DETAILED ACTION
The response dated 2/6/2026 has been entered and is treated below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 34 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0148259 to Gravelle in view of US 4,492,504 to Hainsworth.
Regarding claim 14 Gravelle discloses a transporting device for moving a container, the transporting device comprising: a frame including a vertical Z-direction track (10/34a and b); and a tray (see figure 6) for supporting a container, the tray including: an X-direction movement unit configured to move the container in an X-direction (combination of 96/98); a Y-direction movement unit (combination of 96/98) configured to move the container in a Y-direction; and a Z-direction movement unit (see figure (54/56) configured to move the tray in a Z-direction by way of interaction with the Z-direction track and wherein the X-direction movement unit and the Y- direction movement unit are operable to move the container while the tray remains engaged with the Z-direction track (the combination of 96/98 moves containers in the x/y plane in order to load/unload containers from the vehicle into the storage location when the vehicle is in and engaged with the vertical pathway).
Gravelle does not discloses the X-direction movement unit includes: an omniwheel; and/or wherein the Y-direction movement unit includes an omniwheel.
Hainsworth teaches a system including the X-direction movement unit includes: an omniwheel; and/or wherein the Y-direction movement unit includes an omniwheel (see figure 13) in order to drive the container in one direction while allowing motion in a perpendicular direction (col. 10 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Gravelle to include the X-direction movement unit comprises: an omniwheel; and/or wherein the Y-direction movement unit includes an omniwheel, as taught by Hainsworth, in order to drive the container in one direction while allowing motion in a perpendicular direction. Additionally, doing so merely entails substituting one known X/Y movement system for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16 Gravelle discloses the Z-direction track comprises: four gear racks (32a and b at each corner), each positioned at separate corners of the frame, and wherein the Z- direction movement unit includes four pinions, each positioned at separate corners of the tray (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 34 Gravelle discloses the Z-direction track includes at least one gear rack (32a and b); and wherein the Z-direction movement unit includes at least one pinion (54/56) corresponding to the at least one gear rack.
Regarding claim 37 Gravelle discloses the tray comprises at least one guide element that cooperates with the frame to constrain lateral movement of the tray while the container is moved in the X-direction and the Y-direction (see 104 and para 0064).
Regarding claim 38 Gravelle discloses the guide element comprises at least one of a guide rail, a guide roller, a guide block, or an equivalent guide structure (see 104 and para 0064).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gravelle and Hainsworth in view of US 11,772,898 to Mader.
Regarding claim 17 Gravelle and Hainsworth teach all the limitations except the
X-direction movement unit comprises: a conveyor belt; and/or wherein the Y-direction movement unit includes a conveyor belt.
Mader teaches a storage system including the X-direction movement unit
comprises: a conveyor belt (63a and b); and/or wherein the Y-direction movement unit includes a conveyor belt (65a and b) in order to move the container in either direction and selectively engage one of the two pairs of conveyor belts as needed (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Gravelle and Hainsworth to include the X-direction movement unit comprises: a conveyor belt; and/or wherein the Y-direction movement unit includes a conveyor belt, as taught by Mader, in order to move the container in either direction and selectively engage one of the two pairs of conveyor belts as needed. Additionally, doing so merely entails substituting one known X/Y movement system for another to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that “in Gravelle, planar motion and Z-direction guidance are distinct and non-overlapping operating modes. Planar motion in X and Y occurs when the vehicle is supported on horizontal structures and free to translate laterally [ ]. Vertical motion occurs only after the vehicle transitions into a Z-direction guidance mode, during which lateral movement is not performed.” Applicant is referring to planar movement of the vehicle across the top of the storage grid. Examiner however is relying upon the planar movement of the container relative to the vehicle by 96/98 to load and unload articles from the vehicle which occurs when the vehicle is in the vertical travel mode to teach the claimed x and Y movement. The claim requires x and y movement of the container not the vehicle as a whole. As such, examiner maintains that substituting the mechanism taught by Hainsworth in place of 96/98 in Gravelle would have been obvious, as set forth in the detail above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights