Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections are withdrawn due to the amendments filed 9/2/2025. The specification objection will be maintained for the same reason as the parent document, which it is noted the applicant did amend the title for the parent patent.
The applicant’s sole concern with the double patenting rejection seems to be the official notice taken on the rational for Ohtomo. To support the official notice, the examiner presents the following evidentiary reference:
Iijima et al (USPGPN 2005194934) provides evidence in ¶[07] that Constant-Current & Constant-Voltage (CCCV) method serves to help a battery charge faster (¶’s [07, 26]), while preventing it from decomposing/deteriorating (i.e. helping it stay alive longer, ¶’s [26, 30, 34, 36, 38, 40]). These two are sufficient, but if the applicant needs the examiner to provide official notice evidence on the issues with deteriorated batteries which can explode/inflame/overheat/gas/etc. to their surroundings, the examiner can do so, but as it is even more common knowledge than the above, the examiner will omit to do so for now. Official notice is not improper, and the above are well known features of battery charging.
It is noted that as the applicant did not provide terminal disclosure, it will simply delay prosecution. Requesting a terminal disclaimer by phone call is uncommonly applied.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued that Berger is incompatible and non-analogous to Lert, and that the rational to combine uses hindsight reasoning. The applicant’s arguments with respect to Lert in view of Kaneko are the same as Lert, the applicant has argued that they are not analogous, and that Boyles is even less analogous since Boyles does not teach a rover. As for the combination of Lert, Kaneko, and Bozzone, the applicant repeats their concerns with Kaneko, and has similar concerns with Bozzone as they had with Boyles. The applicant has further argued that a connection of a device requiring power [i.e. electrically charged particles] being connected to a power source [i.e. a source of electrically charged particles] is not analogous with a device having a battery needing charge [i.e. requiring electrically charged particles to be stored] being connected to a power source [i.e. a source of electrically charged particles]. The applicant has further argued that the combination of Lert in view of Kaneko and Kaneko in view of Lert fails to teach entry to the charging station is autonomous and independent of the system controller because one or more does not mean the one charging station of Kaneko. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant.
As for the applicant’s arguments on the rationale of Lert in view of Berger, the examiner points to the following evidentiary references:
Elberbaum (US20100278537) describes the AC outlet to power a load is standard (¶[39], 3 of Fig. 11, S of Figs. [7C, 6F] see ¶[101]). It is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that standardized components are cheaper than specialized parts due to the ability to mass produce them, and are easier to use with multiple devices. Consider an analogous USB port, which is and has been used before the effectively filed date of the invention. If the applicant requests evidence to support the benefits of standardization of components, then the examiner will provide it; however, it is considered by the examiner to not be necessary at this time.
Elberbaum was published before the filing date of the application, and before the affidavit of the parent (see however, MPEP [2144.03, 2141.03{I}, 2124], if the applicant would like to provide an affidavit to consider swearing behind this evidentiary reference as well). Furthermore, by not having a dedicated external charger as in Lert, you simply save costs on the external charger as there is not one in addition to the typical plug that would be used to power Lert’s off-board charger. That rationale is reasonable. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are unconvincing with respect to the rationale.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that the applicant appears to argue that all the references in this rejection should teach the entire claim. This argument is respectfully unconvincing.
In response to applicant's argument that Berger is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Berger, Lert, and the present application are in the charging and autonomous rover art, and therefore are analogous.
As for the analogousness between the present application, Lert, and Berger, they are all discussing the use of anonymous rovers. Lert has the function of carrying consumer products, and Berger was not relied upon to perform that function. Berger was relied upon rather to demonstrate a modification of Lert with respect to the manner of charging. Berger clearly has an on-board charging system, whereby the external power source is a non-controlled, common, standard wall outlet. Berger, by not having the dedicated wall-outlet of Lert, has saved on the costs, and as noted, space [easier to frame around], of Lert’s system. Having the charging fully controlled by the autonomous rover of Lert would not break Lert’s system, but would rather be a simple modification, esp. as many charging functions are described to be controlled by Lert’s rover (previously cited ¶[47] states that regenerative braking is performed by the rover, i.e. by an on-board charging system which operates when not connected to an external power source; furthermore, ¶’s [63, 68, esp. 68] describing cited Fig. 12, describes that the on-board controller will terminate charging). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments with respect to the incompatibility and non-analogousness of Lert and Berger is respectfully refuted.
As for the combination of Lert in view of Kaneko &[Bozzone or Boyles], examiner notes
(a) In response to applicant's argument that Kaneko is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kaneko teaches an anonymous rover which is involved in charging an internal battery. Lert and the present application doe as well. Lert was employed to teach the function of the autonomous rover which transports consumer products, and Kaneko was not relied upon to teach the entire claimed invention.
(b) In response to applicant's argument that [Boyles and Bozzone] are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case,
(i) Boyles was relied upon to teach a charger in which the “device-to-be charged control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the device-to-be charged is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be charged accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the device-to-be charged and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be charged”. The autonomous rover and its entry to the one or more charging stations was met by the previously address combination of Lert in view of Kaneko. The missing component from that combination was the lack of control loop and continued energization status. Boyles, with a device to be charged controlling the charging and the energization status of the charger remaining the same, is analogous to the part of the claimed invention lacking in Lert as they all teach charging of batteries.
(ii) Boyles was relied upon to teach a charger in which the “device-to-be charged control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the device-to-be charged is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be charged accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the device-to-be charged and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be charged”. The autonomous rover and its entry to the one or more charging stations was met by the previously address combination of Lert in view of Kaneko. The missing component from that combination was the lack of control loop and continued energization status. Bozzone, with a device to be charged controlling the charging and the energization status of the charger remaining the same, is analogous to the part of the claimed invention lacking in Lert as they all teach charging of batteries.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that the applicant appears to argue that all the references in this rejection should teach the entire claim. This argument is respectfully unconvincing.
As for Kaneko, the applicant argues that Kaneko should teach the features relied upon to be met by Boyles or Bozzone. Kaneko teaches the control of the rover which does not require external communication, i.e. lacking a control loop with the charger.
As for Boyles and Bozzone, each reference separately teaches the energization status being active regardless of device-to-be-charged entry, and control of charging on the device-to-be-charged. Thus, lacking a control loop. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted by the examiner.
As for the combination of Lert in view of Kido and Kaneko in view of Kido, the examiner does not agree that they are not analogous. In response to applicant's argument that Kido is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kido involves a connection of a device requiring power [i.e. electrically charged particles] being connected to a power source [i.e. a source of electrically charged particles]. The manner of Kido’s power connection is a hot-swap in the same way claimed by the applicant. Lert and Kaneko teaches the remaining features of the application, but were silent on whether there was a hot-swap connection. Lert, Kaneko, and the instant application describe a device having a battery needing charge [i.e. requiring electrically charged particles to be stored] being connected to a power source [i.e. a source of electrically charged particles]. A connection structure/method for power delivery is analogous. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is respectfully refuted.
As for Claim 11, the applicant’s arguments are unconvincing. The applicant has argued that Kaneko teaches one charging station, while Lert teaches many, so they cannot work together. That argument is lacking due to the fact that Kaneko does not require communication with the charging station to enter (instead using sensors on the rover itself), so the number does not matter, and further the claim language only requires one charging station. Furthermore, the applicant is trying to us a non-analogous argument here. In response to applicant's argument that Lert and Kaneko are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Lert and Kaneko, and the present application, describe autonomous rovers, and so they are analogous. They both also deal with charging of the rover. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is respectfully refuted.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Rover Charging System with one or more charging stations configured to control an output of the charging station independent of a charging station status.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 7-13, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 8-14 of U.S. Patent No. 9469208. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claims 1 and 17 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 and 3 of the patent (it is noted that the preamble of claim 1 is not given patentable weight, When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitations in the preamble are not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02).
Claims 7-10 correspond to Claims 8-11 of the patent.
Claims 11-13 corresponds to Claims 12-14 of the patent.
Claim 2 corresponds to Claims 12 and 13 of the patent (it is noted that the preamble of claim 1 is not given patentable weight, When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitations in the preamble are not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02).
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 11-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11565598. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 17 of the instant application corresponds to Claims 1 and 6 of the patent (it is noted that the preamble of claim 1 is not given patentable weight, When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitations in the preamble are not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02).
Independent Claim 14 corresponds to claims 1 and 5 of the patent.
Dependent Claims 2, 12, 15, and 18 corresponds to claims 2 and 7 of the patent.
Dependent Claim 5 corresponds to Claims 1 of the patent.
Dependent Claims 13, 16, and 19 corresponds to claim 8 of the patent.
Claims 3 and 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9469208 in view of Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232).
The limitations lacking from Claim 1 of the patent is the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover. Claims 4 and 5 of the patent correspond to Claims 3 and 4 of the instant application, respectively. The patent does teach the autonomous rover, which one of ordinary skill in the art is analogous to a device with a battery, including a battery pack which is to be charged by a charger.
Boyles teaches the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the chargeable device with a battery (¶[05] says that some inventions have power supply terminals for chargers which are continuously powered, and while the status may stay powered during, before, and after the connection, for a device with a battery, i.e. a battery pack). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the live power and using a change in resistance is a simple way to detect a connected device rather than having to rely on communication methods which are often more complicated.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9469208 in view of Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232).
The limitations lacking from Claim 1 of the patent is the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the chargeable device to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover [besides the preamble, (it is noted that the preamble of claim 1 is not given patentable weight, When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitations in the preamble are not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02)]. Claims 4 and 5 of the patent correspond to Claims 3-5 of the instant application, respectively. The patent does teach the autonomous rover, which one of ordinary skill in the art is analogous to a device with a battery, including a battery pack which is to be charged by a charger.
Boyles teaches the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the chargeable device to the charging station and through charging of the chargeable device with a battery (¶[05] says that some inventions have power supply terminals for chargers which are continuously powered, and while the status may stay powered during, before, and after the connection, for a device with a battery, i.e. a battery pack). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the live power and using a change in resistance is a simple way to detect a connected device rather than having to rely on communication methods which are often more complicated.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9469208 in view of Bozzone et al (USPGPN 20050134215).
The limitations lacking from Claim 1 of the patent is the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the chargeable device to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover [besides the preamble, (it is noted that the preamble of claim 1 is not given patentable weight, When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitations in the preamble are not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02)]. Claims 4 and 5 of the patent correspond to Claims 3-5 of the instant application, respectively. The patent does teach the autonomous rover, which one of ordinary skill in the art is analogous to a device with a battery, including a battery pack which is to be charged by a charger and a phone with an internal battery.
Bozzone teaches the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the chargeable device to the charging station and through charging of the chargeable device [phone] with a battery (¶’s [33, 34] states that the charging station output energization status of power contacts 104 and 106 remains always active, even when charging occurs, but the contact/gravity with the chargeable device leads to the power contacts to contact with the charging contacts). One of ordinary skill in the art (and Bozzone) contends that this serves to provide always live contacts (which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would be faster than contacts which have to be energized after some permittance/authentication cycle) while also providing improved safety from always live contacts (¶[33]).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9469208 in view of Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232), further in view of Pai (USPGPN 20110089891)
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9469208 in view of Bozzone et al (USPGPN 20050134215), further in view of Pai (USPGPN 20110089891)
For Claim 6, both combinations for the patent in view of Boyles, and the patent in view of Bozzone, teaches the limitations of Claim 1. The combinations lack the limitations of Claim 6 of the instant application.
Pai teaches each of the one or more charging stations includes at least one charging pad, and each charging pad of the at least one charging pad of a respective charging station is disposed in a floor on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels, the at least one charging pad being configured to interface with an autonomous rover charging pad that is mounted to an underside of the autonomous rover and faces the floor (see Figs. 1, 6, & 7, which shows pad on the floor 113, upon which the rover 20 travels to connect for charging and which connects to underside contact 211). Pai teaches this invention improves the recharging terminal of the charging station by having two locations for the charging interface which must be attached at the same time, improving safety (¶’s [11-13, 15, esp. 15]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 9469208 in view of Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232), further in view of Kaneko (USPGPN 20070216347)
The differences between Claim 7 of the patent and claims 14 and 15 of the instant application are a system controller and an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at autonomous rover entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover, an output of the charging interface is energized when the autonomous rover accesses and de-accesses contacts of the one or more charging interfaces. The patent does teach the autonomous rover, which one of ordinary skill in the art is analogous to a device with a battery, including a battery pack which is to be charged by a charger and a phone with an internal battery.
Boyles teaches a system controller (50), where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that having a controller for the charger can make the charger more reliable (automatically performing needed operations, like the indicator 65) and safe (controllers can often automatically prevent unsafe situations when they find one, ¶[37]).
Boyles teaches an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at autonomous rover entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover, an output of the charging interface is energized when the autonomous rover accesses and de-accesses contacts of the one or more charging interfaces (¶[05] says that some inventions have power supply terminals for chargers which are continuously powered, and while the status may stay powered during, before, and after the connection, for a device with a battery, i.e. a battery pack). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the live power and using a change in resistance is a simple way to detect a connected device rather than having to rely on communication methods which are often more complicated.
As for Claim 16, Kaneko teaches the missing limitations from the patent’s claim 7, i.e. entry to the charging station is independent of communication between the autonomous rover and the system controller (¶[44] and Figs. 5 & 6 demonstrate that the entry of the robot to the charging station is fully controlled by the rover to be charged 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patent in view of Boyles with Kaneko to provide improved reliability, since the rover is able to autonomously reach the charging station/contact on its own, it is not beholden to the communication between the charging station and the rover.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9469208 in view of Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232) and Bozzone et al (USPGPN 20050134215).
As for Claim 18, see the considerations described above for Claim 1 (in the rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 4) for both [either] of Boyles and Bozzone.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9469208in view of Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232), further in view of Kaneko (USPGPN 20070216347)
As for Claim 19, see the considerations described above for Claims 16 (in the rejection of Claims 14-16) for Boyles and Kaneko.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11565598 in view of Pai (USPGPN 20110089891)
For Claim 6, teaches the limitations of Claim 1. The combinations lack the limitations of Claim 6 of the instant application.
Pai teaches each of the one or more charging stations includes at least one charging pad, and each charging pad of the at least one charging pad of a respective charging station is disposed in a floor on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels, the at least one charging pad being configured to interface with an autonomous rover charging pad that is mounted to an underside of the autonomous rover and faces the floor (see Figs. 1, 6, & 7, which shows pad on the floor 113, upon which the rover 20 travels to connect for charging and which connects to underside contact 211). Pai teaches this invention improves the recharging terminal of the charging station by having two locations for the charging interface which must be attached at the same time, improving safety (¶’s [11-13, 15, esp. 15]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11565598 in view of Kido (JP H05122840 A)
For claim 7, the patent teaches all but the hot-swap limitations.
Kido teaches a hot-swap circuit on a device to be charged [the circuitry being configured to cause an output of the charging station to change between a safe and unsafe state to effect a hot swap entry and departure of the autonomous rover with respect to the charging station.] (¶’s [01, 08] which teaches that hot-swap circuits are more reliable and safer than those without so as to prevent short-circuit inrush current).
Dependent Claim 8 corresponds to claim 2 of the patent.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11565598 in view of Ohtomo (USPGPN 20130127415)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11565598 in view of Kido (JP H05122840 A), further in view of Ohtomo (USPGPN 20130127415), as evidenced by Iijima et al (USPGPN 2005194934)
The claim 1 of the patent, and claim 1 of the patent in view of Kido, fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 3 & 4 and 9 & 10, respectively.
Ohtomo teaches a constant power charging method in at least ¶[28], constant voltage charging method in at least ¶[28], and constant current charging method in at least ¶[28]. Such modes are set by the charger in that ¶. As known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using such modes can be beneficial to the battery so as to help it charge faster, help it stay alive longer, help it from causing damage to the surroundings of the storage device due to battery malfunction, etc. [official notice taken].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify patent’s claim 1 [in view of Kido] with Ohtomo to charge the battery faster, improve its use life, and prevent damage.
Iijima provides evidence in ¶[07] that Constant-Current & Constant-Voltage (CCCV) method serves to help a battery charge faster (¶’s [07, 26]), while preventing it from decomposing/deteriorating (i.e. helping it stay alive longer, ¶’s [26, 30, 34, 36, 38, 40]). These two are sufficient, but if the applicant needs the examiner to provide official notice evidence on the issues with deteriorated batteries which can explode/inflame/overheat/gas/etc. to their surroundings, the examiner can do so, but as it is even more common knowledge than the above, the examiner will omit to do so for now.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 14-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert et al (USPGPN 20100316468) in view of Berger et al (USPGPN 20120061155 corresponding to pages 51-53 of its provisional application), as evidenced by Elberbaum (US 20100278537)
Independent Claim 1, Lert teaches a charging system (Figs. 1,8c,13-16,&18-19B) for a storage and retrieval system autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12) of a storage and retrieval system (abstract), where the storage and retrieval system includes travel surfaces on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels and storage spaces to and from which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover transfers (abstract) storage consumer products (see ¶’s [06,73] which describe grocery/electronic consumer goods, the charging system), the charging system comprises:
one or more charging stations (130c shown by Fig. 1) disposed adjacent the travel surfaces (see ¶’s [30,72]) and configured to engage the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travelling on the travel surface for transport of the storage consumer products, each of the charging stations comprising a charging supply (in order to perform the charging, there would inherently be some supply by the charging stations); and
a power source for the autonomous rover (¶[72] describes a battery pack, while ¶[47] further describes a capacitor);
Lert is silent to autonomous rover entry to a charging station & control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the storage & retrieval system autonomous rover and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station & through charging of the autonomous rover.
