DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansl (US 2003/0185656 A1), a.k.a., “Hansl ‘656”.
Regarding Claim 1, Hansl ‘656 discloses
an autonomous guided autonomous transport vehicle, i.e., rack serving unit (1) as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraph 55, noting the programmable logic controller, computer control and control which effectuates autonomous guidance, as mentioned at paragraphs 16, 21, 55, 65, 70, 79, 101, 106-108, 113 and 119, for example,
comprising:
a frame, i.e., loading platform (10), load bearing support (26), base frame (27) and support frame (29), as illustrated in figures 3-5 and as mentioned in paragraphs 55 and 59, noting paragraph 55, first two sentences, stating “FIGS. 1 and 2, which will be described together, provide a front view of a conveyor vehicle, in particular a rack serving unit 1, and a racking system 2, in this example an upright rack system with rack bays 3, 3' for stacking storage units 4, in particular containers, boxes, etc.” and “[t]he rack serving unit 1 in this example, is designed so as to be displaceable in an aisle 5 between two mutually spaced rack bays 3, 3', in the direction of the aisle--indicated by double arrow 9--along a track 7 and a track 7' running on a standing surface 6 alongside a ceiling of the racking system 2 by means of bogie assemblies and at least one drive arrangement, not illustrated in detail”, configured for autonomous guided traverse, i.e., in the direction of double directional arrow (9), as illustrated in figure 5 and as mentioned at paragraphs 55, 57, 58, 59 and 62, double directional arrow (13), as illustrated in figures 1, 4 and 7 and as mentioned at paragraph 55, 62 and 67, for example, and double directional arrow (42), as illustrated in figures 3, 4 and 12 and as mentioned at paragraphs 62 and 63, within a storage and retrieval system, i.e., rack serving unit (1) and racking system (2) with rack bays (3, 3’) for storing storage units (4), incoming conveyor system (18), and outgoing conveyor (20), the frame (10, 26, 27, 29) forming a payload area having a payload bay with a
pickface support plane, i.e, loading platform (10) and conveyor plane (22), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 57, for example;
at least one upright mast member (11) as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 55, mounted upright to the frame (26, 27, 29),
where the at least one upright mast member (11) is mounted to and
forms, with the payload bay (10, 22), the payload area (22) of the frame (26, 27, 29); and
extension arms, i.e., telescoping arms (15), as illustrated in figure 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 55, movably mounted to the at least one upright mast
member (11) for movement in at least a vertical direction (9) as illustrated in figure 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 55, each
extension arm (15) being configured for
extension and retraction relative to the frame (26, 27, 29) along an
extension axis, i.e., direction of mast (13), as illustrated in figure 4, to effect transfer of at least one pickface, i.e,. interpreted as storage units (4), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2,
to and from the payload area (22), and
wherein the payload area (22) has a payload justification
traverse member, i.e., bearing slide (33) as illustrated in figures 3 and 10, and as mentioned at paragraph 63, movable relative to the payload area (22) of the
frame (26, 27, 29), in at least one direction that crosses the extension
axis (13), noting the direction of movement (42) in figure 3 as well as the directional arrows in figure 10.
Regarding Claim 2, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein the at least one direction (42) is one or more of the
vertical direction and a horizontal direction, noting figure 3 shows movement in the horizontal direction, i.e., up or down direction of figure 3, noting the left or right of figure 3 represents the vertical direction relative to the extension axis (13) and the longitudinal line of symmetry (53) as illustrated in figure 3 and as mentioned at paragraph 64.
Regarding Claim 3, Hansl ‘656 discloses
further comprising a three degree of freedom drive, as mentioned at abstract and as mentioned at paragraph 55, noting drive mechanism (12) that drives the displacement of mast (11) vertically in the vertical direction (9) as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, displacement of support frame (29) via endless drive element (36) as illustrated in fig. 3, and drive (44) that drives the telescopic arms (15) in the direction of double arrow (42), as mentioned at paragraph 63 and as illustrated in figures 3 and 5, connected to the extension arms (15) to effect the traversal of the payload
justification traverse member (33) and the extension and retraction
of the extension arms (15).
Regarding Claim 4, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein a distance between the payload justification traverse
member (33) and at least one extension arm (15) is a variable distance
such that the payload justification traverse member (33) has a
variable location relative to extension and retraction of the at
least one extension arm (15), noting that the drive motor (39) drives the extension arms to telescope/extend in direction of bidirectional arrow (13), thus changing the distance between extension arm (15) and the traverse member (33), as illustrated in figures 1-3, 7 and 8, for example.
Regarding Claim 5, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein traversal of the payload justification traverse
member (33) is in a plane substantially parallel with a pickface
support plane of the payload area (22), as illustrated in figures 2 and 3, to effect a full payload area justification of the at least one pickface (4) independent of a size of the at least one pickface (4).
Regarding Claim 6, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein the upright mast member (11) is arranged so that the
extension arms (15) are raised and lowered, along a lift axis, i.e., in the direction of bidirectional arrow (9), relative to the payload area, i.e., conveyor plane (22) as well as loading platform (10), of the frame (26, 27, 29).
Regarding Claim 7, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein the upright mast member (11) is arranged so that the
extension axis of the extension arms (15) is raised and lowered along
the lift axis (9) relative to the payload area (10, 22) of the frame (26, 27, 29).
Regarding Claim 8, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein the extension axis (13) is raised and lowered along the
lift axis (9) so that extension and retraction of the extension arms (15)
is within store shelves, i.e., support surface (23) of rack stage (17), as illustrated in figure 1, for example, above a pickface support plane of the
payload area (10, 22).
Regarding Claim 9, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein the store shelves (17, 23) are stacked above the pickface
support plane, represented by conveyor plane (22), for example.
Regarding Claim 10, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 11, Hansl ‘656 discloses wherein the
at least one storage shelf (17, 23) includes more than one stacked
storage shelf (17) accessible from a common travel surface of the at
least one picking aisle (5), as illustrated in figure 1.
Regarding Claim 12, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 14, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 8, above.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claim 9, above.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 21, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 22, see the rejection of Claim 8, above.
Regarding Claim 23, see the rejection of Claim 9, above.
Regarding Claim 24, see the rejection of Claims 1 and 3, above.
Regarding Claim 25, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 26, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 27, see the rejection of Claim 8, above.
Regarding Claim 28, see the rejection of Claim 9, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts at The Remarks received 5/4/26, paragraph 2a, that the Claim 1 limitations “[a]n autonomous guided autonomous transport vehicle comprising: a frame configured for autonomous guided traverse within a storage and retrieval system, the frame forming a payload area having a payload bay with a pickface support plane…” in combination with the other features of Claim 1 are not found in Hansl ‘656. Emphasis provided.
Applicant goes on to assert that this is because Hansl ‘656 discloses a rack serving unit (1) the merely moves along track 7, 7’, “running on a standing surface 6 alongside a ceiling of the racking system 2 by means of bogie assemblies and at least one drive arrangement”.
However, Applicant’s disclosure and specification in parent application 14/486,008, parent application 17/152,358, or the instant application 18/358,453 do not preclude that a rack serving unit (1) moving along a track (7, 7’) such as that in Hansl ‘656 wouldn’t still be considered an “autonomous guided autonomous transport vehicle”.
Instead, as required by Independent Claim 1, Hansl ‘656 expressly discloses
an autonomous guided autonomous transport vehicle, i.e., rack serving unit (1) as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraph 55, noting the programmable logic controller, computer control and control which effectuates autonomous guidance, as mentioned at paragraphs 16, 21, 55, 65, 70, 79, 101, 106-108, 113 and 119, for example,
comprising:
a frame, i.e., loading platform (10), load bearing support (26), base frame (27) and support frame (29), as illustrated in figures 3-5 and as mentioned in paragraphs 55 and 59, noting paragraph 55, first two sentences, stating “FIGS. 1 and 2, which will be described together, provide a front view of a conveyor vehicle, in particular a rack serving unit 1, and a racking system 2, in this example an upright rack system with rack bays 3, 3' for stacking storage units 4, in particular containers, boxes, etc.” and “[t]he rack serving unit 1 in this example, is designed so as to be displaceable in an aisle 5 between two mutually spaced rack bays 3, 3', in the direction of the aisle--indicated by double arrow 9--along a track 7 and a track 7' running on a standing surface 6 alongside a ceiling of the racking system 2 by means of bogie assemblies and at least one drive arrangement, not illustrated in detail”, configured for autonomous guided traverse, i.e., in the direction of double directional arrow (9), as illustrated in figure 5 and as mentioned at paragraphs 55, 57, 58, 59 and 62, double directional arrow (13), as illustrated in figures 1, 4 and 7 and as mentioned at paragraph 55, 62 and 67, for example, and double directional arrow (42), as illustrated in figures 3, 4 and 12 and as mentioned at paragraphs 62 and 63, within a storage and retrieval system, i.e., rack serving unit (1) and racking system (2) with rack bays (3, 3’) for storing storage units (4), incoming conveyor system (18), and outgoing conveyor (20), the frame (10, 26, 27, 29) forming a payload area having a payload bay with a
pickface support plane, i.e, loading platform (10) and conveyor plane (22), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 57, for example.
The autonomous nature of Hansl ‘656’s autonomous guided autonomous transport vehicle is effectuated by the programmable logic controller, computer control and control which effectuates autonomous guidance, as mentioned at paragraphs 16, 21, 55, 65, 70, 79, 101, 106-108, 113 and 119, for example. None of Applicant’s limitations require any such limitation and no such limitation precluding such a structure is found in any of Applicant’s disclosure and specification.
Applicant asserts the same autonomous guided feature in paragraphs 2b regarding Claim 10, 2c regarding Claim 19, 2d regarding Claim 24 and 2e regarding Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20-23 and 25-28.
Regarding paragraphs 2b-2e, the arguments against Applicant’s paragraph 2a, above, are considered to apply to these as well.
Therefore, Hansl’ 656 is considered to disclose, suggest and teach
an autonomous guided autonomous transport vehicle comprising:
a frame, configured for autonomous guided traverse, within a storage and retrieval system.
Thus, Claims 1-28 remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Castegren ‘581 is cited as teaching an autonomous guided autonomous transport vehicle, i.e., lifting means (3) which is automatically guided (AGV) as mentioned at paragraph 87 and as illustrated in figures 1-7, for example.
Schneider ‘514 is cited as teaching an autonomous guided autonomous transport vehicle, i.e., material handling vehicle (10) having frame (12), which is described as “[a] material handling vehicle depicted is (as a) driverless, computer controlled, and often referred to as an automatic guided vehicle (AGV)” and that “[i]t should be noted that the invention is particularly suited for use on a free ranging AGV but should not be limited to this use as it is suitable for use on other material handling vehicles for example, driver operated material handling carriers, and transporters, towed trailers, wire, and stripe following automatic guided vehicles, and the like”, as mentioned at col. 3, lines 55-68 and as mentioned at col. 9, line 61-col. 10, line 2, and as illustrated in figures 1-5, for example.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached on 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
August 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights