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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 11-25 are pending in this application. Claims 16 and 25 were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 16 and 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 16 and 25 have been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected minor informalities in the text.
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026, regarding the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has traversed the rejection of all claims on the general ground that the primary reference Mountz cited as anticipatory in the first action does not disclose an invention with the same purpose as applicant’s. Applicant then particularizes several points of alleged difference, and subsequently provides additional traversal arguments against obviousness rejections combining Mountz with other references.
We address each argument in turn below, but we first observe, generally, that when applicant’s claims are broad enough to cover many arts, when applicant’s terminology is not formally defined in its specification, and when their terminology has a broadest reasonable interpretation that is not based in a single art, references from outside applicant’s field can still be anticipatory.
We also observe that unclaimed inventor intentions for inventions and structures of inventions are not generally a satisfactory basis for arguing against the citation of a reference employed in rejection. In some circumstances such intentions may perhaps be relevant, as where the intention is plainly obvious from the context of the claim language. But in applicant’s case, the claim language is very broad indeed, and is evidently intended to cover many situations, intentions, purposes, and applications across many fields of art.
Finally we note that no invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is evident in the instant claims nor were any formal lexicographical definitions provided in the instant specification, and thus the specification merely informs the claims and does not provide definitions or limiting interpretations of language in the claims.
We next address applicant’s detailed arguments.
Applicant first states under the headings Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) Rejections and A. Overview of Disclosure, that their invention is intended to address problems associated with tolerance and accuracy in automated manufacturing, and that their invention achieves tolerances of less than 5 mm on the basis of their approach. However, no claim even mentions the words “tolerance” or “accuracy” (or any synonym or paraphrase), much less this 5 mm value. If applicant wishes to require a 5 mm tolerance, this can readily be claimed if their specification supports this value. As an aside, we note that the instant specification merely states (in paragraph [0013] of the background section) that this 5 mm tolerance is advantageous, not that it has actually been achieved; this is the sole usage of the word “tolerance” in the specification. Returning to the subject of intention as related to claims, we presume that applicant’s extremely broad claims for “a conveying system for transporting components” were drafted deliberately with this breadth in mind so as to apply across a spectrum of industrial and mechanical arts rather than, let us say, to the particular narrow context of a transport task required for automobile manufacturing. Had applicant wished to narrow their claims to an automotive manufacturing context or to claim a fine positioning system rather than the broadly generic “positioning device” of claim 11, they could have done so, though we note as a further aside that 5 mm is a very coarse precision indeed in many mechanical arts.
Referring specifically to claim 11, applicant alleges under headings B. Mountz Does Not Disclose or Suggest Applicant's Positioning System and 1, Fundamental Distinction: Docking/Lifting vs. Precision Positioning, that reference Mountz does not disclose applicant’s positioning system because, “Mountz's system serves a fundamentally different purpose than Applicant's invention. Mountz's mobile drive unit docks to, lifts, and transports inventory holders between locations in a warehouse. Applicant's system achieves precision positioning alignment (±5 mm repeatability) to enable automated transfer operations.” This argument does not suggest any point wherein Mountz fails to disclose a limitation of claim 11 and so we are at a loss how to rebut it except to hold that it does not need to be rebutted. We note that applicant has failed to claim positioning with any precision or tolerance whatsoever, not just in claim 11, but throughout all claims. Moreover, applicant does not even claim a positioning system but rather a positioning device comprised by a conveying system; and in both factory and warehouse contexts, myriad examples of art teach such a system and such a device, including our reference Mountz. Again, applicant does not claim a purpose to their invention apart from the purpose implied by a “conveying system for transporting components” which broad purpose is shared by Mountz.
Applicant suggests that Mountz’s docking head 110 is not a vehicle-side positioning element but is rather a coupling element. We note that applicant has not provided lexicographic definitions of “positioning elements” and “coupling elements” in its specification. Surely a mechanical device that seats a structure in another structure with some precision, such as docking head 110, performs both coupling and positioning. As seen in Mountz’s figs. 2A-B, docking head 110 comprises a number of protruding conical elements that mate with conical recesses in the structure to be transported, as seen in, for example, 5C-G. It is plain that for this coupling to take place, the vehicle’s docking head and its transported structure must be very precisely positioned indeed, and moreover that the conical protrusions perform a fine positioning step as the cones mate with their recesses. Moreover, Mountz explicitly discloses the need for positioning precision in its paragraph [0040], which mentions “tolerance” exactly as many times as applicant’s entire specification.
Applicant next repeats under heading 2, Element: "vehicle-side positioning device", their assertion that the examiner has conflated “positioning” and “coupling” features of Mountz’s invention. We see no difference between applicant’s argument under heading 1 and heading 2.
Applicant next suggests under heading 3, Element: "configured to directly interact...to move the apparatus...into a setpoint position" that the examiner has ignored fundamental context for the term “setpoint position” in applicant’s specification. However, we note that no invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) was made in applicant’s claims regarding a setpoint position. Nor has applicant provided a formal lexicographic definition of setpoint position in their specification (which would override our broadest reasonable interpretation of the term). We have investigated the use of the term “setpoint position” in American patent art. The term appears in 1,806 publications and has a wide variety of implied contextual definitions, ranging from fixed positions of mechanical devices to desirable levels of voltage and current in electrical devices. Where the term appears in a mechanical application, its usage is often consistent with our interpretation as “predetermined position” or “fixed position”. As such, we continue to hold that our interpretation of “setpoint position” is satisfactory in view of the actual claim language, which merely uses the term without explaining or further limiting it.
Applicant next argues, regarding claim 12, under heading 4, Element: "at least one roller or ball...configured to rotate about at least one rotational axis", that Mountz fails to disclose a roller or ball as claimed. However, no suggestion was made in the previous office action that Mountz does disclose this roller or ball as part of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. Rather, claim 12 was rejected in combination with Stubbs under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant’s argument under this heading is misdirected. We address another argument of applicant’s against the combination with Stubbs below.
Applicant next argues under heading 5, Element: Rolling Movement for Positioning, that their invention differs from Mountz’s in various respects. These differences, if supported by the specification, might perhaps provide a fruitful basis for amendment. However, the differences noted in this heading have not yet been claimed and so the argument has no force. The comparison of an applicant’s invention disclosure with reference’s disclosure is not a sound basis for traversing the rejection of claims that do not incorporate the differing material of the disclosures.
Next, referring to claim 15, applicant argues under heading 6, "along which the vehicle-side positioning device moves", that there are differences between applicant’s invention’s behavior and Mountz’s invention’s behavior such as Mountz’s invention adjusting or modifying a position of docking head 110 relative to docking plate 150. Again, these differences are irrelevant to the matter of rejection unless they are claimed as limitations. Applicant would have to amend claim 15 to limit their surfaces not to adjust or modify positions in order to successfully argue that Mountz’s citation was improper on this basis.
Next, referring to claims 19, 20, and 24, under the heading 7, “Method and Device Claims”, applicant again argues that Mountz fails to disclose a setpoint position on the same grounds as previously argued. Since we rejected the previous argument (based on applicant’s interpretation of setpoint position differing from our own), we reject this one as well.
Finally, applicant recapitulates their arguments related to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102. As noted above, we sustain all our rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Next, applicant moves on to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Referring to claims 12 and 21, under the headings Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections and 1, Mountz in view of Stubbs, applicant argues that:
Mountz does not provide a proper foundation. Applicant argues Mountz fails to teach positioning. We have already addressed this argument repeatedly above. Mountz plainly teaches positioning.
Stubbs teaches rollers for a different purpose than applicant. In this case, applicant’s purpose could potentially be more germane to a successful traversal argument than in several of the arguments above (for which we hold the inventor’s intentions are not relevant), because purpose is related to motivation, and motivation may be required as part of an obviousness rationale under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, applicant’s claim 12 entirely fails to state any purpose, reason, or motivation whatsoever for their use of rollers. For this reason, any reasonable use of rollers in a teaching reference that is compatible with a primary reference provides motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the combination under 35 U.S.C. 103. Had applicant actually claimed their particular reason for using rollers, it might have been necessary to find a reference with a similar motivation.
Lack of Motivation to Combine. Applicant argues that Stubbs, in teaching friction reduction for lifting, fails to motivate the use of rollers or balls for positioning and that a person of reasonable skill in the art would not find friction reduction a motivation for the use of rollers. Again, applicant has entirely failed to claim the use of rollers or balls for positioning and so the first part of their argument has no force. As regards the motivation for friction reduction, this is a common desideratum in the mechanical arts. Moreover, while friction reduction may not be necessary to the process of docking two structures meant to fit together, the docked structures are not permanently attached. Rather, as is conventional for an AGV carrying a portable shelf unit, the structures of Mountz must frequently and routinely be detached when a transportation task is complete. Given that Stubbs’ rollers reduce friction during lifting, that lifting is part of the detachment method taught by Mountz, and that friction reduction during the detachment of docked structures is desirable, the motivation for the combination is clear.
Hindsight reconstruction. Applicant argues that on the basis of items A-C above that the combination with Stubbs is design through hindsight. If we agreed with any of applicant’s arguments A-C we would be compelled to agree with D. However, as we disagree with the other arguments, we hold that there was no hindsight reconstruction.
Referring now to claims 13 and 22, under the heading 2, Mountz in view of Stubbs and Hays, applicant argues that:
Hays Is Non-Analogous Art. Applicant argues that Hays’ art, though mechanical, is too far afield from applicant and Mountz to be relevant. The only teaching we take from Hayes is the use of quenched and tempered steel for machine parts. This practice is commonplace in all mechanical arts. It happens, however, that art disclosing complex robotic systems such as Mountz and such as the applicant’s invention typically does not disclose any material whatsoever for its structures, even though quenched and tempered steel is a commonplace material. In citing Hayes, we took nothing from Hayes’ crankshaft art except for the generic qualities of hardness and toughness of its material, which are broadly desirable qualities of machine parts. Given that claims 13 and 22 merely state a material requirement of a roller or a ball, and that it is understood in the arts that the hardness and toughness of rollers and balls is a commonplace desideratum, we hold that the reference provides a sufficient analogical basis.
No Motivation to Consult Hays. Applicant argues that even if Hays were analogous art (as we continue to hold), that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to consult Hays. However, in providing a roller or a ball for a device, some material or other must be selected. Given that the qualities of tempered and quenched steel are desirable in machines, any art whatsoever that teaches the use of this material in a machine would suffice as motivation. We chose Hays for convenience because we had to choose one reference, but myriad other references could have been chosen instead of Hays. This enormous amount of prospective teaching art reinforces the point that applicant’s use of tempered and quenched steel would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant next refers to claims 14 and 23, under heading 3, Mountz in view of Stubbs and Goulding. Applicant argues:
Goulding (US0000002) Is Non-Analogous Art. Applicant argues that the reference is not in the field of the applicant’s invention. We concede this point. However, referring to claim 14, this claim limits the roller of claim 12 to make use of an anti-friction bearing. The use and purpose of the roller is not limited in this claim, nor in the parent claims in which it is cited. If applicant’s roller had some claimed function we might have had to cite art teaching a similar function, but in fact applicant has made no such claim. We cited Goulding specifically as the first of an enormous number of examples of rollers found in PE2E that teach anti-friction bearings. Moreover, virtually rollers in all the mechanical arts commonly make use of anti-friction bearings; this is, after all, how they rotate without seizing. Applicant would be hard-put to find a mechanical engineer who is not aware of the use of bearings in rollers. Thus, we believe any prior art teaching any roller whatsoever with an anti-friction bearing is pertinent to the application’s teaching.
Temporal and Technological Gulf. Applicant argues that the two-century span between Goulding and the instant application is dispositive. But this is the very point of citing Goulding, that applicant’s claimed technological advance is of ancient provenance. Indeed, we suspect that anti-friction bearings have been used for thousands of years, not just hundreds. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not be expected to consult a publication from 1826 or 1836. We do not expect a person of ordinary skill in the art to consult any particular publication regardless of the date of its publication; it would be a surprising coincidence if any art ever cited in prior art rejection was consulted by an inventor prior to disclosure to an attorney. However, the publication is evidence that persons of ordinary skill in the art are generally familiar with a technological achievement at least as of the date of publication. We do not believe applicant means to suggest that anti-friction bearings are a mystery to persons of even negligible skill in the mechanical arts, as every person who has ever examined a roller’s components has most likely seen its anti-friction bearings.
Different Field of Endeavor. This is the same argument as regards Non-Analogous art above. We reject it for the same reasons, namely that no function is ascribed to applicant’s roller in its claims, and that therefore any roller whatsoever provides a satisfactory basis for showing obviousness. As it happened we chose the earliest teaching art found in PE2E, but many thousands of other patent publications could equally well have been chosen.
Not Reasonably Pertinent. Applicant again repeats that their invention seeks to improve positioning accuracy tolerances. We also repeat that no purpose for applicant’s invention is claimed and moreover that an invention’s purpose is generally irrelevant to its claims in the absence of explicit language in the claims themselves. Furthermore, applicant’s extremely broad claim language gives up any implication as to purpose because applicant’s claims apply to such a wide variety of commercial and industrial arts. Had applicant limited their invention in the claims to, let us say, the particular context and situation of automobile manufacturing. that purpose would shine through the claims and might possibly limit the scope of references that could be cited in rejection, but in the actual event, in claiming “a conveying system for transporting components” their claims are so broad as to not even suggest any particular industrial field. The system of claim 11 could as well be used in manufacturing at a factory as in order fulfillment at a warehouse.
Applicant next refers to claims 16-17 and 25 under the heading 4, Mountz in view of Watt. Applicant argues:
Watt Teaches an Unloading System, Not a Positioning System. Had applicant ever claimed that their invention was a positioning system their argument might have some basis. However, as their system merely comprises a positioning device among many other features, and as Watt’s invention likewise performs a positioning function using a positioning device (carrying a rack structure atop an AGV) as part of its operation, we see no great difference. Once again, applicant’s disclosure of some intention for their invention is not limiting as regards references cited in showing the obviousness of applicant’s claims, which say nothing about precise positioning or positioning tolerances. Applicant goes on to say, “The entire purpose of Watt is to avoid expensive equipment capable of precise movements.” Applicant suggests that as a result Watt teaches away from applicant’s invention. Had applicant in fact claimed a positioning system whose goal is precision, they might possibly be correct in suggesting that Watt teaches away from it (although Watt is really teaching away from expense, not from precision). But in the absence of such a claim, no teaching away is evident as Watt’s invention plainly involves positioning.
Watt's Structural Elements Serve a Different Function. Applicant argues that Watt’s multiple perpendicular support surfaces are used for separation and do not constitute a precision positioning feature. This is quite true. However, applicant has failed to claim that their own perpendicular support surfaces perform a positioning function. Instead applicant’s claim reads, “The conveying system according to claim 15, wherein the apparatus-side positioning device comprises an indentation set back with respect to the at least two planar surfaces and arranged between the at least two planar surfaces, wherein the indentation is configured to at least partially receive the vehicle-side positioning device.” As seen in Watt’s figs. 4-5, the apparatus-side positioning device (i.e. the base of the transportable rack) does indeed comprise an indentation set back with respect to at least two planar surfaces 24 and in between them. It is even clear that the purpose of the indentation is to position the rack atop the AGV 20. Whether or not the positioning is coarse or fine is irrelevant as no such fine positioning is claimed. Merely because the perpendicular surfaces are taught by Watt to provide a separation or connection capability is not relevant so long as they help to define the space in which the claimed indentation can be found. Applicant may of course amend their claims to overcome Watt’s teaching on the basis of any differences applicant finds between the two inventions, but on the basis of the existing claims we sustain our rejection.
Lack of Motivation to Combine. Applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would lack motivation to combine Watt’s teaching with Mountz. Applicant first states with no evidence that the rationale that Watt’s approach is cheaper and easier to implement is factually untrue. However, applicant has just argued that Watt is inadmissible specifically because Watt’s approach has the goal of simplicity and cheapness, as Watt suggests in [0003]. Applicant has already conceded the point of the cited rationale. Applicant further argues:
Watt Does Not Teach "Docking". It is plain from Watt’s figs. 3-4 that Watt’s AGV docks with its transportable racks in a manner analogous to, though structurally simpler than, Mountz.
Different Technical Problems. Applicant argues they and Watt have different design philosophies. Whether or not this is true, we don’t believe design philosophy is relevant to a demonstration of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. It is, however, clear that both Mountz and Watt teach AGVs transporting racks wherein the AGV docks with the rack, per applicant’s claim 11.
No Teaching of "Simpler" Positioning. Applicant argues that Watt’s supports do not provide simplicity. We do not know how to address this argument except to observe that structural features disclosed and citable in rejection are not required to explain their function as regards unclaimed goals of an applicant’s invention. No simplicity is claimed for applicant’s invention, and so we do not see why Watt should be expected to teach that their every design feature serves the purpose of simplicity. All the same, it plain that Watt’s general approach to docking and transporting racks with AGVs is much simpler than Mountz’s. To the extent that Watt’s supports are part of their plainly simpler invention, they at least contribute to its simplicity. But even if they were more complex, Watt would still in our view constitute a legitimate teaching reference so long as the supports served any useful purpose, because applicant has failed to claim any particular purpose for its own surfaces of claims 16-17 and 25.
Teaching Away. Applicant states, “Watt's explicit teaching that the invention seeks to avoid "expensive equipment capable of precise movements" teaches away from implementing a precision positioning system like Applicant's invention.” Again, applicant has not claimed precision positioning. Teaching away occurs when a reference suggests that a cited method is undesirable or less desirable than the claimed element, feature, or method it discloses. This is not the case for Watt because applicant has only claimed positioning per se, not precision of positioning, and Watt certainly teaches positioning, just as does Mountz.
Bodily Incorporation Would Not Yield Claimed Invention.
No roller or ball: Applicant argues that Watt does not comprise a roller or a ball. This is true. However, applicant’s roller or ball is disclosed in claim 12 and applicant’s claims 16-17 are dependent on claim 15 dependent in turn on claim 11 which does not disclose a roller or a ball. Similarly, claim 24 is dependent on claim 20, which likewise does not disclose a roller or a ball. This argument is misdirected.
No rolling movement. Applicant makes a similar argument to 1 above, but again their argument appears to be mistaken. No claim whatsoever in applicant’s application claims rolling movement.
Different function. Applicant argues that Watt’s surfaces create clearance space for unloading and do not position anything. While true, applicant’s actual claims state that the indentation of the device is the aspect related to positioning. As seen in Watt’s figs. 3-4, its indentation is indeed responsible for positioning the rack on the AGV; the indentation is positioned according to applicant’s claims regarding perpendicular surfaces, but the surfaces themselves are not required to have a positioning function.
To summarize our response to applicant’s arguments, we sustain all our rejections of claims issued under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 from the first office action on the merits. With the exception of minor details of claims 16 and 25, amended to overcome objections for minor informalities, the following rejections are quoted verbatim from the first office action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 15, 19-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mountz, et al., US 2006/0210382 (hereinafter Mountz).
Regarding claim 11,
Mountz discloses:
A conveying system for transporting components,Mountz discloses the system in its abstract.
comprising: at least one driverless transport vehicle (mobile drive unit 20: fig. 1) which comprises a chassis (unnumbered, figs. 1, 2A-B) and a running gear (motorized wheels 124: figs. 2A-B) held on the chassis, wherein the running gear is configured to move the driverless transport vehicle along a floorMountz discloses its motorized wheels drive its vehicle in [0037]. While Mountz does not number its chassis, the chassis is plainly visible as the boxlike structure of vehicle 20 in fig. 1 and of unit 120 in figs. 2A-B.
and at least one apparatus (inventory holder 30: fig. 3) configured to transport the components,
wherein the at least one apparatus is configured separately from the driverless transport vehicle and is configured to be transported along the floor by the driverless transport vehicle, (figs. 1,3)Figs. 1 and 3 make clear the apparatus and vehicle are discrete and that the vehicle transports the apparatus along the floor.
wherein the at least one apparatus comprises an apparatus-side positioning device (docking plate 350: fig. 3, figs. 4A-B), and wherein the at least one driverless transport vehicle comprises a vehicle-side positioning device (docking head 110: figs. 2A-B) configured to directly interact with the apparatus-side positioning device of the at least one apparatus to move the apparatus relative to the driverless transport vehicle into a setpoint position.Mountz discloses the movement to a fixed or setpoint position in [0050]-[0051].
Regarding claim 15,
Mountz discloses the limitations of claim 11 and also:
wherein the apparatus-side positioning device comprises at least one conical surface (440, 450: figs. 4A-B) or at least two planar surfaces which run obliquely or perpendicularly with respect to one another and along which the vehicle-side positioning device moves in order to move the apparatus into the setpoint position,Mountz discloses inverted conical surfaces for docking its vehicle and its apparatus in figs. 4A and 5A (docking cavity 440 and control clefts 450). The “setpoint” position of the claim is one in which the control spines 420 and docking cone 410 are fully engaged with the control clefts and docking cavity respectively.
Regarding claim 19,
Mountz discloses:
A method for transporting components by a conveying system,Mountz, [0005]-[0006].
the method comprising: transporting at least one of the components along a floor via at least one apparatus (inventory holder 30: fig. 3) and at least one driverless transport vehicle (mobile drive unit 20: fig. 1),Mountz discloses transporting in [0086].
wherein the at least one apparatus is configured separately from the driverless transport vehicle;As seen in fig. 1, these are separate and discrete units.
moving the at least one driverless transport vehicle along the floor ([0037]) in a driverless and automatic manner by a running gear (motorized wheels 124: figs. 2A-B) held on a chassis of the at least one driverless transport vehicle;While Mountz does not number its chassis, the chassis is plainly visible as the boxlike structure of vehicle 20 in fig. 1 and of unit 120 in figs. 2A-B.
causing a vehicle-side positioning device (docking head 110: figs. 2A-B) of the at least one driverless transport vehicle to directly interact with an apparatus-side positioning device (docking plate 350: fig. 3, figs. 4A-B) of the at least one apparatus;Mountz discloses the interaction in [0050]-[0051].
and moving the apparatus relative to the at least one driverless transport vehicle into a setpoint position as a result of the direct interaction between the vehicle-side positioning device and the apparatus-side positioning device.Mountz discloses the movement to a fixed or setpoint position in [0050]-[0051].
Regarding claim 20,
Mountz discloses:
A driverless transport vehicle (mobile drive unit 20: fig. 1) for transporting at least one apparatus for transporting components (inventory holder 30: fig. 3),
the driverless transport vehicle comprising: a chassis (unnumbered, figs. 1, 2A-B);While Mountz does not number its chassis, the chassis is plainly visible as the boxlike structure of vehicle 20 in fig. 1 and of unit 120 in figs. 2A-B.
a running gear held on the chassis, the running gear (motorized wheels 124: figs. 2A-B) configured to move the driverless transport vehicle along a floor in order to transport the apparatus;
a vehicle-side positioning device (docking head 110: figs. 2A-B) configured to interact with an apparatus-side positioning device (docking plate 350: fig. 3, figs. 4A-B) of the apparatus and move the apparatus relative to the driverless transport vehicle into a setpoint position.Mountz discloses the movement to a fixed or setpoint position in [0050]-[0051].
Regarding claim 24,
Mountz discloses the limitations of claim 20 and also:
wherein the vehicle-side positioning device is configured to move along at least one conical surface or at least two planar surfaces which run obliquely or perpendicularly with respect to one another of the apparatus-side positioning device in order to move the apparatus into the setpoint position.Mountz discloses inverted conical surfaces for docking its vehicle and its apparatus in figs. 4A and 5A (docking cavity 440 and control clefts 450). The “setpoint” position of the claim is one in which the control spines 420 and docking cone 410 are fully engaged with the control clefts and docking cavity respectively. Mountz discloses the movement to a fixed or setpoint position in [0050]-[0051].
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 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountz in view of Stubbs, et al., US 2018/0086561 (hereinafter Stubbs).
Regarding claim 12,
Mountz discloses the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the vehicle-side positioning device comprises at least one roller or ball that is configured to rotate about at least one rotational axis relative to the chassis.Mountz does not disclose rollers or bearings.
Stubbs, an invention in the same field as Mountz, teaches:
wherein the vehicle-side positioning device comprises at least one roller or ball that is configured to rotate about at least one rotational axis relative to the chassis.Stubbs teaches in [0068] the use of rollers or bearings to control friction between its vehicle and the inventory holder it carries. Rollers by their nature and definition must rotate around at least one rotational axis, while balls similarly rotate around at least one rotational axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vehicle of Mountz, wherein the vehicle-side positioning device comprises at least one roller or ball that is configured to rotate about at least one rotational axis relative to the chassis, as taught by Stubbs, because as Stubbs explains in [0068] the use of rollers or balls can help reduce friction and facilitate lifting. Of course, the use of rollers and balls for this purpose is of ancient provenance and is widespread in all mechanical arts.
Regarding claim 21,
Mountz discloses the limitations of claim 20, but not:
wherein the vehicle-side positioning device comprises at least one roller or ball that is configured to rotate about at least one rotational axis relative to the chassis.Mountz does not disclose rollers or bearings.
Stubbs, an invention in the same field as Mountz, teaches:
wherein the vehicle-side positioning device comprises at least one roller or ball that is configured to rotate about at least one rotational axis relative to the chassis.Stubbs teaches in [0068] the use of rollers or bearings to control friction between its vehicle and the inventory holder it carries. Rollers by their nature and definition must rotate around at least one rotational axis, while balls similarly rotate around at least one rotational axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vehicle of Mountz, wherein the vehicle-side positioning device comprises at least one roller or ball that is configured to rotate about at least one rotational axis relative to the chassis, as taught by Stubbs, because as Stubbs explains in [0068] the use of rollers or balls can help reduce friction and facilitate lifting. Of course, the use of rollers and balls for this purpose is of ancient provenance and is widespread in all mechanical arts.
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountz in view of Stubbs and further in view of Hays, et al., US 3,589,697 (hereinafter Hays).
Regarding claim 13,
Mountz in view of Stubbs teaches the limitations of claim 12, but not all aspects of:
wherein the at least one roller or ball is formed from a quenched and tempered steel.Although Stubbs teaches a roller or ball, it does not disclose their composition.
Hays, an invention in the field of industrial parts manufacturing, teaches the missing aspect of:
wherein the at least one roller or ball is formed from a quenched and tempered steel.Hays teaches the use of quenched and tempered steel to make crankshafts in C1/L73-C2/L21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mountz and Stubbs, wherein the at least one roller or ball is formed from a quenched and tempered steel, as taught by Hays because quenched and tempered steel has been widely used for machine parts for centuries and because this kind of steel is well known for its hardness and toughness in comparison to milder steel, almost universally desirable features in industrial parts.
Regarding claim 22,
Mountz in view of Stubbs teaches the limitations of claim 21, but not all aspects of:
wherein the at least one roller or ball is formed from a quenched and tempered steel.Although Stubbs teaches a roller or ball, it does not disclose their composition.
Hays, an invention in the field of industrial parts manufacturing, teaches the missing aspect of:
wherein the at least one roller or ball is formed from a quenched and tempered steel.Hays teaches the use of quenched and tempered steel to make crankshafts in C1/L73-C2/L21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mountz and Stubbs, wherein the at least one roller or ball is formed from a quenched and tempered steel, as taught by Hays because quenched and tempered steel has been widely used for machine parts for centuries and because this kind of steel is well known for its hardness and toughness in comparison to milder steel, almost universally desirable features in industrial parts.
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountz in view of Stubbs and further in view of US 0,000,002 (hereinafter US2).
Regarding claim 14,
Mountz in view of Stubbs teaches the limitations of claim 12, but not all aspects of:
wherein the at least one roller or ball is mounted rotatably on the chassis via an anti-friction bearing system.Although Stubbs teaches a roller or ball, it does not teach whether the roller or ball has bearings.
US2, an invention in the field of carding wool, teaches:
wherein the at least one roller or ball is mounted rotatably on the chassis via an anti-friction bearing system.US2 teaches the use of rollers with bearings in P2/L1-2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mountz and Stubbs, wherein the at least one roller or ball is mounted rotatably on the chassis via an anti-friction bearing system, as taught by US2 because virtually all rollers have bearings for the purpose of reducing friction and such bearings have been known at least since 1794.
Regarding claim 23,
Mountz in view of Stubbs teaches the limitations of claim 12, but not all aspects of:
wherein the at least one roller or ball is mounted rotatably on the chassis via an anti-friction bearing system.Although Stubbs teaches a roller or ball, it does not teach whether the roller or ball has bearings.
US2, an invention in the field of carding wool, teaches:
wherein the at least one roller or ball is mounted rotatably on the chassis via an anti-friction bearing system.US2 teaches the use of rollers with bearings in P2/L1-2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mountz and Stubbs, wherein the at least one roller or ball is mounted rotatably on the chassis via an anti-friction bearing system, as taught by US2 because virtually all rollers have bearings for the purpose of reducing friction and such bearings have been known at least since 1794.
Claims 16-17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountz in view of Watt, et al., US 2011/0103924 (hereinafter Watt).
Regarding claim 16,
Mountz discloses the limitations of claim 15 but not:
wherein the apparatus-side positioning device comprises an indentation set back with respect to the at least two planar surfaces and arranged between the at least two planar surfaces, wherein the indentation is configured to at least partially receive the vehicle-side positioning device.While Mountz discloses the conical positioning device elements of claim 15, it does not disclose the oblique or perpendicular planes that were recited as an alternative in claim 15 and which are required in the embodiment of claim 16.
Watt, an invention in the same field as Mountz, teaches:
wherein the apparatus-side positioning device comprises an indentation set back with respect to the at least two planar surfaces (24: fig. 1A) and arranged between the at least two planar surfaces, wherein the indentation is configured to at least partially receive the vehicle-side positioning device.Watt teaches in fig. 1A an apparatus whose positioning device comprises multiple perpendicular planar surfaces of the support 24 of the bottom part of the inventory holder 22. As seen in the figure, the shape of the lower part of the structure defines an indentation that is partially filled by the vehicle’s positioning device when the vehicle docks with the inventory holder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mountz, wherein the apparatus-side positioning device comprises an indentation set back with respect to the at least two planar surfaces and arranged between the at least two planar surfaces, wherein the indentation is configured to at least partially receive the vehicle-side positioning device, as taught by Watt, because Watt’s approach to docking its transport vehicle and inventory holder is simpler and therefore less costly to manufacture than Mountz’s, which moreover requires a relatively involved method of translation and rotation steps to accomplish its docking procedure.
Regarding claim 17,
Mountz discloses the limitations of claim 15 but not:
wherein the at least two planar surfaces are formed by a single-piece positioning element.While Mountz discloses the conical positioning device elements of claim 15, it does not disclose the oblique or perpendicular planes that were recited as an alternative in claim 15 and which are required in the embodiment of claim 17.
Watt, an invention in the same field as Mountz, teaches:
wherein the at least two planar surfaces (24: fig. 1A) are formed by a single-piece positioning element. Watt teaches in fig. 1A an apparatus whose positioning device 24 is a single-piece positioning element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mountz, wherein the at least two planar surfaces are formed by a single-piece positioning element, as taught by Watt, because a single-piece structure is simpler and stronger than a multi-piece structure and because such structures are commonplace and widely known in the art.
Regarding claim 25,
Mountz discloses the limitations of claim 24 but not:
wherein the vehicle-side positioning device is configured to be received at least partially in an indentation of the apparatus-side positioning device which is set back with respect to the at least two planar surfaces and arranged between the at least two planar surfaces.While Mountz discloses the conical positioning device elements of claim 24, it does not disclose the oblique or perpendicular planes that were recited as an alternative in claim 24 and which are required in the embodiment of claim 25.
Watt, an invention in the same field as Mountz, teaches:
wherein the vehicle-side positioning device is configured to be received at least partially in an indentation of the apparatus-side positioning device (24: fig. 1A) which is set back with respect to the at least two planar surfaces and arranged between the at least two planar surfaces.Watt teaches in fig. 1A an apparatus whose positioning device comprises multiple perpendicular planar surfaces of the support 24 of the bottom part of the inventory holder 22. As seen in the figure, the shape of the lower part of the structure defines an indentation that is partially filled by the vehicle’s positioning device when the vehicle docks with the inventory holder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mountz, wherein the vehicle-side positioning device is configured to be received at least partially in an indentation of the apparatus-side positioning device which is set back with respect to the at least two planar surfaces and arranged between the at least two planar surfaces, as taught by Watt, because Watt’s approach to docking its transport vehicle and inventory holder is simpler and therefore less costly to manufacture than Mountz’s, which moreover requires a relatively involved method of translation and rotation steps to accomplish its docking procedure.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mountz in view of Watt and further in view of O'Brien, et al., US 9,242,799 (hereinafter O'Brien) .
Mountz in view of Watt teaches the limitations of claim 17, but not:
wherein the positioning element is configured separately from a main body of the apparatus, and wherein the positioning element is held on the main body of the apparatus at a spacing from the main body by a spacer element, which spacer element is configured separately from the main body and separately from the positioning element.Mountz and Watt do not disclose a separate spacer element.
O’Brien, an invention in the same field as Mountz and Watt teaches:
wherein the positioning element is configured separately from a main body of the apparatus, and wherein the positioning element is held on the main body of the apparatus at a spacing from the main body by a spacer element (222: fig. 2), which spacer element is configured separately from the main body and separately from the positioning element.As seen in fig. 2, O’Brien, Watts, and Mountz share similar vehicles and inventory holders. O’Brien teaches in fig. 2 and C12/L27-34 the use of spacer elements that are separate from the main body of the apparatus and the vehicle. The lower tier of spacers 222 can be considered the particular spacer elements of applicant’s limitation. In this combination we consider that Watt’s teaching modifies the positioning elements and O’Brien’s teaching modifies the rest of the inventory holder but not the positioning elements and so the two teachings do not mutually modify one another but rather both separately modify the system of Mountz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mountz, wherein the positioning element is configured separately from a main body of the apparatus, and wherein the positioning element is held on the main body of the apparatus at a spacing from the main body by a spacer element, which spacer element is configured separately from the main body and separately from the positioning element, as taught by O’Brien because as O’Brien notes in C12/L48-62, such spacers allow for efficient flexible reconfiguration of the inventory holder (applicant’s “apparatus”) in a manner that allows changes not only in the storage height of the holder shelves (and thus the sizes of the articles stored) but also in the number of storage shelves supported and hence the total capacity of the inventory holder.
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 LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights