Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 26 February 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-26 are pending and treated below. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 20 and 22-24 are amended.
Applicant’s amendments filed on 26 February 2026, with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections have been considered. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection for Claim 24 have been overcome. While applicant submitted in their remarks that Claim 6 was amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection, no amendment is presented for Claim 6. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection for Claim 6 is therefore maintained.
Applicant’s amendments filed on 26 February 2026, with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections have been considered and are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections have been maintained.
Applicant’s argument that an evaluation unit is not located on the underride shuttle is not persuasive. Figure 5 and paragraph 0032 of Smith (EP 3511271 A1) demonstrates a shuttle control system present on the underride shuttle. It is interpreted that a control system would be akin to a computer including, but not limited to, a memory and processor that are operatively connected. The control system is further shown in Figure 5 to be directly connected to sensors 122 and 124. The processor of the control system would therefore be able to perform the same functions as an evaluation unit as described by the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “substantially” in Claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It cannot be ascertained what degree of difference can be considered forming the sensor units in a “substantially identical manner”. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be considered without the use of the term “substantially”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Smith (EP 3511271 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches A device for detecting a load carrier supported on an underride shuttle comprising:
a field of sensor units arranged on an outer side of the underride shuttle (detectors 22, 24 shown in Figure 2 and 122, 124 shown in Figure 5), each sensor unit configured to detect a respective detection position of the load carrier and to output a corresponding sensor bit depending on a presence of a predetermined property at the detection position (described in paragraph 0016 and 0032, wherein trolleys 106 are the load carriers);
a memory unit (described in paragraph 0039) storing data to allocate load carrier codes to respective load carrier types (paragraph 0031 describes the control system coordinating operation of multiple queues, paragraph 0040 describes a characteristic identifier of trolley type being used as a determining factor for coordinating queues); and
an evaluation unit operatively coupled to the sensor units and the memory unit, located on the underride shuttle, and configured to receive sensor bits output by the sensor units, to determine a load carrier code from at least one portion of the sensor bits (described in paragraph 0032, wherein the carrier code is the position within a queue and the processor of the shuttle control system 136 is the evaluation unit) and to derive a load carrier type of a currently carried load carrier based in part on the load carrier code and the data stored in the memory unit (described in paragraphs 0037-0040).
Regarding Claim 2, Smith further teaches wherein the sensor units are arranged in a row (shown in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Smith further teaches the field of sensor units is divided in such a manner that at least one of the sensor units is arranged at a distance from the remaining sensor units (both Figure 2 and Figure 5 show at least one sensor set at a distance from the remaining sensors).
Regarding Claim 5, Smith further teaches wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to carry out a plausibility check of the determined load carrier code based in part on at least one of the received sensor bits (described in paragraph 0032, wherein at least some of the detectors detect the presence and/or position of the carrier).
Regarding Claim 6, Smith further teaches wherein the sensor units are each formed in a substantially identical manner (Smith only makes a small distinction in the direct function of the sensors, wherein 22 is a sensor for determining position and 24 are sensors for determining proximity, while Smith states that sensors 24 are proximity sensors in paragraph 0014, they do not state a specific, different sensor for the sensor 22. Since a proximity sensor can also be used to determine position, Smith therefore teaches an embodiment where the sensor units are formed in an identical manner).
Regarding Claim 15, Smith further teaches a method for detecting a load carrier supported on an underride shuttle comprising:
detecting, by a field of sensor units arranged on an outer side of the underride shuttle, respective detection positions of a load carrier (described in paragraph 0032);
outputting, by the sensor units, corresponding sensor bits depending on the respective detection result by the sensor units (described in paragraph 0032);
determining, by an evaluation unit located on the underride shuttle, a load carrier code from the sensor bits; and determining, by the evaluation unit, the load carrier type of a currently worn load carrier based on the load carrier code and data stored in a memory unit (described in paragraph 0032, wherein the carrier code is the position within a queue, and paragraph 0037-0040, the processor of the shuttle control system 136 is the evaluation unit).
Regarding Claim 17, Smith further teaches outputting, by the evaluation unit, an instruction for adapting at least one operating parameter depending on the load carrier type derived by the evaluation unit (described in paragraph 0034-0036).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (EP 3511271 A1).
Smith teaches the claim limitations of Claim 1 as above.
Regarding Claim 4, Smith does not teach the field of sensor units includes at least five sensor units. However, one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the sensor field taught by Smith such that it includes at least five sensors. This would be for the purpose of improving detection capabilities and tracking the signatures provided by the support webs (described in paragraph 0032).
Claims 7, 9-11, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (EP 3511271 A1) in view of Mainz (US 12344516 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Smith teaches an underride shuttle comprising:
a vehicle body having a bearing surface (104)
a field of sensor units integrated in the bearing surface of the vehicle body, each sensor unit configured to detect a respective detection position of a load carrier when supported on the underride shuttle and to output a corresponding sensor bit depending on a presence of a predetermined property at the detection position (sensors 22, 24 from Figure 2 and/or 122, 124 from Figure 5, described in paragraph 0032);
a memory unit (described in paragraph 0039) storing data to allocate load carrier codes to respective load carrier types (paragraph 0031 describes the control system coordinating operation of multiple queues, paragraph 0040 describes a characteristic identifier of trolley type being used as a determining factor for coordinating queues);
and an evaluation unit, located on the underride shuttle, operatively coupled to the sensor units and the memory unit and configured to receive sensor bits output by the sensor units, to determine a load carrier code from at least one portion of the sensor bits and to derive a load carrier type of the load carrier when supported on the underride shuttle based in part on the load carrier code and the data stored in the memory unit (described in paragraph 0032, wherein the carrier code is the position within a queue, and paragraph 0037-0040, and the processor of the shuttle control system 136 is the evaluation unit).
Smith does not teach the vehicle body having a bearing surface which is adjustable in height on its upper surface.
Mainz teaches a height adjustable vehicle body (described in column 1 line 60-67).
Regarding Claim 7, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the means of height adjustment for a vehicle body taught by Mainz to the vehicle body of Smith. This would be for the purpose of enabling adaptability of the underride shuttle of Smith through making it applicable to load carriers of varying heights. The result would be such that the underride shuttle can properly meet the height of any load carrier to have the sensors meet the support web detection points and be processed by the evaluation unit. Being able to detect for load carriers of various heights would mean that the device of Smith increases the possible load carriers it is able to detect. One of ordinary skill in the art could incorporate the height-adjustment means of Mainz to the underride shuttle of Smith without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the height-adjustment means of Mainz to the underride shuttle of Smith would produce the predictable results of accurately detecting load carriers of varying heights carried on an underride shuttle.
Regarding Claim 9, Smith further teaches wherein the underride shuttle is further configured to adapt at least one operating parameter depending on the load carrier type derived by the evaluation unit (described in paragraph 0034-0036).
Regarding Claim 10, Smith further teaches wherein the at least one operating parameters comprises a maximum speed of the underride shuttle (paragraph 0034 describes the shuttle moving away from the track to process other tasks, maximum speed would be desired for maximizing task performance efficiency).
Regarding Claim 11, Smith further teaches an underride shuttle (104) and a load carrier (106), wherein the underride shuttle comprises:
a vehicle body having a bearing surface (104);
a field of sensor units integrated in the bearing surface of the vehicle body, each sensor unit configured to detect a respective detection position of the load carrier and to output a corresponding sensor bit depending on a presence of a predetermined property at the detection position (sensors 22, 24 from Figure 2 and/or 122, 124 from Figure 5, described in paragraph 0032);
a memory unit (described in paragraph 0039) storing data to allocate load carrier codes to respective load carrier types (paragraph 0031 describes the control system coordinating operation of multiple queues, paragraph 0040 describes a characteristic identifier of trolley type being used as a determining factor for coordinating queues);
and an evaluation unit, located on the underride shuttle, operatively coupled to the sensor units and the memory unit and configured to receive sensor bits output by the sensor units, to determine a load carrier code from at least one portion of the sensor bits and to derive a load carrier type of the load carrier based in part on the load carrier code and the data stored in the memory unit (described in paragraph 0032, wherein the carrier code is the position within a queue, and paragraph 0037-0040, and the processor of the shuttle control system 136 is the evaluation unit);
and wherein the load carrier is carried on the underride shuttle and is provided on at least one portion of its underside with a field of detection positions that can be detected by the sensor units while the load carrier is received in a target orientation with respect to the bearing surface (described in paragraph 0032 and 0034, shown in Figure 5, wherein the target orientation is created through the alignment of support webs 142 with the sensors 124).
Smith does not teach the vehicle body is adjustable in height on its upper surface.
Mainz teaches a height adjustable vehicle body (described in column 1 line 60-67).
Regarding Claim 11, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the means of height adjustment for a vehicle body taught by Mainz to the vehicle body of Smith. This would be for the purpose of enabling adaptability of the underride shuttle of Smith through making it applicable to load carriers of varying heights. The result would be such that the underride shuttle can properly meet the height of any load carrier to have the sensors meet the support web detection points and be processed by the evaluation unit. Being able to detect for load carriers of various heights would mean that the device of Smith increases the possible load carriers it is able to detect. One of ordinary skill in the art could incorporate the height-adjustment means of Mainz to the underride shuttle of Smith without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the height-adjustment means of Mainz to the underride shuttle of Smith would produce the predictable results of detecting load carriers of varying heights carried on an underride shuttle.
