DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 recites the limitation "wherein dynamic allocation" in lines 1-2 and claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the dynamic allocation” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Each claim suggests that the concept occurs previously in the claims, but it does not appear in claims 1 and 10 from which claims 7 and 16 respectively depend.
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,661,279. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued claims include all of the same limitations but vary in scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by US 4,007,843 to Lubbers.
Regarding claim 1 Lubbers discloses an autonomous transport vehicle for transferring case units to and from predefined storage areas of at least one elevated storage rack in an automated case unit storage system, the autonomous transport vehicle comprising :a frame (220 and figure 14) configured so that the autonomous transport vehicle traverses, as a unit, picking aisles and lanes interconnecting the picking aisles that are alongside each of the at least one elevated storage rack for transferring case units between the predefined storage areas and a case unit input or output (200 moves to different aisles and to input/output area); and a controller (col. 11 lines 30-35 and col. 13 lines 15-20) connected to the frame, the controller being configured to effect movement of the autonomous transport vehicle on the picking aisles and lanes for accessing each storage area of the at least one elevated storage rack (col. 13 lines 15-20); and an effector (240 and figure 14) integral to and dependent from the frame, the effector defining a case unit seating surface contacting the case unit being held by the effector, the effector being configured to hold the case units and being configured to transfer the case units in a substantially vertical hand off exchange between the autonomous transport vehicle and each storage area (col. 15 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 2 Lubbers discloses the effector is configured to transfer the case units in a substantially vertical hand off exchange between the autonomous transport vehicle and at least one vertical lift (see col. 15 lines 15-25, the same mechanism is used for all load transfers to/from the vehicle). It is noted that the lift itself is not claimed only that the effector be configured for such a transfer which the Lubbers forks are.
Regarding claims 3 and 12 Lubbers discloses the autonomous transport vehicle is configured to transfer case units between each storage area of the at least one elevated storage rack and the at least one vertical lift with one pick (see col. 15 lines 15-25).
Regarding claims 4 and 13 Lubbers discloses the autonomous transport vehicle is configured to transfer case units to a predetermined area of the storage area of the at least one elevated storage rack (see col. 15 lines 15-25, Lubbers loads pallets into and out of the racks).
Regarding claims 5 and 14 Lubbers discloses the effector of the autonomous transport vehicle is configured to interface with at least one elongated finger (22) of a support shelf of the storage area for transferring the case units in a substantially vertical hand off exchange between the support shelf and the autonomous transfer vehicle (see col. 15 lines 15-25).
Regarding claims 6 and 15 Lubbers discloses the frame has a first end and a second end (figure 14), the autonomous transport vehicle further includes a pair of individually operable drive wheels (270) disposed at the first end and driven by a drive system and a pair of idler wheels disposed at the second end (270 at other nondriven end).
Regarding claim 10 Lubbers discloses a method for transferring case units to and from predefined storage areas in an automated case unit storage system, the method comprising: providing a frame (220 and figure 14) of an autonomous transport vehicle for traversing, as a unit, picking aisles and lanes interconnecting the picking aisles that are alongside each of at least one elevated storage rack of the automated case unit storage system for transferring case units between the predefined storage areas and a case unit input or output (see movement of 200 through system to handle pallets); and effecting movement of the autonomous transport vehicle, with a controller connected to the frame, on the picking aisles and lanes for accessing each storage area of the at least one elevated storage rack (see movement of 200 through system to handle pallets and control of motor to locate 200, col. 13 lines 15-25); and transferring the case units in a substantially vertical hand off exchange between the autonomous transport vehicle and each storage area with an effector integral to and dependent from the frame, the effector defining a case unit seating surface contacting the case unit being held by the effector (col. 13 lines 15-25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lubbers in view of US 5,002,449 to Kita.
Regarding claim 11 Lubbers discloses transferring the case units in a substantially vertical hand off exchange (col. 13 lines 15-25) but does not specifically disclose such transfers between the autonomous transport vehicle and at least one vertical lift with the effector.
Kita teaches a storage system including a storage method including transferring the case units between the autonomous transport vehicle and at least one vertical lift with the effector (see col. 11 lines 15-25) in order to extract items while allowing the picker 6 to stay on a specific level of the system (col. 11 lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s invention to have modified Lubbers to include transfers between the autonomous transport vehicle and at least one vertical lift with the effector, as taught by Kita, in order to increase efficiency and eliminate the need for every extraction to require the vehicle to travel all the way to the output zone, allowing some vehicles to stay on specific storage levels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the sensors detecting the raised support surfaces in order to effect dynamic allocation of case units differentiates the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other similar systems with vehicles that travel along multiple aisles and/or perform vertical hand offs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652