Berger teaches autonomous rover entry to a charging station & control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the storage & retrieval system autonomous rover and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station & through charging of the autonomous rover (Figs. 1A-1C shows the autonomous rover [with mobile base in abstract], ¶[28] describes wheels, ¶[66] describes that the rover travels on its own and is able to plug itself into a wall outlet, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands is always live, and lacks a control loop). One of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made understands that a wall outlet is simpler, less costly, and more standardized (¶[66]) than a specialized charger for a device (and also is more convenient for designers to frame around, since the extra non-wall outlet charging device does not need to be provided, official notice taken).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert with Berger to provide improved convenience, costs, standardization, and simplicity.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued that Berger is incompatible and non-analogous to Lert, and that the rational to combine uses hindsight reasoning. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant.
As for the applicant’s arguments on the rationale of Lert in view of Berger, the examiner points to the following evidentiary references:
Elberbaum (US20100278537) describes the AC outlet to power a load is standard (¶[39], 3 of Fig. 11, S of Figs. [7C, 6F] see ¶[101]). It is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that standardized components are cheaper than specialized parts due to the ability to mass produce them, and are easier to use with multiple devices. Consider an analogous USB port, which is and has been used before the effectively filed date of the invention. If the applicant requests evidence to support the benefits of standardization of components, then the examiner will provide it; however, it is considered by the examiner to not be necessary at this time.
Elberbaum was published before the filing date of the application, and before the affidavit of the parent (see however, MPEP [2144.03, 2141.03{I}, 2124], if the applicant would like to provide an affidavit to consider swearing behind this evidentiary reference as well). Furthermore, by not having a dedicated external charger as in Lert, you simply save costs on the external charger as there is not one in addition to the typical plug that would be used to power Lert’s off-board charger. That rationale is reasonable. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are unconvincing with respect to the rationale.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that the applicant appears to argue that all the references in this rejection should teach the entire claim. This argument is respectfully unconvincing.
In response to applicant's argument that Berger is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Berger, Lert, and the present application are in the charging and autonomous rover art, and therefore are analogous.
As for the analogousness between the present application, Lert, and Berger, they are all discussing the use of anonymous rovers. Lert has the function of carrying consumer products, and Berger was not relied upon to perform that function. Berger was relied upon rather to demonstrate a modification of Lert with respect to the manner of charging. Berger clearly has an on-board charging system, whereby the external power source is a non-controlled, common, standard wall outlet. Berger, by not having the dedicated wall-outlet of Lert, has saved on the costs, and as noted, space [easier to frame around], of Lert’s system. Having the charging fully controlled by the autonomous rover of Lert would not break Lert’s system, but would rather be a simple modification, esp. as many charging functions are described to be controlled by Lert’s rover (previously cited ¶[47] states that regenerative braking is performed by the rover, i.e. by an on-board charging system which operates when not connected to an external power source; furthermore, ¶’s [63, 68, esp. 68] describing cited Fig. 12, describes that the on-board controller will terminate charging). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments with respect to the incompatibility and non-analogousness of Lert and Berger is respectfully refuted.
Independent Claim 14, Lert teaches a charging system (Figs. 1,8c,13-16,&18-19B) for a storage and retrieval system autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12), the charging system comprising:
a system controller (120); and
a charging station (130c shown by Fig. 1) with one or more charging interfaces (130c) configured to engage the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover for charging (as described in ¶[72], the station is engaged with the rover for charging, and the omission of wireless charging description means contact would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be used, due to its higher efficiency);
Lert fails to explicitly teach the charging station is configured so that the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover independently controls both an output and a mode of charging of the charging station after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces, and where an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at autonomous rover entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover.
Berger teaches the charging station is configured so that the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover independently controls both an output and a mode of charging of the charging station after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces, and where an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at autonomous rover entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover (Figs. 1A-1C shows the autonomous rover [with mobile base in abstract], ¶[28] describes wheels, ¶[66] describes that the rover travels on its own and is able to plug itself into a wall outlet, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands is always live, and lacks a control loop, where the mode of operation from a wall outlet is by the device being connected to it). One of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made understands that a wall outlet is simpler, less costly, and more standardized (¶[66]) than a specialized charger for a device (and also is more convenient for designers to frame around, since the extra non-wall outlet charging device does not need to be provided, official notice taken).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert with Berger to provide improved convenience, costs, standardization, and simplicity.
Independent Claim 17, Lert teaches a method for charging (¶’s [68, 70, 72]) a storage and retrieval system autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12), the method comprising:
providing a charging station (130c shown by Fig. 1) with one or more charging interfaces configured to engage the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover for charging (as described in ¶[72], the station is engaged with the rover for charging, and the omission of wireless charging description means contact would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be used, due to its higher efficiency);
Lert fails to explicitly teach independently controlling, with the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover, both an output of the charging station and a mode of charging the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover by the charging station, after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces, and where an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at autonomous rover entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover.
Berger teaches independently controlling, with the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover, both an output of the charging station and a mode of charging the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover by the charging station, after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces, and where an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at autonomous rover entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover (Figs. 1A-1C shows the autonomous rover [with mobile base in abstract], ¶[28] describes wheels, ¶[66] describes that the rover travels on its own and is able to plug itself into a wall outlet, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands is always live, and lacks a control loop, where the mode of operation from a wall outlet is by the device being connected to it). One of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made understands that a wall outlet is simpler, less costly, and more standardized (¶[66]) than a specialized charger for a device (and also is more convenient for designers to frame around, since the extra non-wall outlet charging device does not need to be provided, official notice taken).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert with Berger to provide improved convenience, costs, standardization, and simplicity.
Dependent Claims 2, 15, and 18, the combination of Lert and Berger teaches an output of the charging supply is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses a respective charging station (as the wall outlet is always active, it is enabled when the rover of Berger accesses and de-accesses the respective charging station wall outlet).
Dependent Claim 5, the combination of Lert and Berger teaches circuitry on-board and operated by the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover, the circuitry being configured to turn charging of the autonomous rover on and off disunited and independent of the charging station output energization status when the autonomous rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (as Berger teaches in ¶[66] that the rover controls the charging from the static wall outlet, this limitation is taught as it would have to turn it on or off).
Dependent Claims 16 and 19, the combination of Lert and Berger teaches entry to the charging station is independent of communication between the autonomous rover and a charging system controller (Lert omits this communication between the controller and the rover, while Berger teaches the rover performing the navigation on its own in the absence of communication with a system controller, as described above).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Berger, further in view of Ohtomo (USPGPN 20130127415), as evidenced by Iijima et al (USPGPN 2005194934)
Dependent Claims 3 and 4, Lert fails to explicitly teach the charging supply is configured to switch between one or more of a constant current output mode, a constant voltage output mode, and a constant power output mode (with respect to [wrt] Claim 3) and switching between different output modes is automatically effected by one or more of the charging supply and by commands received from the circuitry operated by the autonomous rover (wrt Claim 4).
Ohtomo teaches a constant power charging method in at least ¶[28], constant voltage charging method in at least ¶[28], and constant current charging method in at least ¶[28]. Such modes are set by the charger in that ¶ (thus the one or more). As known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using such modes can be beneficial to the battery so as to help it charge faster, help it stay alive longer, help it from causing damage to the surroundings of the storage device due to battery malfunction, etc. [official notice taken].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Berger with Ohtomo to charge the battery faster, improve its use life, and prevent damage.
Iijima provides evidence in ¶[07] that Constant-Current & Constant-Voltage (CCCV) method serves to help a battery charge faster (¶’s [07, 26]), while preventing it from decomposing/deteriorating (i.e. helping it stay alive longer, ¶’s [26, 30, 34, 36, 38, 40]). These two are sufficient, but if the applicant needs the examiner to provide official notice evidence on the issues with deteriorated batteries which can explode/inflame/overheat/gas/etc. to their surroundings, the examiner can do so, but as it is even more common knowledge than the above, the examiner will omit to do so for now.
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Berger, further in view of Pai (USPGPN 20110089891)
Dependent Claim 6, Lert is silent to each of the one or more charging stations includes at least one charging pad, and each charging pad of the at least one charging pad of a respective charging station is disposed in a floor on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels, the at least one charging pad being configured to interface with an autonomous rover charging pad that is mounted to an underside of the autonomous rover and faces the floor.
Pai teaches each of the one or more charging stations includes at least one charging pad, and each charging pad of the at least one charging pad of a respective charging station is disposed in a floor on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels, the at least one charging pad being configured to interface with an autonomous rover charging pad that is mounted to an underside of the autonomous rover and faces the floor (see Figs. 1, 6, & 7, which shows pad on the floor 113, upon which the rover 20 travels to connect for charging and which connects to underside contact 211). Pai teaches this invention improves the recharging terminal of the charging station by having two locations for the charging interface which must be attached at the same time, improving safety (¶’s [11-13, 15, esp. 15]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that wall outlets of Berger are used on the floor/ground thus Lert in view of Berger can be modified by Pai.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Berger with Pai to provide improved safety.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 14-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert et al (USPGPN 20100316468) in view of Kaneko et al (USPGPN 20070216347) and Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232).
Independent Claim 1, Lert teaches a charging system (Figs. 1,8c,13-16,&18-19B) for a storage and retrieval system autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12) of a storage and retrieval system (abstract), where the storage and retrieval system includes travel surfaces on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels and storage spaces to and from which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover transfers (abstract) storage consumer products (see ¶’s [06,73] which describe grocery/electronic consumer goods, the charging system), the charging system comprises:
one or more charging stations (130c shown by Fig. 1) disposed adjacent the travel surfaces (see ¶’s [30,72]) and configured to engage the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travelling on the travel surface for transport of the storage consumer products, each of the charging stations comprising a charging supply (in order to perform the charging, there would inherently be some supply by the charging stations); and
a power source for the autonomous rover (¶[72] describes a battery pack, while ¶[47] further describes a capacitor);
Lert is silent to autonomous rover entry to a charging station & control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the storage & retrieval system autonomous rover and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station & through charging of the autonomous rover.
Kaneko teaches autonomous rover entry to a charging station is disunited and independent so that there is no charging control loop between the storage & retrieval system autonomous rover and the one or more charging stations (¶[44] and Figs. 5 & 6 demonstrate that the entry of the robot to the charging station is fully controlled by the rover to be charged 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this modification provides improved reliability, since the rover is able to autonomously reach the charging station/contact on its own, it is not beholden to the communication between the charging station and the rover (and so is immune to possible communication errors).
It would have been obvious to modify Lert with Kaneko provide improved reliability.
Lert is silent to device-to-be charged control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the device-to-be charged is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be charged accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the device-to-be charged and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be charged.
Boyles teaches device-to-be charged control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the device-to-be charged is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be charged accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the device-to-be charged and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be charged (¶[05] says that some inventions have power supply terminals for chargers which are continuously powered, and while the status may stay powered during, before, and after the connection, for a device with a battery, i.e. a battery pack). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the live power and using a change in resistance is a simple way to detect a connected device rather than having to rely on communication methods which are often more complicated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko with Boyles to provide improved simplicity.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments with respect to Lert in view of Kaneko are the same as Lert, the applicant has argued that they are not analogous, and that Boyles is even less analogous since Boyles does not teach a rover. As for the combination of Lert, Kaneko, and Bozzone, the applicant repeats their concerns with Kaneko, and has similar concerns with Bozzone as they had with Boyles. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant.
As for the combination of Lert in view of Kaneko &[Bozzone or Boyles], examiner notes
(a) In response to applicant's argument that Kaneko is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kaneko teaches an anonymous rover which is involved in charging an internal battery. Lert and the present application doe as well. Lert was employed to teach the function of the autonomous rover which transports consumer products, and Kaneko was not relied upon to teach the entire claimed invention.
(b) In response to applicant's argument that [Boyles and Bozzone] are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case,
(i) Boyles was relied upon to teach a charger in which the “device-to-be charged control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the device-to-be charged is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be charged accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the device-to-be charged and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be charged”. The autonomous rover and its entry to the one or more charging stations was met by the previously address combination of Lert in view of Kaneko. The missing component from that combination was the lack of control loop and continued energization status. Boyles, with a device to be charged controlling the charging and the energization status of the charger remaining the same, is analogous to the part of the claimed invention lacking in Lert as they all teach charging of batteries.
(ii) Boyles was relied upon to teach a charger in which the “device-to-be charged control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the device-to-be charged is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be charged accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the device-to-be charged and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be charged”. The autonomous rover and its entry to the one or more charging stations was met by the previously address combination of Lert in view of Kaneko. The missing component from that combination was the lack of control loop and continued energization status. Bozzone, with a device to be charged controlling the charging and the energization status of the charger remaining the same, is analogous to the part of the claimed invention lacking in Lert as they all teach charging of batteries.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that the applicant appears to argue that all the references in this rejection should teach the entire claim. This argument is respectfully unconvincing.
As for Kaneko, the applicant argues that Kaneko should teach the features relied upon to be met by Boyles or Bozzone. Kaneko teaches the control of the rover which does not require external communication, i.e. lacking a control loop with the charger.
As for Boyles and Bozzone, each reference separately teaches the energization status being active regardless of device-to-be-charged entry, and control of charging on the device-to-be-charged. Thus, lacking a control loop. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted by the examiner.
Independent Claim 14, Lert teaches a charging system (Figs. 1,8c,13-16,&18-19B) for a storage and retrieval system autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12), the charging system comprising:
a system controller (120); and
a charging station (130c shown by Fig. 1) with one or more charging interfaces (130c) configured to engage the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover for charging (as described in ¶[72], the station is engaged with the rover for charging, and the omission of wireless charging description means contact would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be used, due to its higher efficiency);
Lert fails to explicitly teach the charging station is configured so that the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover independently controls both an output and a mode of charging of the charging station after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces, and where an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at autonomous rover entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover.
Kaneko teaches the charging station is configured so that the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover independently controls both an output and a mode of charging of the charging station after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces (¶[44] and Figs. 5 & 6 demonstrate that the entry of the robot to the charging station is fully controlled by the rover to be charged 1, ¶’s [49, 50] and s9, 10, s14-16, and s11 demonstrate the charging performed by controller 30 of the rover)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this modification provides improved reliability, since the rover is able to autonomously reach the charging station/contact on its own, it is not beholden to the communication between the charging station and the rover (and so is immune to possible communication errors).
It would have been obvious to modify Lert with Kaneko provide improved reliability
Lert is silent to an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at device-to-be-charged entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be-charged accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be-charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be-charged.
Boyles teaches an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at device-to-be-charged entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be-charged accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be-charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be-charged (¶[05] says that some inventions have power supply terminals for chargers which are continuously powered, and while the status may stay powered during, before, and after the connection, for a device with a battery, i.e. a battery pack). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the live power and using a change in resistance is a simple way to detect a connected device rather than having to rely on communication methods which are often more complicated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko with Boyles to provide improved simplicity.
Independent Claim 17, Lert teaches a method for charging (¶’s [68, 70, 72]) a storage and retrieval system autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12), the method comprising:
providing a charging station (130c shown by Fig. 1) with one or more charging interfaces configured to engage the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover for charging (as described in ¶[72], the station is engaged with the rover for charging, and the omission of wireless charging description means contact would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be used, due to its higher efficiency);
Lert fails to explicitly teach independently controlling, with the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover, both an output of the charging station and a mode of charging the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover by the charging station, after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces, and where an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at autonomous rover entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover.
Kaneko teaches independently controlling, with the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover, both an output of the charging station and a mode of charging the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover by the charging station, after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces (¶[44] and Figs. 5 & 6 demonstrate that the entry of the robot to the charging station is fully controlled by the rover to be charged 1, ¶’s [49, 50] and s9, 10, s14-16, and s11 demonstrate the charging performed by controller 30 of the rover)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this modification provides improved reliability, since the rover is able to autonomously reach the charging station/contact on its own, it is not beholden to the communication between the charging station and the rover (and so is immune to possible communication errors).
Lert is silent to an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at device-to-be-charged entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be-charged accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be-charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be-charged.
Boyles teaches an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at device-to-be-charged entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be-charged accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be-charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be-charged (¶[05] says that some inventions have power supply terminals for chargers which are continuously powered, and while the status may stay powered during, before, and after the connection, for a device with a battery, i.e. a battery pack). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the live power and using a change in resistance is a simple way to detect a connected device rather than having to rely on communication methods which are often more complicated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko with Boyles to provide improved simplicity.
Dependent Claim 2, 15, and 18, the combination of Lert, Kaneko, and Boyles teaches an output of the charging supply is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses a respective charging station (as the charger outlet is always active as taught by Boyles in ¶[05], it is enabled when the rover of Lert & Kaneko in view of Boyles accesses and de-accesses the respective charging station charger outlet).
Dependent Claim 5, the combination of Lert, Kaneko, and Boyles teaches circuitry on-board and operated by the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover, the circuitry being configured to turn charging of the autonomous rover on and off disunited and independent of the charging station output energization status when the autonomous rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (Kaneko has the energization status pre-existing immediately preceding autonomous entry to the charging station as being off, due to a command from the rover upon the previous charging session, where 30 is described as the charging control means, the charging station 20 does not contain a controller, and the sections cited by the applicant in page 16/30, i.e. Kaneko's ¶'s [22, 23] that the output is controlled after the contact is made; nowhere does the applicant in the independent claims require that the energization status must remain the same after the "entry" has occurred, and Fig. 5; 30 cited to control charging in ¶’s [41 & 49-53])
Dependent Claims 16 and 19, the combination of Lert, Kaneko, and Boyles teaches entry to the charging station is independent of communication between the autonomous rover and a charging system controller (Lert omits this communication between the controller and the rover, while Kaneko omits a controller yet shows the entry only by the rover via rover controller 30, meaning that the Lert as modified by Kaneko would not require a controller communication for entry to the charging station).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kaneko and Boyles, further in view of Ohtomo (USPGPN 20130127415), as evidenced by Iijima et al (USPGPN 2005194934)
Dependent Claims 3 and 4, Lert fails to explicitly teach the charging supply is configured to switch between one or more of a constant current output mode, a constant voltage output mode, and a constant power output mode (with respect to [wrt] Claim 3) and switching between different output modes is automatically effected by one or more of the charging supply and by commands received from the circuitry operated by the autonomous rover (wrt Claim 4).
Ohtomo teaches a constant power charging method in at least ¶[28], constant voltage charging method in at least ¶[28], and constant current charging method in at least ¶[28]. Such modes are set by the charger in that ¶ (thus the one or more). As known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using such modes can be beneficial to the battery so as to help it charge faster, help it stay alive longer, help it from causing damage to the surroundings of the storage device due to battery malfunction, etc. [official notice taken].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko and Boyles with Ohtomo to charge the battery faster, improve its use life, and prevent damage.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Berger, further in view of Ohtomo (USPGPN 20130127415), as evidenced by Iijima et al (USPGPN 2005194934)
Dependent Claims 3 and 4, Lert fails to explicitly teach the charging supply is configured to switch between one or more of a constant current output mode, a constant voltage output mode, and a constant power output mode (with respect to [wrt] Claim 3) and switching between different output modes is automatically effected by one or more of the charging supply and by commands received from the circuitry operated by the autonomous rover (wrt Claim 4).
Ohtomo teaches a constant power charging method in at least ¶[28], constant voltage charging method in at least ¶[28], and constant current charging method in at least ¶[28]. Such modes are set by the charger in that ¶ (thus the one or more). As known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using such modes can be beneficial to the battery so as to help it charge faster, help it stay alive longer, help it from causing damage to the surroundings of the storage device due to battery malfunction, etc. [official notice taken].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Berger with Ohtomo to charge the battery faster, improve its use life, and prevent damage.
Iijima provides evidence in ¶[07] that Constant-Current & Constant-Voltage (CCCV) method serves to help a battery charge faster (¶’s [07, 26]), while preventing it from decomposing/deteriorating (i.e. helping it stay alive longer, ¶’s [26, 30, 34, 36, 38, 40]). These two are sufficient, but if the applicant needs the examiner to provide official notice evidence on the issues with deteriorated batteries which can explode/inflame/overheat/gas/etc. to their surroundings, the examiner can do so, but as it is even more common knowledge than the above, the examiner will omit to do so for now.
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kaneko and Boyles, further in view of Pai (USPGPN 20110089891)
Dependent Claim 6, Lert is silent to each of the one or more charging stations includes at least one charging pad, and each charging pad of the at least one charging pad of a respective charging station is disposed in a floor on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels, the at least one charging pad being configured to interface with an autonomous rover charging pad that is mounted to an underside of the autonomous rover and faces the floor.
Pai teaches each of the one or more charging stations includes at least one charging pad, and each charging pad of the at least one charging pad of a respective charging station is disposed in a floor on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels, the at least one charging pad being configured to interface with an autonomous rover charging pad that is mounted to an underside of the autonomous rover and faces the floor (see Figs. 1, 6, & 7, which shows pad on the floor 113, upon which the rover 20 travels to connect for charging and which connects to underside contact 211). Pai teaches this invention improves the recharging terminal of the charging station by having two locations for the charging interface which must be attached at the same time, improving safety (¶’s [11-13, 15, esp. 15]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko and Boyles with Pai to provide improved safety.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 14-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert et al (USPGPN 20100316468) in view of Kaneko et al (USPGPN 20070216347) and Bozzone et al (USPGPN 20050134215).
Independent Claim 1, Lert teaches a charging system (Figs. 1,8c,13-16,&18-19B) for a storage and retrieval system autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12) of a storage and retrieval system (abstract), where the storage and retrieval system includes travel surfaces on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels and storage spaces to and from which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover transfers (abstract) storage consumer products (see ¶’s [06,73] which describe grocery/electronic consumer goods, the charging system), the charging system comprises:
one or more charging stations (130c shown by Fig. 1) disposed adjacent the travel surfaces (see ¶’s [30,72]) and configured to engage the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travelling on the travel surface for transport of the storage consumer products, each of the charging stations comprising a charging supply (in order to perform the charging, there would inherently be some supply by the charging stations); and
a power source for the autonomous rover (¶[72] describes a battery pack, while ¶[47] further describes a capacitor);
Lert is silent to autonomous rover entry to a charging station & control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the storage & retrieval system autonomous rover and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station & through charging of the autonomous rover.
Kaneko teaches autonomous rover entry to a charging station is disunited and independent so that there is no charging control loop between the storage & retrieval system autonomous rover and the one or more charging stations (¶[44] and Figs. 5 & 6 demonstrate that the entry of the robot to the charging station is fully controlled by the rover to be charged 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this modification provides improved reliability, since the rover is able to autonomously reach the charging station/contact on its own, it is not beholden to the communication between the charging station and the rover (and so is immune to possible communication errors).
It would have been obvious to modify Lert with Kaneko provide improved reliability.
Lert is silent to chargeable device control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the storage and retrieval system chargeable device is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the chargeable device accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the storage & retrieval system chargeable device and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the chargeable device to the charging station & through charging of the chargeable device
Bozzone teaches chargeable device control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the storage and retrieval system chargeable device is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the chargeable device accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the storage & retrieval system chargeable device and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the chargeable device to the charging station & through charging of the chargeable device (¶’s [33, 34] in Figs. 1 and 8-10 states that the charging station output energization status of power contacts 104 and 106 remains always active, even when charging occurs, but the contact/gravity with the chargeable device leads to the power contacts to contact with the charging contacts). One of ordinary skill in the art (and Bozzone) contends that this serves to provide always live contacts (which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would be faster than contacts which have to be energized after some permittance/authentication cycle) while also providing improved safety from always live contacts (¶[33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko with Bozzone to provide improved safety and speed.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments with respect to Lert in view of Kaneko are the same as Lert, the applicant has argued that they are not analogous, and that Boyles is even less analogous since Boyles does not teach a rover. As for the combination of Lert, Kaneko, and Bozzone, the applicant repeats their concerns with Kaneko, and has similar concerns with Bozzone as they had with Boyles. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant.
As for the combination of Lert in view of Kaneko &[Bozzone or Boyles], examiner notes
(a) In response to applicant's argument that Kaneko is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kaneko teaches an anonymous rover which is involved in charging an internal battery. Lert and the present application doe as well. Lert was employed to teach the function of the autonomous rover which transports consumer products, and Kaneko was not relied upon to teach the entire claimed invention.
(b) In response to applicant's argument that [Boyles and Bozzone] are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case,
(i) Boyles was relied upon to teach a charger in which the “device-to-be charged control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the device-to-be charged is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be charged accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the device-to-be charged and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be charged”. The autonomous rover and its entry to the one or more charging stations was met by the previously address combination of Lert in view of Kaneko. The missing component from that combination was the lack of control loop and continued energization status. Boyles, with a device to be charged controlling the charging and the energization status of the charger remaining the same, is analogous to the part of the claimed invention lacking in Lert as they all teach charging of batteries.
(ii) Boyles was relied upon to teach a charger in which the “device-to-be charged control of an output of the one or more charging stations by the device-to-be charged is disunited and independent from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be charged accesses the charging station so that there is no charging control loop between the device-to-be charged and the one or more charging stations and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be charged”. The autonomous rover and its entry to the one or more charging stations was met by the previously address combination of Lert in view of Kaneko. The missing component from that combination was the lack of control loop and continued energization status. Bozzone, with a device to be charged controlling the charging and the energization status of the charger remaining the same, is analogous to the part of the claimed invention lacking in Lert as they all teach charging of batteries.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that the applicant appears to argue that all the references in this rejection should teach the entire claim. This argument is respectfully unconvincing.