Regarding Claim 13, Smith further teaches field of detection positions comprises one, two or four identical fields of detection positions (Figure 5 shows one detection field comprising three detection positions 142 that align with the sensors 124).
Regarding Claim 14, Smith further teaches wherein the detection positions to be used for determining the load carrier code comprise a first detection position in which the predetermined property is present and a second detection position in which the predetermined property is not present (paragraph 0032 describes that the sensors only go to the on state only when all of them are aligned with corresponding support webs or detection points, Figure 5 shows this and also additional detection points that are not aligned with the sensors, wherein the predetermined property is detected position).
Regarding Claim 16, Smith does not teach raising the load carrier prior to detecting by the sensor units the detection positions of the load carrier.
Mainz teaches raising a vehicle through height-adjustment means (described in column 1 line 60-67).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the height adjustment means taught by Mainz to the method of Smith. This would be for the purpose of enabling adaptability by allowing load carriers of varying default heights to be able to be read by the underride shuttle’s sensors. The result would be such that the underride shuttle can properly meet the height of any load carrier to have the sensors meet the support web detection points and be processed by the evaluation unit. Being able to detect for load carriers of various heights would mean that the device of Smith increases the possible load carriers it is able to detect. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the raising of a vehicle taught by Mainz to the method of Smith without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the height-adjustment means of Mainz to the method of Smith would produce the predictable results of detecting load carriers of varying heights carried on an underride shuttle.
Claims 23, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (EP 3511271 A1) in view of Bocage (US 20210116230 A1).
Smith teaches the claim limitations of Claim 1 as above. They do not teach the use of an inductive proximity sensor as the sensor units.
Bocage teaches inductive proximity sensors (described in Abstract).
Regarding Claim 26, Smith does not set a limitation on the kind of proximity sensor that may be used. This means that it is possible for an embodiment of Smith to utilize inductive proximity sensors with metallic support webs (142) for improved accuracy of proximity detection. Such an inductive proximity sensor is taught by Bocage. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the inductive proximity sensors taught by Bocage as the proximity sensors in the device of Smith. This would be for the purpose of improving accurate detection of a load carrier. One of ordinary skill in the art could incorporate the inductive proximity sensors of Bocage to the underride shuttle of Smith without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the inductive proximity sensors of Bocage to the underride shuttle of Smith would produce the predictable results of detecting a load carrier carried on an underride shuttle.
Regarding Claim 23, Smith further teaches wherein the at least one operating parameter at a maximum speed of the underride shuttle (paragraph 0034 describes the shuttle moving away from the track to process other tasks, maximum speed would be desired for maximizing task performance efficiency).
Regarding Claim 24, Smith does not explicitly teach the maximum speed being a maximum curve speed. However, in the event that an underride shuttle would need to navigate a curve for processing further tasks (as described paragraph 0034), it would also need to set a maximum speed while navigating said curve. Therefore, Smith implicitly teaches the maximum speed being a maximum curve speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or if allowable subject matter is incorporated into existing independent claim(s). The closest prior art: The device of Smith (EP 3511271 A1) does not teach at least one centering unit provided on the bearing surface.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or if allowable subject matter is incorporated into existing independent claim(s). The device of Smith (EP 3511271 A1) does not teach a metallic surface or a bore is present at the detection positions.
Claim 18, 19 and 21 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 or if allowable subject matter is incorporated into existing independent claim(s). The closest prior art: The method of Smith (EP 3511271 A1) does not teach wherein a portion of the sensor bits is used for determining the load carrier code, and a plausibility check of the determined load carrier code is performed based in part on the remaining sensor bits. Claims 19 and 21 would be allowable due to their dependency on Claim 18.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or if allowable subject matter is incorporated into existing independent claim(s). The closest prior art: The method of Smith (EP 3511271 A1) does not teach a group of three sensor bits is used to determine the load carrier code and a group of two sensor bits is used in a plausibility check to check plausibility of the load carrier code, wherein in each of the two groups at least one zero -bit and one one-bit are present, and wherein the sensor bits represent an amount of one-bits in the sensor bits for the plausibility check.
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or if allowable subject matter is incorporated into existing independent claim(s). The device of Smith (EP 3511271 A1) does not teach at least one operating parameter comprises a size of at least one protected field of the underride shuttle.
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or if allowable subject matter is incorporated into existing independent claim(s). The device of Smith (EP 3511271 A1) does not teach the field of sensor units is divided in such a manner that at least one of the sensor units is arranged in a diagonally opposite region to the remaining sensor units in relation to an outline of the underride shuttle.
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 MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655