wheel-positioning mechanism configured for selectively engaging either the first set of wheels with the first set of tracks or the second set of wheels with the second set of tracks, the wheel-positioning mechanism being configured to raise and lower the first set of wheels and/or the second set of wheels relative to the body, thereby enabling the load-handling device to selectively move in either the first direction or the second direction across the tracks of the storage structure when the load-handling device is placed in combination with such a storage structure (Cf. fig. 4-7 and para. 48-53);
a container-lifting mechanism (9) including a container-gripping assembly configured to releasably grip a container and a raising and lowering assembly configured to raise and lower the container-gripping assembly (para. 46 teaching lifting and lowering elements),
wherein at least one wheel of the first and second sets of wheels is provided by a combined wheel and wheel-control unit including the at least one wheel and a controller configured to control rotation of the at least one wheel (fig. 12-14 showing wheel assembly including a mounting component near 17a, 22 on which the at least one wheel and control/driving means are mounted to form a single unit that is pivotably mountable to main body shown in fig. 3 and 7; para. 47, 53-61 teaching that each wheel assembly is pivotably mounted and that each wheel, e.g., wheel 6a, 16b, are independently controlled/driven by a driving means 24, 26 near or within wheel—to liberate space within the vehicle and allowing a more compact design, wherein a remote unit and wireless communication means are used to independently control each wheel—thus it logically follows that each wheel has a control unit to receive instructions from said remote unit);
(re: claims 4 and claim 15) wherein the controller is configured to control rotation of multiple wheels of the first and second sets of wheels, including the at least one wheel (Id. with para. 60 teaching that two or more wheels can be driven by a single motor);
(re: claims 8, 19) wherein the combined wheel and wheel-control unit is configured to be mounted on a raisable and lowerable panel (near 17a) of the load-handling device;
(re: claim 21) wherein the mounting component comprises a housing or a boundary shell to define a boundary of the combined wheel and wheel-control unit. (fig. 3 showing cover 22);
(re: claim 22) wherein the single unit comprises a motor for rotating the at least one wheel (fig. 12-14; para. 54-61);
(re: claim 23) wherein the motor is a wheel-hub motor at least partly housed within the at least one wheel (Id. showing stator-hub driving means).
(re: claims 12-13) The claimed method steps are performed in the combined device described below.
Austrheim as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 6, 17) wherein the controller is configured to control raising and lowering of the at least one wheel;
(re: claims 7, 18) wherein the combined wheel and wheel-control unit comprises:
wheel-moving means configured to raise and lower the at least one wheel-relative to the body;
(re: claims 9 and certain elements of claim 20) a main controller configured to coordinate at least the rotation of the wheels in the wheel assembly, wherein the controller is configured to be connected to the main controller;
(re: claim 10) wherein the main controller is configured to coordinate raising and lowering of the wheels in the wheel assembly;
(re: claim 11) wherein the controller is located above the at least one wheel.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, the pivotal connection taught by Austrheim may be not be regarded as (re: certain elements of claims 1, 14) releasably mounted.
Here, it is noted that Austrheim already teaches that it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to connect the wheels sets to the main body in a number of different ways (para. 53 teaching may be pivotally or rigidly connected in a number of ways) and that it is known to provide a remote-control unit to send instructions to the respective wheel assemblies wirelessly (supra).
Ingram teaches that these it is well-known in the load handling arts to integrate the wheel moving means in the wheel assembly itself as these type of wheel-positioning/moving mechanisms are more space efficient, thus allowing for improved efficiency in load handling (fig. 6 and 7 showing raising mechanism 188 and wheels mounted via frame elements 182 and para. 67-69 teaching that individual motors 188 control lifting for wheel sets; see also fig. 7-13 teaching multiple embodiments of wheel-positioning/moving mechanisms for selectively engaging a specific track direction with fig. 9 and para. 72-73 teaching that wheel sets are mounted on moveable side panels that move relative to main body and para. 74, 78 teaching that each wheel may be provided with a control/displacement means to independently control lifting or lowering the wheel structure or that a single motor/control means can control multiple wheel sets).
Hognaland further teaches that it is well-known in the loading arts to use a master controller in combination with local controllers for the wheel assemblies as the local controllers provide more precise control of the respective assemblies and the master controller ensures greater synchronization of the respective assemblies (fig. 3 showing master controller linked to local wheel assembly controllers; p. 3, ln. 20-col. 8, ln. 10).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to releasable mounting, integrating or the positioning of known elements, such as controller elements, can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the load handling arts as the type of material to be handled controls variations in the specific device dimensions, features and/or loading steps. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.V.B.C (teaching that making known elements integral or separable is obvious); 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above, in legal precedent as described above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (i.e., wheel positioning/moving and controller elements) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Austrheim for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejection set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 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.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805. The Official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
March 22, 2026