As for Kaneko, the applicant argues that Kaneko should teach the features relied upon to be met by Boyles or Bozzone. Kaneko teaches the control of the rover which does not require external communication, i.e. lacking a control loop with the charger.
As for Boyles and Bozzone, each reference separately teaches the energization status being active regardless of device-to-be-charged entry, and control of charging on the device-to-be-charged. Thus, lacking a control loop. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted by the examiner.
Independent Claim 14, Lert teaches a charging system (Figs. 1,8c,13-16,&18-19B) for a storage and retrieval system autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12), the charging system comprising:
a system controller (120); and
a charging station (130c shown by Fig. 1) with one or more charging interfaces (130c) configured to engage the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover for charging (as described in ¶[72], the station is engaged with the rover for charging, and the omission of wireless charging description means contact would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be used, due to its higher efficiency);
Lert fails to explicitly teach the charging station is configured so that the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover independently controls both an output and a mode of charging of the charging station after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces, and where an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at autonomous rover entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover.
Kaneko teaches the charging station is configured so that the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover independently controls both an output and a mode of charging of the charging station after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces (¶[44] and Figs. 5 & 6 demonstrate that the entry of the robot to the charging station is fully controlled by the rover to be charged 1, ¶’s [49, 50] and s9, 10, s14-16, and s11 demonstrate the charging performed by controller 30 of the rover)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this modification provides improved reliability, since the rover is able to autonomously reach the charging station/contact on its own, it is not beholden to the communication between the charging station and the rover (and so is immune to possible communication errors).
It would have been obvious to modify Lert with Kaneko provide improved reliability
Lert is silent to an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at device-to-be-charged entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be-charged accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be-charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be-charged.
Bozzone teaches an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at device-to-be-charged entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be-charged accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be-charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be-charged (¶’s [33, 34] in Figs. 1 and 8-10 states that the charging station output energization status of power contacts 104 and 106 remains always active, even when charging occurs, but the contact/gravity with the chargeable device leads to the power contacts to contact with the charging contacts). One of ordinary skill in the art (and Bozzone) contends that this serves to provide always live contacts (which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would be faster than contacts which have to be energized after some permittance/authentication cycle) while also providing improved safety from always live contacts (¶[33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko with Bozzone to provide improved safety and speed.
Independent Claim 17, Lert teaches a method for charging (¶’s [68, 70, 72]) a storage and retrieval system autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12), the method comprising:
providing a charging station (130c shown by Fig. 1) with one or more charging interfaces configured to engage the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover for charging (as described in ¶[72], the station is engaged with the rover for charging, and the omission of wireless charging description means contact would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be used, due to its higher efficiency);
Lert fails to explicitly teach independently controlling, with the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover, both an output of the charging station and a mode of charging the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover by the charging station, after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces, and where an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at autonomous rover entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the autonomous rover accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the autonomous rover to the charging station and through charging of the autonomous rover.
Kaneko teaches independently controlling, with the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover, both an output of the charging station and a mode of charging the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover by the charging station, after autonomous rover contact is made with the one or more charging interfaces (¶[44] and Figs. 5 & 6 demonstrate that the entry of the robot to the charging station is fully controlled by the rover to be charged 1, ¶’s [49, 50] and s9, 10, s14-16, and s11 demonstrate the charging performed by controller 30 of the rover)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this modification provides improved reliability, since the rover is able to autonomously reach the charging station/contact on its own, it is not beholden to the communication between the charging station and the rover (and so is immune to possible communication errors).
Lert is silent to an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at device-to-be-charged entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be-charged accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be-charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be-charged.
Bozzone teaches an energization of contacts of the one or more charging interfaces at device-to-be-charged entry to the charging station is disunited from a predetermined charging station output energization status existing when the device-to-be-charged accesses the charging station and the predetermined charging station output energization status remains upon access of the device-to-be-charged to the charging station & through charging of the device-to-be-charged (¶’s [33, 34] in Figs. 1 and 8-10 states that the charging station output energization status of power contacts 104 and 106 remains always active, even when charging occurs, but the contact/gravity with the chargeable device leads to the power contacts to contact with the charging contacts). One of ordinary skill in the art (and Bozzone) contends that this serves to provide always live contacts (which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would be faster than contacts which have to be energized after some permittance/authentication cycle) while also providing improved safety from always live contacts (¶[33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko with Bozzone to provide improved safety and speed.
Dependent Claim 2, 15, and 18, the combination of Lert, Kaneko, and Bozzone teaches an output of the charging supply is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses a respective charging station (as the charger outlet is always active as taught by Bozzone in ¶’s [33, 34], it is enabled when the rover of Lert & Kaneko in view of Bozzone accesses and de-accesses the respective charging station charger outlet).
Dependent Claim 5, the combination of Lert, Kaneko, and Bozzone teaches circuitry on-board and operated by the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover, the circuitry being configured to turn charging of the autonomous rover on and off disunited and independent of the charging station output energization status when the autonomous rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (Kaneko has the energization status pre-existing immediately preceding autonomous entry to the charging station as being off, due to a command from the rover upon the previous charging session, where 30 is described as the charging control means, the charging station 20 does not contain a controller, and the sections cited by the applicant in page 16/30, i.e. Kaneko's ¶'s [22, 23] that the output is controlled after the contact is made; nowhere does the applicant in the independent claims require that the energization status must remain the same after the "entry" has occurred, and Fig. 5; 30 cited to control charging in ¶’s [41 & 49-53])
Dependent Claims 16 and 19, the combination of Lert, Kaneko, and Bozzone teaches entry to the charging station is independent of communication between the autonomous rover and a charging system controller (Lert omits this communication between the controller and the rover, while Kaneko omits a controller yet shows the entry only by the rover via rover controller 30, meaning that the Lert as modified by Kaneko would not require a controller communication for entry to the charging station).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kaneko and Bozzone, further in view of Ohtomo (USPGPN 20130127415), as evidenced by Iijima et al (USPGPN 2005194934)
Dependent Claims 3 and 4, Lert fails to explicitly teach the charging supply is configured to switch between one or more of a constant current output mode, a constant voltage output mode, and a constant power output mode (with respect to [wrt] Claim 3) and switching between different output modes is automatically effected by one or more of the charging supply and by commands received from the circuitry operated by the autonomous rover (wrt Claim 4).
Ohtomo teaches a constant power charging method in at least ¶[28], constant voltage charging method in at least ¶[28], and constant current charging method in at least ¶[28]. Such modes are set by the charger in that ¶ (thus the one or more). As known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using such modes can be beneficial to the battery so as to help it charge faster, help it stay alive longer, help it from causing damage to the surroundings of the storage device due to battery malfunction, etc. [official notice taken].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko and Bozzone with Ohtomo to charge the battery faster, improve its use life, and prevent damage.
Iijima provides evidence in ¶[07] that Constant-Current & Constant-Voltage (CCCV) method serves to help a battery charge faster (¶’s [07, 26]), while preventing it from decomposing/deteriorating (i.e. helping it stay alive longer, ¶’s [26, 30, 34, 36, 38, 40]). These two are sufficient, but if the applicant needs the examiner to provide official notice evidence on the issues with deteriorated batteries which can explode/inflame/overheat/gas/etc. to their surroundings, the examiner can do so, but as it is even more common knowledge than the above, the examiner will omit to do so for now.
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kaneko and Bozzone, further in view of Pai (USPGPN 20110089891)
Dependent Claim 6, Lert is silent to each of the one or more charging stations includes at least one charging pad, and each charging pad of the at least one charging pad of a respective charging station is disposed in a floor on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels, the at least one charging pad being configured to interface with an autonomous rover charging pad that is mounted to an underside of the autonomous rover and faces the floor.
Pai teaches each of the one or more charging stations includes at least one charging pad, and each charging pad of the at least one charging pad of a respective charging station is disposed in a floor on which the storage and retrieval system autonomous rover travels, the at least one charging pad being configured to interface with an autonomous rover charging pad that is mounted to an underside of the autonomous rover and faces the floor (see Figs. 1, 6, & 7, which shows pad on the floor 113, upon which the rover 20 travels to connect for charging and which connects to underside contact 211). Pai teaches this invention improves the recharging terminal of the charging station by having two locations for the charging interface which must be attached at the same time, improving safety (¶’s [11-13, 15, esp. 15]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko and Bozzone with Pai to provide improved safety.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert et al (USPGPN 20100316468) in view of Kido (JP H05122840 A)
Independent Claim 7, Lert teaches a charging system (Figs. 1,8c,13-16,&18-19B) for an autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12), the charging system comprises:
a charging station (130c shown by Fig. 1) having contacts configured to engage the autonomous rover (as described in ¶[72], the station is engaged with the rover for charging, and the omission of wireless charging description means contact would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be used, due to its higher efficiency);
a power source for the autonomous rover (¶[72]).
Lert teaches circuitry operated by the autonomous rover for entry and departure to the charging station (¶[30] calls them autonomous vehicular transport bots, thus they have circuitry, with entry and departure)
Lert fails to explicitly teach circuitry operated by the device to be charged, the circuitry being configured to cause an output of the charging station to change between a safe and unsafe state to effect a hot swap entry and departure of the device to be charged with respect to the charging station.
Kido teaches circuitry operated by the device to be charged, the circuitry being configured to cause an output of the charging station to change between a safe and unsafe state to effect a hot swap entry and departure of the device to be charged with respect to the charging station (¶’s [01, 08] which teaches that hot-swap circuits on the device to be charged and operated by the device to be charged are more reliable and safer than those without so as to prevent short-circuit inrush current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert with Kido to provide improved reliability and safety.
As for the combination of Lert in view of Kido and Kaneko in view of Kido, the examiner does not agree that they are not analogous. In response to applicant's argument that Kido is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kido involves a connection of a device requiring power [i.e. electrically charged particles] being connected to a power source [i.e. a source of electrically charged particles]. The manner of Kido’s power connection is a hot-swap in the same way claimed by the applicant. Lert and Kaneko teaches the remaining features of the application, but were silent on whether there was a hot-swap connection. Lert, Kaneko, and the instant application describe a device having a battery needing charge [i.e. requiring electrically charged particles to be stored] being connected to a power source [i.e. a source of electrically charged particles]. A connection structure/method for power delivery is analogous. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is respectfully refuted.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kido, further in view of Berger et al (USPGPN 20120061155 corresponding to pages 51-53 of its provisional application)
Dependent Claim 8, Lert is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Berger teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (Figs. 1A-1C shows the autonomous rover [with mobile base in abstract], ¶[28] describes wheels, ¶[66] describes that the rover travels on its own and is able to plug itself into a wall outlet, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands is always live, and lacks a control loop). One of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made understands that a wall outlet is simpler, less costly, and more standardized (¶[66]) than a specialized charger for a device (and also is more convenient for designers to frame around, since the extra non-wall outlet charging device does not need to be provided, official notice taken).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kido with Berger to provide improved convenience, costs, standardization, and simplicity.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kido, further in view of Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232)
Dependent Claim 8, Lert is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Boyles teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (¶[05] says that some inventions have power supply terminals for chargers which are continuously powered, and while the status may stay powered during, before, and after the connection, for a device with a battery, i.e. a battery pack). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the live power and using a change in resistance is a simple way to detect a connected device rather than having to rely on communication methods which are often more complicated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kido with Boyles to provide improved simplicity.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kido, further in view of Bozzone et al (USPGPN 20050134215)
Dependent Claim 8, Lert is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Bozzone teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (¶’s [33, 34] in Figs. 1 and 8-10 states that the charging station output energization status of power contacts 104 and 106 remains always active, even when charging occurs, but the contact/gravity with the chargeable device leads to the power contacts to contact with the charging contacts). One of ordinary skill in the art (and Bozzone) contends that this serves to provide always live contacts (which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would be faster than contacts which have to be energized after some permittance/authentication cycle) while also providing improved safety from always live contacts (¶[33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kido with Bozzone to provide improved safety and speed.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kido, further in view of Ohtomo (USPGPN 20130127415), as evidenced by Iijima et al (USPGPN 2005194934)
Dependent Claims 9 and 10, Lert fails to explicitly teach the charging supply is configured to switch between one or more of a constant current output mode, a constant voltage output mode, and a constant power output mode (with respect to [wrt] Claim 9) and switching between different output modes is automatically effected by one or more of the charging supply and by commands received from the circuitry operated by the autonomous rover (wrt Claim 10).
Ohtomo teaches a constant power charging method in at least ¶[28], constant voltage charging method in at least ¶[28], and constant current charging method in at least ¶[28]. Such modes are set by the charger in that ¶ (thus the one or more). As known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using such modes can be beneficial to the battery so as to help it charge faster, help it stay alive longer, help it from causing damage to the surroundings of the storage device due to battery malfunction, etc. [official notice taken].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kido with Ohtomo to charge the battery faster, improve its use life, and prevent damage.
Iijima provides evidence in ¶[07] that Constant-Current & Constant-Voltage (CCCV) method serves to help a battery charge faster (¶’s [07, 26]), while preventing it from decomposing/deteriorating (i.e. helping it stay alive longer, ¶’s [26, 30, 34, 36, 38, 40]). These two are sufficient, but if the applicant needs the examiner to provide official notice evidence on the issues with deteriorated batteries which can explode/inflame/overheat/gas/etc. to their surroundings, the examiner can do so, but as it is even more common knowledge than the above, the examiner will omit to do so for now.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al (USPGPN 20070216347) in view of Kido (JP H05122840 A)
Independent Claim 7, Kaneko teaches a charging system (Figs. 1-12) for an autonomous rover (2), the charging system comprises:
a charging station (see element 1 of Figs. 1, 4, & 6a-7b) having contacts (22) configured to engage the autonomous rover (22 engages with 4, see abstract);
a power source for the autonomous rover (2); and
Kaneko teaches circuitry operated by the autonomous rover for entry and departure to the charging station (¶[44] and Fig. 5 describe this autonomous entry/departure)
Kaneko fails to explicitly teach circuitry operated by the device to be charged, the circuitry being configured to cause an output of the charging station to change between a safe and unsafe state to effect a hot swap entry and departure of the device to be charged with respect to the charging station.
Kido teaches circuitry operated by the device to be charged, the circuitry being configured to cause an output of the charging station to change between a safe and unsafe state to effect a hot swap entry and departure of the device to be charged with respect to the charging station (¶’s [01, 08] which teaches that hot-swap circuits on the device to be charged and operated by the device to be charged are more reliable and safer than those without so as to prevent short-circuit inrush current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko with Kido to provide improved reliability and safety.
As for the combination of Lert in view of Kido and Kaneko in view of Kido, the examiner does not agree that they are not analogous. In response to applicant's argument that Kido is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kido involves a connection of a device requiring power [i.e. electrically charged particles] being connected to a power source [i.e. a source of electrically charged particles]. The manner of Kido’s power connection is a hot-swap in the same way claimed by the applicant. Lert and Kaneko teaches the remaining features of the application, but were silent on whether there was a hot-swap connection. Lert, Kaneko, and the instant application describe a device having a battery needing charge [i.e. requiring electrically charged particles to be stored] being connected to a power source [i.e. a source of electrically charged particles]. A connection structure/method for power delivery is analogous. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is respectfully refuted.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Kido, further in view of Berger et al (USPGPN 20120061155 corresponding to pages 51-53 of its provisional application)
Dependent Claim 8, Kaneko is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Berger teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (Figs. 1A-1C shows the autonomous rover [with mobile base in abstract], ¶[28] describes wheels, ¶[66] describes that the rover travels on its own and is able to plug itself into a wall outlet, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands is always live, and lacks a control loop). One of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made understands that a wall outlet is simpler, less costly, and more standardized (¶[66]) than a specialized charger for a device (and also is more convenient for designers to frame around, since the extra non-wall outlet charging device does not need to be provided, official notice taken).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko in view of Kido with Berger to provide improved convenience, costs, standardization, and simplicity.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Kido, further in view of Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232)
Dependent Claim 8, Kaneko is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Boyles teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (¶[05] says that some inventions have power supply terminals for chargers which are continuously powered, and while the status may stay powered during, before, and after the connection, for a device with a battery, i.e. a battery pack). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the live power and using a change in resistance is a simple way to detect a connected device rather than having to rely on communication methods which are often more complicated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko in view of Kido with Boyles to provide improved simplicity.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Kido, further in view of Bozzone et al (USPGPN 20050134215)
Dependent Claim 8, Kaneko is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Bozzone teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (¶’s [33, 34] in Figs. 1 and 8-10 states that the charging station output energization status of power contacts 104 and 106 remains always active, even when charging occurs, but the contact/gravity with the chargeable device leads to the power contacts to contact with the charging contacts). One of ordinary skill in the art (and Bozzone) contends that this serves to provide always live contacts (which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would be faster than contacts which have to be energized after some permittance/authentication cycle) while also providing improved safety from always live contacts (¶[33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko in view of Kido with Bozzone to provide improved safety and speed.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Kido, further in view of Ohtomo (USPGPN 20130127415), as evidenced by Iijima et al (USPGPN 2005194934)
Dependent Claims 9 and 10, Kaneko fails to explicitly teach the charging supply is configured to switch between one or more of a constant current output mode, a constant voltage output mode, and a constant power output mode (with respect to [wrt] Claim 9) and switching between different output modes is automatically effected by one or more of the charging supply and by commands received from the circuitry operated by the autonomous rover (wrt Claim 10).
Ohtomo teaches a constant power charging method in at least ¶[28], constant voltage charging method in at least ¶[28], and constant current charging method in at least ¶[28]. Such modes are set by the charger in that ¶ (thus the one or more). As known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using such modes can be beneficial to the battery so as to help it charge faster, help it stay alive longer, help it from causing damage to the surroundings of the storage device due to battery malfunction, etc. [official notice taken].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko in view of Kido with Ohtomo to charge the battery faster, improve its use life, and prevent damage.
Iijima provides evidence in ¶[07] that Constant-Current & Constant-Voltage (CCCV) method serves to help a battery charge faster (¶’s [07, 26]), while preventing it from decomposing/deteriorating (i.e. helping it stay alive longer, ¶’s [26, 30, 34, 36, 38, 40]). These two are sufficient, but if the applicant needs the examiner to provide official notice evidence on the issues with deteriorated batteries which can explode/inflame/overheat/gas/etc. to their surroundings, the examiner can do so, but as it is even more common knowledge than the above, the examiner will omit to do so for now.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert et al (USPGPN 20100316468) in view of Kaneko et al (USPGPN 20070216347)
Independent Claim 11, Lert teaches a charging system for an autonomous rover Figs. 1,8c,13-16,&18-19B) for an autonomous rover (110, see Figs. 1,2C,2D,7-12), the charging system comprises:
a system controller (120); and
a charging station (130c shown by Fig. 1) with one or more charging interfaces (130c) configured to engage the autonomous rover for charging (¶[72]);
wherein entry to the charging station is under control of the autonomous rover and independent of the system controller (¶’s [50, 63] describes the controller of the bot is performed by the bot controller).
While Lert does not explicitly teach that the system controller communicates/controls the bot to effect entry to the charging station, it does not clearly exclude it.
Kaneko teaches entry to the charging station is under control of the autonomous rover and independent of a system controller (¶[44] and Figs. 5 & 6 demonstrate that the entry of the robot to the charging station is fully controlled by the rover to be charged 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to that having the rover control its navigation to the charging station would provide improved reliability, since the rover is able to autonomously reach the charging station/contact on its own, it is not beholden to the communication between the charging station and the rover (esp. if the communication had an error, or was blocked, etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert with Kaneko to provide improved reliability.
As for Claim 11, the applicant’s arguments are unconvincing. The applicant has argued that Kaneko teaches one charging station, while Lert teaches many, so they cannot work together. That argument is lacking due to the fact that Kaneko does not require communication with the charging station to enter (instead using sensors on the rover itself), so the number does not matter, and further the claim language only requires one charging station. Furthermore, the applicant is trying to us a non-analogous argument here. In response to applicant's argument that Lert and Kaneko are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Lert and Kaneko, and the present application, describe autonomous rovers, and so they are analogous. They both also deal with charging of the rover. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is respectfully refuted.
Dependent Claim 13, the combination of Lert and Kaneko teaches entry to the charging station is independent of communication between the autonomous rover and the system controller (Kaneko lacks communication, while Lert seems to omit the communication is used for naviation purposes).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kaneko, further in view of Berger et al (USPGPN 20120061155 corresponding to pages 51-53 of its provisional application)
Dependent Claim 12, Lert is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Berger teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (Figs. 1A-1C shows the autonomous rover [with mobile base in abstract], ¶[28] describes wheels, ¶[66] describes that the rover travels on its own and is able to plug itself into a wall outlet, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands is always live, and lacks a control loop). One of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made understands that a wall outlet is simpler, less costly, and more standardized (¶[66]) than a specialized charger for a device (and also is more convenient for designers to frame around, since the extra non-wall outlet charging device does not need to be provided, official notice taken).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko with Berger to provide improved convenience, costs, standardization, and simplicity.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kaneko, further in view of Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232)
Dependent Claim 12, Lert is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Boyles teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (¶[05] says that some inventions have power supply terminals for chargers which are continuously powered, and while the status may stay powered during, before, and after the connection, for a device with a battery, i.e. a battery pack). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the live power and using a change in resistance is a simple way to detect a connected device rather than having to rely on communication methods which are often more complicated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko with Boyles to provide improved simplicity.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lert in view of Kaneko, further in view of Bozzone et al (USPGPN 20050134215)
Dependent Claim 12, Lert is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Bozzone teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (¶’s [33, 34] in Figs. 1 and 8-10 states that the charging station output energization status of power contacts 104 and 106 remains always active, even when charging occurs, but the contact/gravity with the chargeable device leads to the power contacts to contact with the charging contacts). One of ordinary skill in the art (and Bozzone) contends that this serves to provide always live contacts (which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would be faster than contacts which have to be energized after some permittance/authentication cycle) while also providing improved safety from always live contacts (¶[33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lert in view of Kaneko with Bozzone to provide improved safety and speed.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al (USPGPN 20070216347) in view of Lert et al (USPGPN 20100316468)
Independent Claim 11, Kaneko teaches a charging system (Figs. 1-12) for an autonomous rover (2), the charging system comprises:
a charging station (see element 1 of Figs. 1, 4, & 6a-7b) with one or more charging interfaces (22) configured to engage the autonomous rover for charging (22 engages with 4, as described by abstract);
wherein entry to the charging station is under control of the autonomous rover and independent of system controller (Kaneko lacks a system controller, so it is independent of any system controller on the charging station, ¶[44] and Fig. 5 describe this autonomous entry/departure).
Kaneko is silent to a system controller.
Lert teaches a system controller (120), where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that having a controller for the charger can make the charger more reliable (¶’s [32, 70, 73, 74, 82, 83]) and safe (controllers can often automatically prevent unsafe situations when they find one, see citations above, including ¶[83])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko with Lert to provide improved reliability and safety.
As for Claim 11, the applicant’s arguments are unconvincing. The applicant has argued that Kaneko teaches one charging station, while Lert teaches many, so they cannot work together. That argument is lacking due to the fact that Kaneko does not require communication with the charging station to enter (instead using sensors on the rover itself), so the number does not matter, and further the claim language only requires one charging station. Furthermore, the applicant is trying to us a non-analogous argument here. In response to applicant's argument that Lert and Kaneko are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Lert and Kaneko, and the present application, describe autonomous rovers, and so they are analogous. They both also deal with charging of the rover. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is respectfully refuted.
Dependent Claim 13, the combination of Kaneko and Lert teaches entry to the charging station is independent of communication between the autonomous rover and the system controller (Kaneko lacks communication, while Lert seems to omit the communication is used for naviation purposes).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Lert, further in view of Berger et al (USPGPN 20120061155 corresponding to pages 51-53 of its provisional application)
Dependent Claim 12, Kaneko is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Berger teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (Figs. 1A-1C shows the autonomous rover [with mobile base in abstract], ¶[28] describes wheels, ¶[66] describes that the rover travels on its own and is able to plug itself into a wall outlet, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands is always live, and lacks a control loop). One of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made understands that a wall outlet is simpler, less costly, and more standardized (¶[66]) than a specialized charger for a device (and also is more convenient for designers to frame around, since the extra non-wall outlet charging device does not need to be provided, official notice taken).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko in view of Lert with Berger to provide improved convenience, costs, standardization, and simplicity.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Lert, further in view of Boyles et al (USPGPN 20100060232)
Dependent Claim 12, Kaneko is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Boyles teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (¶[05] says that some inventions have power supply terminals for chargers which are continuously powered, and while the status may stay powered during, before, and after the connection, for a device with a battery, i.e. a battery pack). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the live power and using a change in resistance is a simple way to detect a connected device rather than having to rely on communication methods which are often more complicated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko in view of Lert with Boyles to provide improved simplicity.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Lert, further in view of Bozzone et al (USPGPN 20050134215)
Dependent Claim 12, Kaneko is silent to an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts.
Bozzone teaches an output of the charging station is enabled when the rover accesses and de-accesses the contacts (¶’s [33, 34] in Figs. 1 and 8-10 states that the charging station output energization status of power contacts 104 and 106 remains always active, even when charging occurs, but the contact/gravity with the chargeable device leads to the power contacts to contact with the charging contacts). One of ordinary skill in the art (and Bozzone) contends that this serves to provide always live contacts (which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would be faster than contacts which have to be energized after some permittance/authentication cycle) while also providing improved safety from always live contacts (¶[33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko in view of Lert with Bozzone to provide improved safety and speed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859