DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 were amended by preliminary amendment.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
5. It appears that applicant’s preliminary amendment, evidently intended to correct the European claim style that cites multiple parent claims, may have introduced some errors of dependency in citing incorrect parent claims. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) were required as a consequence due either to contradictory claim language or lack of antecedent basis.
Claim Interpretation
6. Claims 1-7, 10, 12-16, and 18 disclose a “stationary member” as part of a module that transfers force from a vehicle to cause the vehicle to rotate. Our interpretation of applicant’s intention as disclosed in P7/L22-27 of the instant specification is that the stationary member in effect resists an angular force applied by the vehicle, which vehicle in turn is rotated by its own efforts due to the resistance of the member. In the broadest case of independent claims 1 and 10, this means that virtually any form of angular force applied by the vehicle to rotate above the claimed module (including rotating on a simple stretch of flooring) would match the claimed effect of the stationary member, which is essentially a passive structure.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “wherein the stationary gear has [sic] center section”; this phrase is missing an article, presumably “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the word “type”, which has been held to render an otherwise definite claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E); Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955); and Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). For a subject to be “of the type” of something does not definitely determine the characteristics of the subject. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 1 and 10.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein [sic] gear is a worm gear" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the term “gear” (which is also missing “the”) is intended to refer to the stationary gear of parent claim 7 or to the other gear of claim 7 which is on an underside of a container handling vehicle. Claims 12-13, 15, and 18 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 8.
Claim 13 recites, “wherein the stationary member is a post” in line 1. However, parent claim 3 discloses that the stationary member of claim 1 is a gear. Thus, the broad “stationary member” of claim 1 (which could properly be limited to being a post) can no longer be referenced due to the limitations of intervening claims. Being a gear is inconsistent with being a post. Thus, the limitation of claim 13 contradicts its parent claim rather than further limiting it and amounts to a point of indefiniteness of the claim. Claim 18 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 13.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the stationary gear" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 10 introduces a “stationary member” and not a stationary gear. Claim 17 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
9. Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kvifte, Halvor, US 2016/0347544 (hereinafter Kvifte) in view of Austrheim, et al., WO 2019101725 (hereinafter Austrheim) and further in view of Wu, et al., CN 104555308 (hereinafter Wu).
[Note: for translation purposes, reference Austrheim, US 2020/0290804, sometimes called Fjeldheim (a coinventor), which corresponds to WO 2019101725, will be referenced and cited below.]
10. Regarding claim 1,
Kvifte discloses:
A rotation device (22+5, fig: 3) for rotating an autonomous vehicle (1: fig. 1)Kvifte discloses in [0035]-[0036] a device in the form of a turning plate 5 plus sensor 22 whose purpose is to rotate its autonomous vehicle.
c. wherein the stationary member (5: figs. 1,3) is arranged to receive a force, transferred from the container handling vehicle (1: fig. 2) to the stationary member by a mechanical linkage (13,14: fig. 3), and to convert the force into a rotation of the vehicle.Kvifte discloses in [0057] that its wheels rotate the vehicle 1 atop turning plate 5, a stationary member. The wheel modules 13, 14 of the vehicle apply a force against the stationary member which converts the force into a rotation of the vehicle as claimed.
However, Kvifte does not disclose all aspects of:
a rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system, of the type having a framework structure comprising a plurality of vertical upright members defining storage columns for storing stacks of storage containers, with the rail system arranged on the framework structure, the rail system comprising perpendicular tracks, the intersection of which define a grid having grid cells, the grid cells defining openings to the storage columns,While Kvifte discloses a rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system with a framework structure, upright members, and storage columns for storing stacks of storage containers, it does not disclose the perpendicular tracks defining openings to the storage columns.
and where the autonomous vehicle is of the type having wheels that travel along the rail system, and which changes direction by alternatively lifting or lowering sets of wheels, one set of wheels adapted for travel of the vehicle in a first direction, and a second set of wheels adapted for travel of the vehicle in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction,Kvifte’s vehicle, while it travels on a rail system, does not change direction by lifting and lowering sets of wheels.
wherein the rotation device comprises: a. a module adapted for mounting in a grid cell beneath a plane defined by the rail system of the framework structure,
b. a stationary member affixed to the module,While Kvifte’s device comprises a turning plate 5 (stationary member) mounted as claimed beneath the plane of the rail system, this member cannot be the same as the claimed module per limitation b; rather it must be affixed to the module. While it’s evident Kvifte’s turning plate must be affixed somehow to its storage system framework, no explicit disclosure of a module is made, and so, retaining Kvifte’s stationary member in the form of its turning plate 5, we cite another reference to explicitly teach the module to which the member must be affixed.
Austrheim, an invention in the same field as the applicant, teaches:
a rail system (108: fig. 1) of an automated storage and retrieval system, of the type having a framework structure (100: fig. 1) comprising a plurality of vertical upright members defining storage columns (105: fig. 1) for storing stacks of storage containers, with the rail system arranged on the framework structure, the rail system comprising perpendicular tracks (110, 111: fig. 1), the intersection of which define a grid having grid cells (122: fig. 5), the grid cells defining openings (115: fig. 5) to the storage columns,
and where the autonomous vehicle (201, 301: figs. 2-3) is of the type having wheels (201b-c, 301b-c: figs. 2-3) that travel along the rail system, and which changes direction by alternatively lifting or lowering sets of wheels ([0006]), one set of wheels (201b, 301b: figs. 2-3) adapted for travel of the vehicle in a first direction, and a second set of wheels (201c, 301c: figs. 2-3) adapted for travel of the vehicle in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction,Austrheim teaches perpendicular vehicle movement on a rail grid with raising and lowering wheel pairs in [0006].
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 and vehicle of Kvifte with, (i) a rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system, of the type having a framework structure comprising a plurality of vertical upright members defining storage columns for storing stacks of storage containers, with the rail system arranged on the framework structure, the rail system comprising perpendicular tracks, the intersection of which define a grid having grid cells, the grid cells defining openings to the storage columns, and (ii) where the autonomous vehicle is of the type having wheels that travel along the rail system, and which changes direction by alternatively lifting or lowering sets of wheels, one set of wheels adapted for travel of the vehicle in a first direction, and a second set of wheels adapted for travel of the vehicle in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, as taught by Austrheim, because regarding limitation (i), the claimed grid storage system layout is of long standing and has been implemented by numerous practitioners of the art including Ocado and Attabotics. With respect to limitation (ii), an autonomous vehicle that traverses the rail grid is a standard feature of such dense grid storage systems, while the wheel-lifting and lowering method of Austrheim provides an effective means of traveling both horizontally and vertically along perpendicular rails without having to rotate the vehicle. As applicant notes in their specification, the rotation feature that distinguishes their instant application is only required in special circumstances due to the vehicle’s general ability to move perpendicularly without rotation.
Wu, an invention in the same field as the applicant, teaches the limitations:
wherein the rotation device (106: fig. 15) comprises: a. a module (107: fig. 15) adapted for mounting in a grid cell beneath a plane defined by the rail system of the framework structure, Wu teaches a module in the form of turntable 107 in fig. 15 mounted below a grid storage system as described in [0010]-[0011]. Wu’s teaching is employed for the placement of the claimed grid module. For the claimed stationary member, however, we refer to Kvifte.
b. [a stationary member] (108: fig. 16) affixed to the module,Kvifte stationary member (turning plate) would be affixed to Wu’s module in this combination. Wu’s interface plate 108 (a member) is affixed to its turntable 107 (module) as seen in fig.17.
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 Kvifte and Austrheim wherein the rotation device comprises: a. a module adapted for mounting in a grid cell beneath a plane defined by the rail system of the framework structure, and where a member responsible for rotation is affixed to the module, as taught by Wu, because rotation devices for rail vehicles (such as turntables) have a long history and are well known in the art, and because where transport rails are arranged in a grid, a turntable or other rotational device must naturally be mounted beneath the plane of the rails or the vehicle will be unable to access the device.
11. Regarding claim 10,
Kvifte discloses:
A system (22+5: fig. 3) for rotating an autonomous vehicle (1: figs. 1-2)Kvifte discloses in [0035]-[0036] a device in the form of a turning plate 5 plus sensor 22 whose purpose is to rotate its autonomous vehicle.
c. wherein the vehicle and/or the module comprises a mechanical linkage (13,14: fig. 3) arranged to transfer a force from the vehicle to the stationary member (5: figs. 1,3), whereby the force is converted into a rotation of the vehicle Kvifte discloses in [0057] that its wheels rotate the vehicle 1 atop turning plate 5, a stationary member. The wheel modules 13, 14 of the vehicle apply a force against the stationary member which converts the force into a rotation of the vehicle as claimed.
d. a control system arranged to issue commands to the vehicle to initiate and complete a rotation.Kvifte discloses a control system in [0032] responsible for all vehicle movements.
However, Kvifte does not fully disclose:
operating on a rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system, of the type having a framework structure comprising a plurality of vertical upright members defining storage columns for storing stacks of storage containers, with the rail system arranged on the framework structure, the rail system comprising perpendicular tracks, the intersection of which define a grid having grid cells, the grid cells defining openings to the storage columns,While Kvifte discloses grid storage with overhead perpendicular rails and stacked containers, it does not disclose grid cell openings to storage columns.
and where the vehicle is of the type having wheels that travel along the rail system, and which changes direction by alternatively lifting or lowering sets of wheels, one set of wheels adapted for travel of the vehicle in a first direction, and a second set of wheels adapted for travel of the container handling vehicle in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, While Kvifte discloses an autonomous vehicle that travels on rails, it doesn’t disclose the lifting and lowering wheels.
wherein the system comprises: a. rotation device comprising a module adapted for mounting in a grid cell beneath a plane defined by the rail system of the framework structure,
b. a stationary member affixed to the bottom of the module,While Kvifte’s device comprises a turning plate 5 (stationary member) mounted as claimed beneath the plane of the rail system, this member cannot be the same as the claimed module per limitation b; rather it must be affixed to the module. While it’s evident Kvifte’s turning plate must be affixed somehow to its storage system framework, no explicit disclosure of a module is made, and so, retaining Kvifte’s stationary member in the form of its turning plate 5, we cite another reference to teach the module to which the member must be affixed.
Austrheim, an invention in the same field as the applicant, teaches:
operating on a rail system (108: fig. 1) of an automated storage and retrieval system, of the type having a framework structure (100: fig. 1) comprising a plurality of vertical upright members defining storage columns (105: fig. 1) for storing stacks of storage containers, with the rail system arranged on the framework structure, the rail system comprising perpendicular tracks (110, 111: fig. 1), the intersection of which define a grid having grid cells (122: fig. 5), the grid cells defining openings (115: fig. 5) to the storage columns,
and where the vehicle (201, 301: figs. 2-3) is of the type having wheels (201b-c, 301b-c: figs. 2-3) that travel along the rail system, and which changes direction by alternatively lifting or lowering sets of wheels ([0006]), one set of wheels (201b, 301b: figs. 2-3) adapted for travel of the vehicle in a first direction, and a second set of wheels (201c, 301c: figs. 2-3)adapted for travel of the container handling vehicle in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, Austrheim teaches perpendicular vehicle movement on a rail grid with raising and lowering wheel pairs in [0006].
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 and vehicle of Kvifte as, (i) operating on a rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system, of the type having a framework structure comprising a plurality of vertical upright members defining storage columns for storing stacks of storage containers, with the rail system arranged on the framework structure, the rail system comprising perpendicular tracks, the intersection of which define a grid having grid cells, the grid cells defining openings to the storage columns, and (ii) where the vehicle is of the type having wheels that travel along the rail system, and which changes direction by alternatively lifting or lowering sets of wheels, one set of wheels adapted for travel of the vehicle in a first direction, and a second set of wheels adapted for travel of the container handling vehicle in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, as taught by Austrheim, because regarding limitation (i), the claimed grid storage system layout is of long standing and has been implemented by numerous practitioners of the art over at least 20 years. Limitation (ii), regarding the autonomous vehicle, is a standard feature of such dense grid storage systems, while the wheel-lifting and lowering method of Austrheim provides an effective means of traveling on perpendicular rails without having to rotate a vehicle. As applicant notes in their specification, the rotation feature that distinguishes their instant application is only required in special circumstances due to the vehicle’s general ability to move perpendicularly without rotation.
Wu, an invention in the same field as the applicant, teaches the limitations:
wherein the system comprises: a. rotation device (106: fig. 15) comprising a module (107: fig. 15) adapted for mounting in a grid cell beneath a plane defined by the rail system of the framework structure Wu teaches a module in the form of turntable 107 in fig. 15 mounted below a grid storage system as described in [0010]-[0011]. Wu’s teaching is employed for the placement of the claimed grid module. For the claimed stationary member, however, we refer to Kvifte.
b. [a stationary member] (108: fig. 16) affixed to the bottom of the module, Kvifte stationary member (turning plate) would be affixed to Wu’s module in this combination. Wu’s interface plate 108 (a member) is affixed to the bottom of its turntable 107 (module) as seen in fig.17.
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 Kvifte and wherein the system comprises: a. rotation device comprising a module adapted for mounting in a grid cell beneath a plane defined by the rail system of the framework structure, and where a member responsible for rotation is affixed to the bottom of the module, as taught by Wu, because rotation devices for rail vehicles (such as turntables) have a long history and are well known in the art, and because where transport rails are arranged in a grid, a turntable or other rotational device must naturally be mounted beneath the plane of the rails or the vehicle will be unable to access the device.
12. Regarding claim 11,
Kvifte in view of Austrheim and Wu teaches the limitations of claim 10 and also:
wherein the vehicle is a container handling vehicle.Both Austrheim (abstract) and Kvifte in [0027] teach that their vehicles handle containers.
13. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kvifte in view of Austrheim and Wu and further in view of Yang Xian-jie, CN 107882396 (hereinafter Yang).
14. Regarding claim 2,
Kvifte in view of Austrheim and Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the stationary member is a circular member.Kvifte’s stationary member is not circular, while Wu’s circular member is not stationary.
Yang, an invention in the field of parking systems, teaches the limitation:
wherein the stationary member is a circular member (235: fig. 6).Yang teaches in fig. 6 and [0034] the use of a circular stationary gear around which another gear can revolve.
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 Kvifte, Austrheim, and Wu, wherein the stationary member is a circular member, as taught by Yang, because rotary motion is commonly based on circular structures and because circular stationary gears have long been known as mechanical structures around which other objects can revolve.
15. Regarding claim 3,
Kvifte in view of Austrheim and Wu teaches the limitations of claims 1 but not:
wherein the stationary member is a stationary gear having gear teeth..Kvifte’s stationary member is not a stationary gear.
Yang, an invention in the field of parking systems, teaches the limitation:
wherein the stationary member is a stationary gear having gear teeth. (235: fig. 6).Yang teaches in fig. 6 and [0034] the use of a circular stationary gear with gear teeth around which another gear can move.
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 Kvifte, Austrheim, and Wu, wherein the stationary member is a stationary gear having gear teeth, as taught by Yang, because rotary motion is naturally based on circular structures and because circular stationary gears with teeth have long been known in the mechanical arts as simple structures around which other geared objects can rotate.
16. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kvifte in view of Austrheim and Wu and further in view of US 1,049,260 (hereinafter US1).
17. Regarding claim 4,
Kvifte in view of Austrheim and Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the stationary member is a post.Kvifte’s stationary member is not a post,
US1, an invention in the field of power transmission mechanisms, teaches the limitation:
wherein the stationary member is a post (21: fig. 2).US1 teaches in page 6, column 2, lines 97-112 the use of a stationary axle around which other components rotate.
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 Kvifte, Austrheim, and Wu, wherein the stationary member is a post, as taught by US1, because stationary posts or axles have been known in the art as a basis for mechanical rotation for thousands of years.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 5-9 and 12-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the potentially allowable claims in general, while prior art that teaches powered rotary turntables and similar devices to rotate vehicles is commonplace, there is relatively little art on record that teaches the rotation of a vehicle about a stationary member using the vehicle’s own power to effect the rotation. Primary reference Kvifte, a rare example of such prior art employed for the rejection of the independent claims and several dependent claims, could not be used in combination to show the obviousness of some of the more detailed dependent claims of the instant application as discussed below.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, while a wide variety of turntables are known to the art that can rotate vehicles, almost all such turntables (for example as taught by reference Wu) are powered and move an otherwise stationary vehicle. References US 1,966,866 and US 2,536,218, which do teach unpowered turntables for vehicle movement, fail to teach the claimed framework rails and rail alignment of these claims as their vehicles are conventional automobiles or trucks. The claimed combination of a stationary member about which an unpowered turntable rotates, the turntable having rails that align with the rail system of a framework, and the turntable using the vehicle’s own force for rotation, was neither found nor taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Claim 6 inherits the allowability of claim 5.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the configuration of a stationary gear with a central section adapted for the underside of a vehicle to rest on when its wheels are lifted, the teeth of the gear engaging with a gear mounted on the vehicle, using the vehicle’s own force for rotation, was neither found nor taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. While reference Yang teaches a central stationary gear as the basis for rotation, it does not teach these other detailed features. Claims 8, 12-13, 15, and 18 inherit the allowability of claim 7, and claim 17 inherits the allowability of claim 16.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the configuration of a stationary post or axle adapted for a rotatable plate arranged on the underside of a vehicle to rest on when the vehicle’s wheels are lifted thus enabling rotation of the vehicle using the vehicle’s own force for rotation was neither found nor taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. While reference US1 teaches a stationary post or axle as the basis for rotation, it does not teach these other detailed features. While reference Austrheim teaches lifted wheels, it does not teach the rotatable plate or using a vehicle’s own force for rotation. Although certain other combinations of references US1 and Austrheim were deemed acceptable demonstrations of obviousness, this particular combination, along with the use of references Wu and Kvifte as required by the rejections of parent claims, was deemed to be a design-by-hindsight that would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 1,966,866 and US 2,536,218 teach a vehicle’s own power causing its rotation on an unpowered turntable using a stationary gear for leverage. However, these references fail to teach other claimed aspects of applicant’s invention.
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