DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 10/30/2025, claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-20 are amended. No claims are new. Claims 2, 7-8, 11, 14, and 17-18 are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Specification and Claims are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The applicant argues that amended claim 1 (incorporated original claim 8 along with new/revised limitations) is not fully taught by Robbin, which was previously relied on for a 102 rejection of original claim 1 in the prior action. The examiner agrees the amended claim 1 overcomes the 102 rejection, but finds the amended claim 1 to not overcome the cited prior art (Robbin in view of Ha) of the original claim 8 rejection. Similar applicant arguments were made with respect to amended independent claims 9 and 16, resulting in similar examiner findings. Detailed claim mapping for the revised limitations with respect to Robbin and Ha are included in the current 103 rejections included infra.
The examiner notes that due to the applicant’s change of scope from original claim 1 to include limitations of original claim 8, as well as more limiting revisions (i.e. “power a motor of the conveyor with the second voltage level” and “charge a local battery pack of the conveyor with the third voltage level”), this final action is proper since it is necessitated by amendment. Similar, scope-changing amendments were also made to independent claims 9 and 16.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“first voltage level”, “second voltage level”, “third voltage level” (all claims) – Fig. 1 needs to clearly identify where each of these voltage levels is in the circuit. The first converter “130” appears to have two outputs, which does not align with the claims.
“receiving, by a charger, the power of the battery pack from the second voltage converter” (claim 13) – The specification ¶ [55-56] indicates the “second converter” (i.e., the “second voltage converter”) to be the same feature as the “battery charger 165”. Thus, Fig. 1 does not show item “165” receiving power from itself.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13 and 19 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.
Claim 13 is indefinite in multiple ways.
Claim 13 is unclear as to whether the “battery” (claim 13, line 3) is the same or different from the “local battery pack of the conveyor” (claim 9, line 11). For examination purposes, these are interpreted to be the same feature.
Claim 13 introduces “a charger” to receive power from the “second voltage converter”. However, the instant application (¶ [55-56]; Fig. 1) discloses the “second converter” (i.e., the “second voltage converter”) to be the “battery charger 165”. Thus, it is understood that the “charger” and the “second voltage converter” are the same feature. Thus, in view of the applicant’s disclosure, claim 13’s lines 2-4 appear to be not further limiting beyond the limitations of independent claim 9. If this interpretation is intended by the applicant, then lines 2-4 should be removed. If this interpretation is not intended, lines 2-4 should be revised to resolve the indefiniteness.
Thus, the only new limitation of claim 13 is “providing, by the battery, backup power to components of the conveyor”, wherein the “battery” is assumed to be the same as the “local battery pack” of claim 9.
Claim 19 is similarly indefinite in multiple ways.
Claim 19 is unclear as to whether the “battery” (claim 19, line 4) is the same or different from the “local battery pack of the automated guided vehicle” (claim 16, line 14). For examination purposes, these are interpreted to be the same feature.
Claim 19 introduces “a charger” to receive power from the “voltage converter”. However, the instant application (¶ [55-56]; Fig. 1) discloses the “second converter” (i.e., the “second voltage converter”) to be the “battery charger 165”. Thus, it is understood that the “charger” and the “second voltage converter” are the same feature. Thus, in view of the applicant’s disclosure, claim 19’s lines 3-4 appear to be not further limiting beyond the limitations of independent claim 16. If this interpretation is intended by the applicant, then lines 3-4 should be removed. If this interpretation is not intended, lines 3-4 should be revised to resolve the indefiniteness.
Thus, the only new limitation of claim 19 is “wherein the battery is configured to provide backup power to the automated guided vehicle”, wherein the “battery” is assumed to be the same as the “local battery pack” of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin et al. (US 2020/0385075 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2019/0312499 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Robbin discloses a system (“conveyor system 10”; Figs. 1-2), comprising the following features.
Robbin further discloses a conveyor (“transport vehicle 12”, including “support 13” and “assembly platform 15”; Figs. 2-7) to transport at least a portion (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) of a vehicle (“motor vehicle 14”; Figs. 2-3, 5-7).
Robbin further discloses a connector (“electrical interface 44” on “13”; Figs. 2-7) to electrically couple (¶ [47-48]) a battery pack (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) of the vehicle (14) with the conveyor (12).
Robbin further discloses a voltage converter (“direct current converter 45”; Figs. 3-7; ¶ [19-22, 50]) to convert power (¶ [22]: “configured to reduce an electric voltage provided by the traction battery”, “can be a direct current converter”; ¶ [50]: “reduces the direct current voltage supplied by the traction battery 40 to a lower value”) from the battery pack (40) to operate the conveyor (12) to transport at least the portion (40) of the vehicle (14).
Robbin further discloses the voltage converter (45) comprising a first voltage converter (45) to reduce voltage (¶ [50]: “reduces the direct current voltage supplied by the traction battery 40 to a lower value”) from a first voltage level (¶ [22]: “in the order of several hundred volts”) received from the battery pack (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) to a second voltage level (per ¶ [22]: “a significantly lower voltage, e.g. 24 volts” is output from the converter to power the conveyer; the conveyor’s on-board “battery 37”, which is within “15”, powers the conveyor when the battery pack “40” is not present per ¶ [45, 56]; thus, the conveyor’s on-board “battery 37” operates at the lower voltage output from “45”).
Robbin further discloses to power a motor (“motor unit 21”; Fig. 2; “21” is within each of “four drive-turn modules 20” of the “transport vehicle 12” per ¶ [41]; “21” can be powered by “battery 37” per ¶ [45, 56]; “conveying vehicles” are operated by the converted lower voltage per ¶ [22] and discussed supra; thus, each “21” is be powered by the lower voltage output from “45”) of the conveyor (12) with the second voltage level (¶ [22]: “a significantly lower voltage, e.g. 24 volts”) to transport the conveyor (12; driven by “21” per ¶ [41]) and the vehicle (14; carried by “12” per ¶ [31]; thus, driven by “21”).
Robbin does not disclose “the voltage converter comprising a second voltage converter to: receive the second voltage level from the first voltage converter and reduce the second voltage level to a third voltage level; and charge a local battery pack of the conveyor with the third voltage level”.
Ha teaches the voltage converter (combo of “15”, “100”, and “200”; Fig. 1) comprising a second voltage converter (“second low voltage DC-DC converter (LDC) 200”; Fig. 1) to receive the second voltage level (“DC link voltage VLINK”; Fig. 1; “VLINK” is analogous to the second voltage level disclosed by Ha because “VLINK” is also converted from a first voltage level “VBAT”) from the first voltage converter (“15”; Fig. 1) and reduce the second voltage level (“VLINK”) to a third voltage level (¶ [40]: “second LDC 200 down-converts the DC link voltage VLINK to output a voltage having a level applicable to the auxiliary battery 30”).
Ha teaches to charge a local battery pack (“auxiliary battery 30”; Fig. 1; ¶ [34]: “30 may be charged by being selectively supplied power from … 100 … 200”) of the transport vehicle (“for vehicles” per title, abstract) with the third voltage level (output of “200”; Fig. 1).
NOTE: Ha’s teachings regarding a transport vehicle are also applicable to a conveyor. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a transport vehicle is an analogous system to a conveyor, particularly a conveyor in the form of an automated guided vehicle, as disclosed by Robbin.
Ha further teaches the second voltage converter to enable the capability to charge the auxiliary battery with the lower, third voltage level while also being able to shut off the second voltage converter when not in use (¶ [9-11]), which improves the efficiency of the system (¶ [2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and voltage converter disclosed by Robbin to incorporate a second voltage converter in a cascade configuration with the first voltage converter and to charge a local battery pack with the third voltage level, as taught by Ha, to improve the efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the system of claim 1.
Robbin discloses the voltage converter (“direct current converter 45”; Figs. 3-7; ¶ [19-22, 50]) is configured to provide the power (per ¶ [19, 21], provides power to the “on-board electrical system” of “12”) to at least one of a controller (“control unit 36”; Fig. 2), a human-machine interface (¶ [16]: “a tool employed by the workers”), or a sensor (¶ [31]: “laser scanners, cameras or ultrasonic sensors”) of the conveyor (“12”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the system of claim 1.
Robbin discloses the system (“conveyor system 10”; Figs. 1-2) is an automated guided vehicle (¶ [31]: “automated guided transport vehicles 12”; see also ¶ [1, 4, 17, 44]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin et al. (US 2020/0385075 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2019/0312499 A1) and Jacobs (US 2019/0009756 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the system of claim 1.
Robbin discloses the battery pack (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) and a battery (“battery 37”; Fig. 2; ¶ [45]) of the system (“conveyor system 10”; Figs. 1-2).
Robbin further discloses the battery (“37”) to provide backup power (per ¶ [48]: “37” is used as a backup when “40” is not connected; thus, “37” provides backup power) to the conveyor (“transport vehicle 12”; Figs. 2-7; includes “on-board electrical system” per ¶ [19, 21]).
Robbin does not disclose “a charger to: receive the power of the battery pack; and charge a battery of the system based on the power of the battery pack; and the battery to: provide backup power to the conveyor”.
Jacobs teaches a charger (“charge control circuit within “control unit 210”; ¶ [51]: “processor 220 … to control the charging/discharging of the battery 230 … using a charge control circuit”) to receive the power of the battery pack (¶ [52]: “230 may … receive power from the battery … used to … replace the batteries of an electric vehicle”).
Jacobs further teaches the charger (“charge control circuit within “210”) to charge (¶ [51]) a battery (“battery 230 that powers various components of the autonomous battery vehicle”; Fig. 2 shows “230” within “control unit 210”; Fig. 4 shows “210 within “autonomous battery vehicle 106”) of the system (Fig. 1 system including “autonomous battery vehicle 106” and “electric vehicle 102”) based on the power of the battery pack (¶ [52]: “230 may … receive power from the battery … used to … replace the batteries of an electric vehicle”).
Jacobs further teaches the charger to charge a battery of the system from the battery pack of the vehicle to enable the conveyor (“autonomous battery vehicle 106”) to reach the vehicle (“102”) in remote locations (¶ [3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and conveyor disclosed by the combination of Robbin and Ha to incorporate a charger, as taught by Jacobs, for the advantage of extending the range of the conveyor to reach the vehicle in more remote locations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin et al. (US 2020/0385075 A1), in view of Ha et al. (US 2019/0312499 A1), Casci et al. (US 2024/0074121 A1), and Eaton (Eaton, Commercial vehicle solutions, April 2015, Eaton, pages 1, 5, 8, 128).
NOTE: As of the current date, the Eaton document is available at the following link:
https://www.tti.com/content/dam/ttiinc/manufacturers/eaton/Resources/eaton-transportation-catalog.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopAWbmPlpbmKtOy0dPoC8lFlhMIfis5OK59olebaEf19-2WuIYn
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the system of claim 1.
Robbin discloses the voltage converter (“direct current converter 45”; Figs. 3-7; ¶ [19-22, 50]) is configured to convert a several hundred volts of direct current (¶ [22]: “in the order of several hundred volts”) received from the battery pack (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) to a 24 volts of direct current (¶ [22]: “a significantly lower voltage, e.g. 24 volts”) to power a first component (“on-board electrical system”; ¶ [19, 21]) of the conveyor (“transport vehicle 12”; Figs. 2-7).
As described supra, Robbin discloses the voltage converter to convert a several hundred volts of direct current received from the energy source to a 24 volts of direct current to power a first component of the conveyor. However, Robbin does not explicitly disclose “the voltage converter to convert a 450 volts of direct current received from the battery pack to a 24 volts of direct current to power a first component of the conveyor”. It may be implied the “several hundred volts” is inclusive of 450 volts, but Robbins is not explicit.
Casci teaches the voltage converter (“DC/DC converter module 128”; Fig. 1) is configured to convert (¶ [19]: “128 that converts the high voltage DC output … to a low-voltage DC level”) a 450 volts of direct current (“high-voltage bus 152”; Fig. 1; ¶ [15]: “commercial vehicles include traction batteries operating at 400-800 VDC”) received from the battery pack (“traction battery 124”; Fig. 1) to a 24 volts of direct current (“154”; Fig. 1; ¶ [15]: “commercial vehicles or transportation vehicles may have LV systems that operate at 24VDC”) to power a first component (“LV loads 156”; Fig. 1) of the commercial vehicle (“electrified vehicle 112”; Fig. 1; may be a “commercial vehicle” per ¶ [13, 15, 20]).
Casci teaches these voltage levels for the voltage converter input/output to be compatible with the traction batteries commonly found on commercial vehicles.
NOTE: Casci’s teachings regarding a commercial vehicle are also applicable to a conveyor. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a commercial vehicle is an analogous system to a conveyor, particularly a conveyor in the form of an automated guided vehicle, as disclosed by Robbin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the voltage converter and energy source disclosed by the combination of Robbin and Ha for the battery pack to output 450 Vdc to the voltage converter, as taught by Casci, to enable the conveyor to be applicable to commonly-found energy sources (traction batteries) intended for commercial vehicles.
Robbin further does not disclose the voltage converter to “reduce the 24 volts of direct current to 12 volts of direct current to power a second component of the conveyor”.
Eaton teaches a voltage converter (“Series 21000 DC Converter”; page 8) to reduce the 24 volts of direct current to 12 volts of direct current (“provide regulated 12V power from a 24V input”; page 8) to power a second component (“12V electrical components”; “radios and controllers”) of the commercial vehicle (marketed for commercial vehicles including many such as semi-trucks that transport products and/or material).
PNG
media_image1.png
589
1048
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Eaton teaches the voltage converter to reduce from 24V input to 12V output to provide greater system flexibility by allowing the use of 12V electrical components, such as radios and controllers, in a 24V electrical system (“Features & Benefits”; page 8), as are used on commercial transport vehicles.
NOTE: Eaton’s teachings regarding a commercial vehicle are also applicable to a conveyor. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a commercial vehicle is an analogous system to a conveyor, particularly a conveyor in the form of an automated guided vehicle, as disclosed by Robbin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the second voltage converter disclosed by the combination of Robbin, Ha, and Casci to be a 24V input to 12V output step-down conversion stage, as taught by Eaton, to improve system flexibility by allowing the use of 12V electrical components on the conveyor.
Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin et al. (US 2020/0385075 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2019/0312499 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Robbin discloses a method (Abstract: “conveying method”), comprising the following.
Robbin further discloses receiving (¶ [47-48]), by a connector (“electrical interface 44” on “13”; Figs. 2-7), power from a battery pack (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) of a vehicle (“motor vehicle 14”; Figs. 2-3, 5-7).
Robbin further discloses reducing (¶ [50]: “reduces the direct current voltage supplied by the traction battery 40 to a lower value”), by a first voltage converter (“direct current converter 45”; Figs. 3-7; ¶ [19-22, 50]) of a conveyor (“transport vehicle 12”, including “support 13” and “assembly platform 15”; Figs. 2-7), the power from the battery pack (40) from a first voltage level (¶ [22]: “in the order of several hundred volts”) received from the battery pack (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) to a second voltage level (per ¶ [22]: “a significantly lower voltage, e.g. 24 volts” is output from the converter to power the conveyer; the conveyor’s on-board “battery 37”, which is within “15”, powers the conveyor when the battery pack “40” is not present per ¶ [45, 56]; thus, the conveyor’s on-board “battery 37” operates at the lower voltage output from “45”).
Robbin further discloses powering, by the first voltage converter (45), a motor (“motor unit 21”; Fig. 2; “21” is within each of “four drive-turn modules 20” of the “transport vehicle 12” per ¶ [41]; “21” can be powered by “battery 37” per ¶ [45, 56]; “conveying vehicles” are operated by the converted lower voltage per ¶ [22] and discussed supra; thus, each “21” is be powered by the lower voltage output from “45”) of the conveyor (12) with the second voltage level (¶ [22]: “a significantly lower voltage, e.g. 24 volts”) to transport the conveyor (12; driven by “21” per ¶ [41]) and the vehicle (14; carried by “12” per ¶ [31]; thus, driven by “21”).
Robbin does not disclose “receiving, by a second voltage converter of the conveyor, the second voltage level from the first voltage converter and reduce the second voltage level to a third voltage level; and charging, by the second voltage converter, a local battery pack of the conveyor with the third voltage level”.
Ha teaches receiving, by a second voltage converter of the conveyor (“second low voltage DC-DC converter (LDC) 200”; Fig. 1), the second voltage level (“DC link voltage VLINK”; Fig. 1; “VLINK” is analogous to the second voltage level disclosed by Ha because “VLINK” is also converted from a first voltage level “VBAT”) from the first voltage converter (“15”; Fig. 1) and reduce the second voltage level (“VLINK”) to a third voltage level (¶ [40]: “second LDC 200 down-converts the DC link voltage VLINK to output a voltage having a level applicable to the auxiliary battery 30”).
Ha further teaches charging, by the second voltage converter (200), a local battery pack (“auxiliary battery 30”; Fig. 1; ¶ [34]: “30 may be charged by being selectively supplied power from … 100 … 200”) of the transport vehicle (“for vehicles” per title, abstract) with the third voltage level (output of “200”; Fig. 1).
NOTE: Ha’s teachings regarding a transport vehicle are also applicable to a conveyor. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a transport vehicle is an analogous system to a conveyor, particularly a conveyor in the form of an automated guided vehicle, as disclosed by Robbin.
Ha further teaches the second voltage converter to enable the capability to charge the auxiliary battery with the lower, third voltage level while also being able to shut off the second voltage converter when not in use (¶ [9-11]), which improves the efficiency of the system (¶ [2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and conveyor disclosed by Robbin to incorporate a second voltage converter in a cascade configuration with the first voltage converter and to charge a local battery pack with the third voltage level, as taught by Ha, to improve the efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the method of claim 9.
Robbin discloses providing power (per ¶ [19, 21], provides power to the “on-board electrical system” of “12”) to at least one of a controller (“control unit 36”; Fig. 2), a human-machine interface (¶ [16]: “a tool employed by the workers”), or a sensor (¶ [31]: “laser scanners, cameras or ultrasonic sensors”) of the conveyor (“12”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the method of claim 9.
Robbin further discloses providing, by the battery (“battery 37”; Fig. 2; ¶ [45]), backup power (per ¶ [48]: “37” is used as a backup when “40” is not connected; thus, “37” provides backup power) to components (“on-board electrical system” per ¶ [19, 21]) of the conveyor (“transport vehicle 12”; Figs. 2-7).
As addressed in the 112b section included supra, the following claim 13 limitations are interpreted to not be further limiting beyond claim 9 and are thus taught by the combination of Robbin and Ha: “receiving, by a charger, the power of the battery pack from the second voltage converter; charging, by the charger, a battery based on the power of the battery pack received from the second voltage converter”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin et al. (US 2020/0385075 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2019/0312499 A1) and Jacobs (US 2019/0009756 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the method of claim 9.
Robbin discloses connecting (using “electrical interface 44” on “13”; Figs. 2-7; ¶ [48]) to the battery pack (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) to receive the power (¶ [47-48]) from the battery pack (40).
Robbin further discloses disconnecting (¶ [38]: “transport vehicles 12 travel … to a delivery station 1820, in which the motor vehicle is removed”; thus, “40”, as part of “14”, is disconnected from “12”) from the battery pack (40).
Robbin further discloses connecting to a second battery pack (another of “40”; the “transport vehicles 12” repeat the process through the assembly stations arranged in a loop, as shown in Fig. 1).
Robbin does not disclose “charging a battery of the conveyor”. Robbin further does not disclose “transmitting a command to the second battery pack to activate the second battery pack, wherein the command is transmitted based on the power of the battery”.
Jacobs teaches charging (“charge control circuit within “control unit 210”; ¶ [51]: “processor 220 … to control the charging/discharging of the battery 230 … using a charge control circuit”; ¶ [52]: “230 may … receive power from the battery … used to … replace the batteries of an electric vehicle”) a battery (“battery 230 that powers various components of the autonomous battery vehicle”; Fig. 2 shows “230” within “control unit 210”; Fig. 4 shows “210 within “106”) of the conveyor (“autonomous battery vehicle 106”; Figs. 2, 4).
Jacobs further teaches transmitting a command (“output control signals” from “output module 250” that are commanded by “processor 220” per ¶ [53]; Fig. 2; also receives commands for movement control from “base station 110” based on battery charge state per ¶ [41]) to the second battery pack (electric vehicle battery carried by “106” to replace the batteries of “102”; ¶ [52]) to activate (battery is activated to power the propulsion system of “106” to travel to “102” per ¶ [52-53]) the second battery pack (electric vehicle battery carried by “106” to replace the batteries of “102”; ¶ [52]).
Jacobs further teaches wherein the command (“output control signals” from “250” commanded by “220”; ¶ [53]) is transmitted based on the power (¶ [56]: “the planning application may also consider … a state of charge of the battery 230”; power output capacity of a battery is based on its state of charge; the command from “250” is based on the planning application of “navigation unit 222” within “220”) of the battery (“battery 230 that powers various components of the autonomous battery vehicle”; ¶ [52]).
Jacobs further teaches charging the battery of the conveyor from the battery pack of the vehicle and also commanding the second battery pack activation based on the power of the battery to enable the conveyor (“106”) to reach the vehicle (“102”) in remote locations (¶ [3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and conveyor disclosed by the combination of Robbin and Ha to charge the battery of the conveyor and command the second battery pack activation based on the power of the battery, as taught by Jacobs, for the advantage of extending the range of the conveyor to reach the vehicle in more remote locations.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin et al. (US 2020/0385075 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2019/0312499 A1), Casci et al. (US 2024/0074121 A1), and Eaton (Eaton, Commercial vehicle solutions, April 2015, Eaton, pages 1, 5, 8, 128).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the method of claim 9.
Robbin discloses converting (¶ [50]: “reduces the direct current voltage supplied by the traction battery 40 to a lower value”), by the first voltage converter (“direct current converter 45”; Figs. 3-7; ¶ [19-22, 50]), a several hundred volts of direct current (¶ [22]: “in the order of several hundred volts”) received from the battery pack (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) to a 24 volts of direct current (¶ [22]: “a significantly lower voltage, e.g. 24 volts”) to power a first component (“on-board electrical system”; ¶ [19, 21]).
As described supra, Robbin discloses converting, by the voltage converter, a several hundred volts of direct current received from the battery pack to a 24 volts of direct current to power a first component. However, Robbin does not explicitly disclose “converting, by the first voltage converter, a 450 volts of direct current received from the battery pack to a 24 volts of direct current to power a first component”. It may be implied the “several hundred volts” is inclusive of 450 volts, but Robbins is not explicit.
As addressed supra, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the second voltage converter. However, Robbin further does not disclose “reducing, by the second voltage converter, the 24 volts of direct current to 12 volts of direct current to power a second component”.
Casci teaches converting (¶ [19]: “128 that converts the high voltage DC output … to a low-voltage DC level”), by the first voltage converter (“DC/DC converter module 128”; Fig. 1), a 450 volts of direct current (“high-voltage bus 152”; Fig. 1; ¶ [15]: “commercial vehicles include traction batteries operating at 400-800 VDC”) received from the battery pack (“traction battery 124”; Fig. 1) to a 24 volts of direct current (“154”; Fig. 1; ¶ [15]: “commercial vehicles or transportation vehicles may have LV systems that operate at 24VDC”) to power a first component (“LV loads 156”; Fig. 1).
Casci teaches these voltage levels for the voltage converter input/output to be compatible with the traction batteries commonly found on commercial vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method, first voltage converter, and battery pack disclosed by the combination of Robbin and Ha for the battery pack to output 450 Vdc to the first voltage converter, as taught by Casci, to enable the method to be applicable to commonly-found battery packs intended for commercial vehicles.
Eaton teaches reducing, by the second voltage converter (“Series 21000 DC Converter”; page 8), the 24 volts of direct current to 12 volts of direct current (“provide regulated 12V power from a 24V input”; page 8) to power a second component (“12V electrical components”; “radios and controllers”).
Eaton teaches the voltage converter to reduce from 24V input to 12V output to provide greater system flexibility by allowing the use of 12V electrical components, such as radios and controllers, in a 24V electrical system (“Features & Benefits”; page 8), as are used on commercial transport vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and second voltage converter disclosed by the combination of Robbin, Ha, and Casci to reduce 24V to 12V, as taught by Eaton, to improve method flexibility by allowing the use of 12V electrical components on the vehicle.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin et al. (US 2020/0385075 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2019/0312499 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Robbin discloses an automated guided vehicle (“transport vehicle 12”, including “support 13” and “assembly platform 15”; Figs. 2-7), comprising the following features.
Robbin further discloses a frame (“support 13”; Figs. 2-7) to carry a battery pack (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) for an automobile (“motor vehicle 14”; Figs. 2-3, 5-7).
Robbin further discloses a connector (“electrical interface 44” on “13”; Figs. 2-7) to electrically couple (¶ [47-48]) the battery pack (40) with the automated guided vehicle (12).
Robbin further discloses a voltage converter (“direct current converter 45”; Figs. 3-7; ¶ [19-22, 50]) to convert power (¶ [22]: “configured to reduce an electric voltage provided by the traction battery”, “can be a direct current converter”; ¶ [50]: “reduces the direct current voltage supplied by the traction battery 40 to a lower value”) from the battery pack (“40”) to operate the automated guided vehicle (12) to assemble (¶ [10]: “during its assembly”; ¶ [16]: “lift tables or other moving devices with which the vehicle can be raised, rotated or moved”, “tool employed by the workers”; ¶ [49]: “equipped with moving devices such as lift tables”) at least a portion (“40” assembled into “14”; Figs. 3-5 show “14” during different states of assembly) of the automobile (14).
Robbin further discloses the voltage converter (45) comprising a first voltage converter (45) to reduce voltage (¶ [50]: “reduces the direct current voltage supplied by the traction battery 40 to a lower value”) from a first voltage level (¶ [22]: “in the order of several hundred volts”) received from the battery pack (“traction battery 40”; Figs. 2-7) to a second voltage level (per ¶ [22]: “a significantly lower voltage, e.g. 24 volts” is output from the converter to power the conveyer; the conveyor’s on-board “battery 37”, which is within “15”, powers the conveyor when the battery pack “40” is not present per ¶ [45, 56]; thus, the conveyor’s on-board “battery 37” operates at the lower voltage output from “45”).
Robbin further discloses to power a motor (“motor unit 21”; Fig. 2; “21” is within each of “four drive-turn modules 20” of the “transport vehicle 12” per ¶ [41]; “21” can be powered by “battery 37” per ¶ [45, 56]; “conveying vehicles” are operated by the converted lower voltage per ¶ [22] and discussed supra; thus, each “21” is be powered by the lower voltage output from “45”) of the automated guided vehicle (12) with the second voltage level (¶ [22]: “a significantly lower voltage, e.g. 24 volts”) to transport the automated guided vehicle (12; driven by “21” per ¶ [41]) and the automobile (14; carried by “12” per ¶ [31]; thus, driven by “21”).
Robbin does not disclose “the voltage converter comprising a second voltage converter to: receive the second voltage level from the first voltage converter and reduce the second voltage level to a third voltage level; and charge a local battery pack of the automated guided vehicle with the third voltage level”.
Ha teaches the voltage converter (combo of “15”, “100”, and “200”; Fig. 1) comprising a second voltage converter (“second low voltage DC-DC converter (LDC) 200”; Fig. 1) to receive the second voltage level (“DC link voltage VLINK”; Fig. 1; “VLINK” is analogous to the second voltage level disclosed by Ha because “VLINK” is also converted from a first voltage level “VBAT”) from the first voltage converter (“15”; Fig. 1) and reduce the second voltage level (“VLINK”) to a third voltage level (¶ [40]: “second LDC 200 down-converts the DC link voltage VLINK to output a voltage having a level applicable to the auxiliary battery 30”).
Ha teaches to charge a local battery pack (“auxiliary battery 30”; Fig. 1; ¶ [34]: “30 may be charged by being selectively supplied power from … 100 … 200”) of the transport vehicle (“for vehicles” per title, abstract) with the third voltage level (output of “200”; Fig. 1).
NOTE: Ha’s teachings regarding a transport vehicle are also applicable to an automated guided vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a transport vehicle is an analogous system to an automated guided vehicle, as disclosed by Robbin.
Ha further teaches the second voltage converter to enable the capability to charge the auxiliary battery with the lower, third voltage level while also being able to shut off the second voltage converter when not in use (¶ [9-11]), which improves the efficiency of the system (¶ [2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the automated guided vehicle and voltage converter disclosed by Robbin to incorporate a second voltage converter in a cascade configuration with the first voltage converter and to charge a local battery pack with the third voltage level, as taught by Ha, to improve the efficiency of the automated guided vehicle.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the automated guided vehicle of claim 16.
Robbin discloses the battery (“battery 37”; Fig. 2; ¶ [45]) is configured to provide backup power (per ¶ [48]: “37” is used as a backup when “40” is not connected; thus, “37” provides backup power) to the automated guided vehicle (“transport vehicle 12”; Figs. 2-7; includes “on-board electrical system” per ¶ [19, 21]).
As addressed in the 112b section included supra, the following claim 13 limitations are interpreted to not be further limiting beyond claim 9 and are thus taught by the combination of Robbin and Ha: “a charger to: receive the power of the battery pack from the voltage converter; and charge a battery based on the power of the battery pack”.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin et al. (US 2020/0385075 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2019/0312499 A1) and Lu et al. (US 2024/0109456 A1).
NOTE: Lu has priority from the foreign application CN 202111167749.1, filed on 09/30/2021, and published as CN 115871459 A.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Robbin and Ha teaches the automated guided vehicle of claim 16.
Robbin does not disclose “an input device to: receive an input from a user; and electrically disconnect the battery pack from the automated guided vehicle responsive to a reception of the input”.
Lu teaches an input device (“control panel”, which communicates to the “VCU” per ¶ [49]; Fig. 8 step S01: “VCU transmits a battery swapping instruction to a battery manager”) to receive an input (“battery swapping instruction”) from a user (¶ [49]: “a user may input a battery swapping instruction to the VCU by operating a control panel”).
Lu teaches the input device (“control panel”, which sends “battery swapping instruction” to the “battery manager” per ¶ [49] and Fig. 8 step S01) to electrically disconnect (¶ [34]: the “battery manager” controls the electrode contactors “KM1” and “KM2” to disconnect “BATS”) the battery pack (“power battery pack BATS”; ) from the vehicle (“vehicle” per title, not drawn) responsive to a reception (¶ [49]: “operating a control panel”) of the input (“control panel”, which sends “battery swapping instruction” to the “battery manager” per ¶ [49] and Fig. 8 step S01).
NOTE: Lu’s teachings regarding a vehicle are also applicable to an automated guided vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a transport vehicle is an analogous system to an automated guided vehicle, as disclosed by Robbin.
Lu further teaches the input device and its functions to improve user experience (¶ [14]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the automated guided vehicle disclosed by the combination of Robbin and Ha to incorporate an input device to electrically disconnect the battery pack in response to a user input, as taught by Lu, to improve user experience (¶ [14]).
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 Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights