The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/26 has been entered.
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 11, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieg et al (DE 102016001470) in view of Mattingly et al (US 10,552,792) and Kazyak et al (US 12,017,547), all previously cited.
Bieg shows a transport system comprising:
a transport vehicle 1 comprising a load area 5 having a load surface; and
a plurality of rack units 11, 13, 15 arranged on the load surface one behind the other in a vehicle longitudinal direction and configured to be either locked in position (Fig. 1) or displaced in the vehicle longitudinal direction (Fig. 2), whereby an accessible intermediate space 23 can be produced between two adjacent rack units, wherein the transport vehicle is configured such that the intermediate space can be accessed regardless of the position thereof from an access side arranged laterally in a vehicle transverse direction (Fig. 2), wherein the load area has at least one guide element 9 which extends in the vehicle longitudinal direction and with which the plurality of rack units cooperate, so that the plurality of rack units are displaceable in a guided manner in the vehicle longitudinal direction, and wherein the load area is at least partly open on the access side, so that a side wall, arranged on the access side, of at least one rack unit forms an outer surface of the load area (Figs. 1-2).
Bieg further discloses that the plurality of rack units comprises a plurality of storage compartments 17, but does not disclose that at least one of the plurality of storage compartments provides a cooling function, or that a rack battery unit supplies energy to the plurality of storage compartments and wherein one of the plurality of rack units has a rack-mounted connector on a second rack side wall of the corresponding rack unit, wherein the rack-mounted connector is connected to a vehicle-mounted connector to effectuate an energy transfer between the corresponding rack unit and a vehicle battery unit, and wherein the second rack side wall faces a vehicle side wall of the transport vehicle that is positioned opposite the access side.
Mattingly shows a vehicle 120 which transports a plurality of mobile modular displays (rack units) 105, each of which comprises a plurality of storage compartments, wherein at least one of the plurality of storage compartments provides a cooling function, and wherein a rack battery unit supplies energy to the plurality of storage compartments (col. 3:15-54; col.10:49 to col. 11:14).
Kazyak shows a plurality of rack units 30 carrying items 60 to be delivered, each of which may be displaced along a longitudinal axis of a load surface 40 of a load area 22 of a transport vehicle 10 (col. 5:66 to col. 6:5), wherein a rack battery unit 76 and/or 78 supplies energy to the plurality of storage compartments (col. 5:56 to col. 6:42) and wherein one of the plurality of rack units has a rack-mounted connector (not explicitly identified but note col. 3:15-40) on a second rack side wall of the corresponding rack unit, wherein the rack-mounted connector is connected to a vehicle-mounted connector 28 to effectuate an energy transfer between the corresponding rack unit and a vehicle battery unit 50 (see col. 5:21-25 and 41-51), and wherein the second rack side wall faces a vehicle side wall of the transport vehicle that is positioned opposite an access side thereof (see col. 2:42-67; noting that since any of the front, rear or either side wall of the vehicle can have an access door or opening, and that the electrical interface/connector between each rack unit and the vehicle-mounted connected can be on the front side of the rack unit as in Fig. 1 or on either side wall thereof, in at least one embodiment the electrical connector of the rack unit would be on a side wall of the rack unit facing a vehicle side wall positioned on an opposite side of the access side).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Bieg by configuring at least one of the plurality of storage compartments to provide a cooling function, by providing a rack battery unit to supply energy to the plurality of storage compartments, and by providing (at least) one of the plurality of rack units with a rack-mounted connector on a second rack side wall of the corresponding rack unit, wherein the rack-mounted connector was connected to a vehicle-mounted connector to effectuate an energy transfer between the corresponding rack unit and a vehicle battery unit, and wherein the second rack side wall faced a vehicle side wall of the transport vehicle that was positioned opposite the access side, as collectively taught by Mattingly and Kazyak, to provide a self-contained means of cooling the contents of the storage compartments, thereby preventing overheating thereof, while powering such means with a rack-mounted battery that was in electrical communication with a vehicle-mounted battery, to ensure reliable and continued operation of the rack-mounted power components, including but not necessarily limited to the cooling means, which would not be effected by personnel accessing the rack units.
Re claim 14, at least one rack unit of Bieg “can be”, as broadly claimed, removed from and introduced into the load area by way of a loading side. Kazyak also discloses this feature.
Re claim 15, Bieg does not specify in what manner the rack units are displaced, but clearly this would be done either manually or automatically/mechanically by an "actuator", as broadly recited. The examiner notes that in general, broadly providing automated or mechanical means to replace manual activity which accomplishes the same result involves only routine skill in the art and is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 192-194).
Further, Kazyak shows that the plurality of rack units may be displaced by an actuator along a longitudinal axis of a load surface of the transport vehicle (col. 5:66 to col. 6:5). This is consistent with applicant's disclosure of an actuator in par. [0056].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have also modified the apparatus of Bieg by providing an actuator, as broadly recited, to displace the rack units in the vehicle longitudinal direction, as taught by Kazyak, as this would simply be the selection of one of a finite number of known ways of displacing a rack unit longitudinally along a loading surface of a transport vehicle, the selection of which in the apparatus of Bieg would have required no undue experimentation and produced no unexpected results.
Re claim 17, at least one guide element 9 of Bieg is configured to support a rearmost rack unit in the vehicle longitudinal direction in such a manner that the rearmost rack unit can be displaced backwards beyond the load surface (i.e., compare Fig. 2 to Fig. 1). Although Bieg does not explicitly disclose that the guide elements telescopically lengthen to extend beyond the load surface, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to do so, as the examiner takes Official Notice that telescopically lengthening guide elements would simply be one of a finite number of known equivalent means of displacing the rearmost rack unit backwards to the Fig. 2 position, the selection of any of which would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, for convenience and simplicity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieg et al in view of Mattingly et al and Kazyak et al, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Park et al (KR 20120073776, previously cited).
Bieg discloses that the rack units are made from or coated with weatherproof materials, but does not explicitly disclose sealing elements by which liquid-tight contact between adjacent rack units can be established at least on the access side.
Park discloses a generally similar rack system in which a plurality of adjacent rack units 100 are movably mounted on a rail system so that an accessible intermediate space (e.g., Fig. 2) can be established between two adjacent racks, and wherein sealing elements 21/24 (or 35/36 in Fig. 8) are provided on the racks, by which liquid-tight contact between adjacent rack units can be established.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Bieg by providing sealing elements on the rack units by which liquid-tight contact between adjacent rack units could be established at least on the access side, as suggested by Park, to further enhance the weatherproof (i.e., watertight) capabilities of the rack system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieg et al in view of Mattingly et al and Kazyak et al, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Higham (GB 2,139,273, previously cited).
Bieg does not show at least one door arranged on the access side that is movable in the vehicle longitudinal direction and configured to close the intermediate space from the access side regardless of the position of the intermediate space.
Higham shows a transport vehicle with at least one door 10 arranged on an access side thereof that is movable in the vehicle longitudinal direction and configured to close an intermediate space from the access side regardless of the position of the intermediate space.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Bieg by providing at least one door arranged on the access side that was movable in the longitudinal direction and configured to close the intermediate space from the access side regardless of the position of the intermediate space, as suggested by Higham, so that any desired space on the vehicle access side could be selectively opened or closed.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieg et al in view of Mattingly et al and Kazyak et al, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wellman, Jr. (US 3,385,459, previously cited).
Bieg does not show that the transport vehicle has an accessible footboard which, regardless of the position of the intermediate space, can at least be arranged on the access side laterally to the load surface adjacent to the intermediate space.
Wellman shows a cargo transport vehicle 10 comprising an accessible footboard 25 which, regardless of the position along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, can at least be arranged on an access side 13 of the vehicle laterally to a load surface adjacent to the longitudinal position (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Bieg by providing an accessible footboard which, regardless of the position of the intermediate space, could at least be arranged on the access side laterally to the load surface adjacent to the intermediate space, as suggested by Wellman, to improve operator access thereto.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieg et al in view of Mattingly et al and Kazyak et al, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lohmeier et al (DE 102007010658, previously cited).
Bieg as modified does not show that the transport vehicle further comprises a vehicle control unit, wherein the vehicle control unit is configured to:
determine a current location of the transport vehicle;
compare the current location with destination locations of contents of an individual storage compartment of the plurality of storage compartments; and
transmit an instruction to a rack control unit in electrical communication with the plurality of rack units to open the individual storage compartment of the plurality of storage compartments.
However, it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Bieg is a delivery vehicle (e.g., UPS, Fedex, or similar) that is driven to a plurality of destinations for delivery of individual packages being transported in the plurality of storage compartments of the plurality of rack units, and would logically conclude that the driver is supplied with information via a centralized control unit regarding the destination location of the various packages to be delivered in comparison with the vehicle’s current location, and is instructed to drive to each destination in an optimized fashion and to obtain the desired package from the appropriate storage compartment for such delivery, as generally well known in the art.
In addition, Mattingly discloses a central computer system 112 that is in electrical communication with the rack units 105 being transported on the vehicle 120 and knows the location and contents of the rack units and is in communication with the vehicle to transmit location and delivery information such that at a desired destination the appropriate rack unit is removed (or moves itself) from the vehicle (col. 4:39 to col. 5:16; col. 10:49-62; col. 13:14-47).
Further, Lohmeier shows a goods transport vehicle generally similar to that of Bieg, wherein packages 7 to be delivered to various destinations are transported in individual storage compartments 6 of rack units 4, wherein the destination locations of the packages are compared to the vehicle’s current location, and a rack control unit 12 in communication with the rack units indicates to the delivery driver which storage compartment the desired package to be delivered is located.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Bieg by providing the transport vehicle with a vehicle control unit configured to determine a current location of the transport vehicle, compare the current location with destination locations of contents of an individual storage compartment of the plurality of storage compartments, and transmit an instruction to a rack control unit in electrical communication with the plurality of rack units to open the individual storage compartment of the plurality of storage compartments, as collectively suggested by Mattingly and Lohmeier, to further optimize package delivery and adjust to changing operating (e.g., traffic, weather) conditions, thereby saving time and reducing fuel costs.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-17 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any references applied in the prior rejections of record for any teachings or matters specifically challenged in the arguments.
Claims 1-8, 20, 21 and 23 are allowed.
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
3/23/26