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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the spring element recited in claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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(s) 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2018/136987 (WO’987) in view of US Patent Application 2015/0219172 to Saoyama et al.
Re: claims 20 and 22. WO’987 shows in figure 3 a travel unit for moving a driverless transporter, the travel unit comprising: at least one wheel carrier 2 on which at least one driven wheel 3 is arranged, wherein the at least one driven wheel 3 is connected to at least one gear transmission, as labeled, of the travel unit through at least one gear wheel, as labeled, that forms part of the at least one gear transmission, at least one electric motor 4 configured to drive the at least one gear wheel, which in turn drives the at least one driven wheel, but is silent with regard to the motor being electric and with regard to the limitation wherein the at least one gear wheel, the at least one gear transmission, or the at least one driven wheel is directly paired with at least one blocking device which is configured such that, in the case of a malfunction or interruption in an energy supply to the transporter, the at least one blocking device being activated, so that the at least one gear transmission, the at least one
[AltContent: textbox (Gear wheel/transmission)]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
463
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
gear wheel, or the at least one driven wheel, is blocked or locked-via the at least one blocking device.
Saoyama et al. teach in paragraph [0046] the use a motor in the environment of a movement blocking device or brake being electric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the motor of WO’987 to have been electric, in view of the teachings of Saoyama et al., in order to provide a power driving source that facilitates active control and performance optimization.
Saoyama et al. teach in figures 4a and 4b the at least one gear wheel 28, the at least one gear transmission 28 as best understood, or the at least one driven wheel is directly paired with at least one blocking device 3, 4, 5 which is configured such that, in the case of a malfunction or interruption in an energy supply to the transporter i.e. when the electric motor has no power as described in paragraph [0046], the at least one blocking device being activated, so that the at least one gear transmission, the at least one gear wheel, or the at least one driven wheel, is blocked or locked-via the at least one blocking device i.e. the locking mechanism cannot be switch to an unlocking state once it is in the locking state set forth in fig. 4A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the travel unit of WO’987, as modified, to have been as recited immediately above, in view of the teachings Saoyama et al.., in order to provide a means of maintaining the travel unit in a braked position in the case of power loss for improved safety.
Re: claims 21 and 24. WO’987, as modified, teaches in figures 4A and 4B of Saoyama et al. wherein the at least one blocking device 5 is formed by an electromagnetic brake pin 29 which, without a supply of energy to element 30, is arranged in a defined position shown in figure 4B via a spring element 41.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the travel unit of WO’987, as modified, to have been as recited immediately above, in view of the teachings Saoyama et al.., in order to provide a means of selectively engaging the gear wheel or transmission to selectively lock the wheel in place depending on operating conditions.
Re: claim 23. WO’987, as modified, teaches in figures 1, 2, 4A, and 4B of Saoyama et al. wherein the at least one blocking device 5 is arranged within at least one wheel carrier 1, 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the at least one blocking device of WO’987, as modified, to have been arranged within the at least one wheel carrier, in view of the teachings Saoyama et al.., in order to provide a means of protecting the components of the at least one blocking device from damage and premature wear.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2018/136987 (WO’987) in view of US Patent Application 2015/0219172 to Saoyama et al. as applied above, and further in view of AT-509305 (AT’305)(using DE-502010001552 as an English equivalent).
Re: claim 25. WO’987, as modified, is silent with regard to the travel unit being of a driverless transporter with a chassis that is generally U-shaped with the travel unit comprising at least two travel units arranged on each of the two legs of the chassis and with the travel units being connected to a control system for the driving operation.
AT’305 teaches in figures 5 and 6 the use of a driverless transporter with a chassis that is generally U-shaped as shown best in figure 6 with the travel unit comprising at least two travel units shown in the area of 11 arranged on each of the two legs of the chassis and with the travel units being connected to a control system or that which provides the automated guiding based on sensor output as set forth in the last claim, for example, for the driving operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the travel unit of WO’987, as modified, to have been arranged on a driverless transporter, in view of the teachings AT’305, in order to provide a means of enabling the translation capability of an automated vehicle to help complete important warehouse tasks, for example.
Re: claims 15-18 and 26-28. WO’987, as modified, teaches in paragraph [0046] of Saoyama et al. wherein the at least one blocking device is deactivated during driving operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the travel unit of WO’987, as modified, to have been arranged on a driverless transporter, in view of the teachings of Saoyama et al., in order to provide a means of ensuring that the locking mechanism is switched to the unlocking state to not be kept in a braked position and to allow the transporter to carry on its required functions. Examiner notes that the combination results in each travel unit including its separate blocking device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the lock pin 29 of Saoyama is generally in an unblocking position when the locking mechanism 5 does not receive electrical power. While Saoyama may indicate that the locking pin 29 is generally in an unblocking position when the locking mechanism 5 does not receive electrical power, Examiner emphasizes that paragraph [0046] explains that “when the electric motor unit 2 is powered off, the braking force applying mechanism 4 and the speed reduction mechanism 3 are rotated in a direction in which the braking force decreases, by a pressing reactive force of the braking force. Thus, a frictional force occurs between the lock pin 29 and an inner diameter surface of the locking hole 28a, so that the locking mechanism 5 cannot be switched to the unlocking state”. Therefore, at least in the state described above, the lock pin 29 which is a part of the blocking device 3, 4, 5 is in a blocking position when the locking mechanism does not receive electrical power. This section of the Saoyama reference includes the teaching that satisfies the limitation “the at least one blocking device is activated so that the at least one gear wheel…is blocked or locked via the at least one blocking device”. Accordingly, the above art rejections have been maintained. The previously presented 112 rejections and specification objection have been withdrawn in light of the most recent amendments. The drawing objection has been maintained since the drawing change, while mentioned in the response, was not shown.
Conclusion
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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
mmb
October 4, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights