The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
As noted in the prior Office action, although this application claims foreign priority to application NO 20140773 filed on 6/19/2014, that application does not appear to disclose the subject matter of dependent claims 2-6 and 9-13.
Should it become an issue, the effective filing date for the currently claimed subject matter of these claims is therefore considered to be that of PCT application EP 2015/0635415, filed 6/16/15.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 11, “comprising” should be --comprises--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 15 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.
The recitations “the four lateral sides” (claim 2) and “all four lateral sides” (claim 15) lack antecedent basis.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (US 10,000,337 or corresponding WO 2015/019055, previously cited) in view of Zollinger et al (US 3,880,299).
Note: The publication date (2/12/15) and actual filing date (7/24/14) of the Lindbo PCT document predates the above-noted effective filing date (6/15/15) and thus qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) with respect to claims 2-6 and 9-13. Further, although the claimed subject matter which the foreign priority document does support (i.e., claims 1, 7, 8, 14 and 15, as now amended) is accorded an effective filing date of 6/19/14, it is noted that Lindbo (US and PCT) claims priority to GB Patent application 1314313.6 having a filing date of 8/09/13. This document discloses (at least) the subject matter shown in Figs. 1-16 of the US and PCT documents and thus Lindbo qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) for at least the subject matter shown in these figures.
Lindbo shows a remotely operated vehicle 100 for retrieving items 106 from and/or placing items into a storage system comprising a framework structure 14 having a track system 22 at an upper level of the framework structure upon which the remotely operated vehicle travels, in a first direction or in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the framework structure defines cells arranged in a grid pattern (Fig. 7), the remotely operated vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body or framework 102 displaying a cavity 120 arranged centrally within the vehicle body or framework for receiving and holding an item 106 from the storage system (Fig. 6);
a lifting device 104 connected to the vehicle body and having a lifting device motor 150 to access items stored in the storage system through the cells;
two sets of wheels, a first set of wheels 116 arranged to travel along the track system in the first direction and a second set of wheels 118 arranged to travel along the track system in the second direction;
a driving motor 152 or 154 in the vehicle body or framework and coupled to one or more of the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels, and providing power to drive the vehicle body or framework in the first direction or the second direction on the track system; and
a displacement motor 188 (Figs. 8-12) connected to the vehicle body or framework and situated in a lateral plane above the cavity, wherein the displacement motor is configured to provide power or force to vertically displace at least one of the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels between a displaced state and a non-displaced state while the remotely operated vehicle is being operated, wherein the at least one of the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels is displaced away from the track system in the displaced state, and wherein the at least one of the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels is in contact with the track system in the non-displaced state, thereby changing the direction of travel of the remotely operated vehicle
Lindbo does not show wherein at least one of the lifting device motor, the driving motor, and the displacement motor is a DC motor. However, it is noted that Lindbo discloses a battery 156 carried on the vehicle for powering the motors.
Zollinger discloses a fully automated load handling vehicle 200 in a warehousing system, wherein the vehicle is driven along rails and utilizes drive motor 275, lift motors 242, and extension motors 215, all of which are DC motors powered by an onboard battery 222. Further, Zollinger discloses the DC motors as an alternative to AC motors (col. 12:60-66).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Lindbo by configuring at least one of the lifting device motor, the driving motor, and the displacement motor as a DC motor, as suggested by Zollinger, as this would merely be the selection of one of a finite number of known types of battery powered motors to use on a rail-guided material handling vehicle in a warehouse storage system, the use of which would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results, especially since Zollinger discloses that either AC or DC motors could be used, and further since applicant gives no indication that the use of DC motors is in any way critical to the invention or provides any particular advantages compared to any other type of motor.
Re claim 2, Lindbo shows that when the remotely operated vehicle is arranged directly above one cell, the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels are arranged in “an inner track” (as nominally recited) of the corresponding track system on [the] four lateral sides.
Re claim 3, the cavity of Lindbo has a lateral area smaller than a lateral area of the underlying cell (implicit from Figs. 5-6).
Re claim 4, Lindbo shows that the lifting device motor 150 of the lifting device lifts and lowers a lifting device plate 110 of the lifting device to grab the items with lifting grips situated below the lifting device plate (not separately identified but readily apparent from Figs. 5-6 and col. 9:1-4).
Re claim 5, Lindbo shows a plurality of first lifting device bars (not separately identified but shown in Figs. 8-12) connected to lifting device sheaves 109 on two lateral sides of the remotely operated vehicle.
Re claim 7, Lindbo shows a top cover disposed on the vehicle body (Figs. 5-6).
Re claim 8, Lindbo shows a system for a plurality of remotely operated vehicles 30, 100 for picking up storage bins 10, 106 from a storage system, the system comprising:
a framework structure 14 having a track system 22 at an upper level of the framework structure upon which the plurality of remotely operated vehicles travel, the track system comprising a first plurality of tracks 22a arranged in a first direction and a second plurality of tracks 22b arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the first plurality of tracks intersect the second plurality of tracks to define cells arranged in a grid pattern (Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 7), wherein the plurality of remotely operated vehicles accesses the storage bins stored in the storage system via the cells, wherein each remotely operated vehicle of the plurality of remotely operated vehicles compris[ing]es:
a vehicle body 102 having a cavity 120 for receiving a first storage bin of the storage bins within the storage system (Fig. 6);
a lifting device 104 connected to the vehicle body and having a lifting device motor 150 for lifting the storage bin into the cavity;
a first set of wheels 116 connected to the vehicle body allowing a first movement of the remotely operated vehicle along the first direction;
a second set of wheels 118 connected to the vehicle body allowing a second movement of the remotely operated vehicle along the second direction; and
a driving motor 152/154 in the vehicle body or framework and coupled to one or more of the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels and providing power to drive the vehicle body or framework in the first direction or the second direction on the track system;
a displacement motor 188 (Figs. 8-12) or 250 (Figs. 14-16) connected to the vehicle body and situated in a lateral plane above the cavity, to generate a power that is converted to a vertically directed pressure force acting on the first set of wheels or the second set of wheels to displace the first set of wheels or the second set of wheels between a displaced state and a non-displaced state, wherein in the displaced state, the first set of wheels or the second set of wheels is displaced away from the storage system, and wherein in the non-displaced state, the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels are in contact with the storage system.
The claim is otherwise treated in the same manner noted above as per claim 1.
Re claim 14, Lindbo discloses a control system to control a movement of the plurality of remotely operated vehicles on the track system (col. 4:28-29 of the US document). Such a system is considered to inherently be wireless.
Re claim 15, it is readily apparent from at least Fig. 7 of Lindbo that when a first of the plurality of remotely operated vehicles is positioned above a cell so as to access the storage bins stored in the storage system, others of the plurality of remotely operated vehicles are able to pass by the first of the plurality of remotely operated vehicles on all four lateral sides (not explicitly disclosed but readily apparent from the figures, noting that the claim limitation does not require the vehicles to pass each other on an immediately adjacent cell on a lateral side, i.e., there could be an intervening cell between the vehicles passing each other).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al in view of Zollinger et al, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Fryer et al (US 10,836,577 or corresponding WO 2015/140216, previously cited, having an effective filing date of 3/18/14, at least for the subject matter of Figs. 1-12 and 16, via GB application 1404870.6).
As noted in the previous Office action, Lindbo does not show the first plurality of tracks and the second plurality of tracks to be double tracks. Although applicant is no longer utilizing this terminology, Lindbo does not disclose that the first plurality of tracks comprises a first track rail and a second track rail running parallel to each other in the first direction, and the second plurality of tracks comprises a third track rail and a fourth track rail running parallel to each other in the second direction, wherein the first set of wheels are arranged on the second track rail, and the second track rail is an inner track of a corresponding grid on which a corresponding remotely operated vehicle is traveling, wherein the second set of wheels are arranged on the fourth track rail, and the fourth track rail is an inner track of a corresponding grid on which a corresponding remotely operated vehicle is traveling, wherein the first and second track rails are separated by a first divider, the third and fourth track rails are separated by a second divider, and further comprising a cross where the first and second track rails cross the third and fourth track rails, wherein the first and second dividers are interrupted at the cross, as recited in claims 9-13.
However, as also noted in the previous Office action, Fryer shows a substantially similar system wherein remotely operated vehicles operate on a grid-like storage system, the vehicles having substantially similar first and second sets of wheels 54, 56 that can be selectively displaced to be in or out of contact with corresponding sets of tracks running in first and second mutually perpendicular directions. As can be seen in at least Figs. 5, 8 and 10-16, the tracks are double tracks, such that the vehicles can pass each other on any lateral side, including each of the cells immediately adjacent to the cell in which the vehicle is disposed.
Specifically, Fryer shows that the first plurality of tracks comprises a first track rail and a second track rail running parallel to each other in the first direction, and the second plurality of tracks comprises a third track rail and a fourth track rail running parallel to each other in the second direction, wherein the first set of wheels are arranged on the second track rail, and the second track rail is an inner track of a corresponding grid on which a corresponding remotely operated vehicle is traveling, wherein the second set of wheels are arranged on the fourth track rail, and the fourth track rail is an inner track of a corresponding grid on which a corresponding remotely operated vehicle is traveling, wherein the first and second track rails are separated by a first divider, the third and fourth track rails are separated by a second divider, and further comprising a cross where the first and second track rails cross the third and fourth track rails, wherein the first and second dividers are interrupted at the cross.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system of Lindbo by configuring the tracks as double tracks, so that vehicles could pass each other even on an immediately adjacent cell on any of the lateral sides of the vehicles, wherein the above-noted features of claims 9-13 would obviously be included in the so modified Lindbo apparatus of Lindbo.
Claim 6 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the newly cited references shows a load handling vehicle for use in a warehouse storage system powered by DC motors.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
5/21/26
Prosecution Insights