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 § 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 claims a method for loading a driverless transport vehicle…wherein the individual product leaves the delivery station at such a speed so that the distance between the driverless transport vehicle and the delivery station is of such a size that the individual product passes through a flight phase between leaving the delivery station and landing on the driverless transport vehicle moving at a normal transport speed.
The claim language is indefinite and confusing, as it seems to claim that spacing between the transport vehicle and delivery station is set based on the travel path of the product, which can vary depending on different factors, such as the weight of the product. Applicant is advised to review the claim language of claim 10, which claims the relationship between the end delivery station and the transport vehicle in clearer language. Claim 1 also claimed that the transport vehicle is moving at a normal transport speed. This speed was not defined in the specification and is considered indefinite and there is no clear basis for what speed constitutes a “normal” speed.
Claim 10 is also found to be indefinite for this same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, 6-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/242695, as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, WO ‘695 teaches a method for loading a driverless transport vehicle, 108, for individual products with an individual product, P, said method comprises: transferring the individual product is transferred from a delivery station, 22, to the driverless transport vehicle; moving the driverless transport vehicle during said transferring; accelerating the individual product for the transfer from the delivery station wherein the individual product leaves the delivery station at such a speed so that the distance between the driverless transport vehicle and the delivery station is of such a size that the individual product passes through a flight phase between leaving the delivery station and landing on the driverless transport vehicle moving at a normal transport speed, see figure 16 and 5A and page 8, lines 22+. Figure 5A shows the package P in a flight phase as it leaves the end of the delivery station, 22, and falls into the receptacle R or R’ of the transport vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, WO ‘695 teaches synchronizing the driverless transport vehicle to the flight path of the individual product in order to catch the flying individual product on its loading surface, see page 8, lines 23+ which teach that the receptacle-moving robotic vehicle, 108, pushes and pulls the coupled receptacles R, R’, as indicated by the arrow 110 between a first position, shown in Fig. 16, in which a package P falls of the end of the chute 22 into the first receptacle R…”.
Regarding claim 4, WO ‘695 does not specifically teach that said accelerating includes accelerating the individual product is accelerated to a speed of at least 5 m/s. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to accelerate the product to at least 5 m/s so that the package is directed into the receptacle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are met, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, WO ‘695 teaches that the delivery station has a sensor system, further comprising determining in order to determine the identity of the respective individual product with the sensor system, see parge 9, lines 10+.
Regarding claim 7, WO ‘659 teaches that the delivery station has a delivery end, further comprising varying the angle and/or height of the delivery end, see figure 3A and 3B which shows a variable angle delivery end.
Regarding claim 8, WO ‘695 teaches providing the driverless transport vehicle with a cushioned catch wall, 156.
Regarding claim 9, WO ‘695 teaches providing bidirectional communication between the delivery station and driverless transport vehicle for time- and/or position-synchronisation of the transfer of the individual product, see page 8, lines 26-30, which says “The robotic vehicle 108 includes a rechargeable battery 112 powering a motor controller and a receiver housed in a control housing 114. The receiver receives commands from a controller controlling the operation of the sorting conveyor to translate the receptacles R, R’ to the correct position for each sorted package.”
Regarding claim 10, WO ‘695 teaches an arrangement for loading a driverless transport vehicle for individual products with an individual product, said arrangement comprising:
a driverless transport vehicle for individual products, 108 and R and R’;
a delivery station for individual products, 22;
at least one individual product, P;
a controller, wherein the delivery station comprises a controlled conveyor system having a delivery end for delivering the individual product to a loading surface of the driverless transport vehicle, the conveyor system, controlled via the controller, accelerating the respective individual product to such a speed that the individual product, when leaving the delivery station via the delivery end of the conveyor system, passes through a flight phase between leaving the delivery station and landing on the driverless transport vehicle moving at a normal transport speed, and that the movement of the driverless transport vehicle is synchronised to the flight path of the individual product via the controller, see figures 16 and 5a and page 8, lines 22+. Figure 5A shows the package P in a flight phase as it leaves the end of the delivery station, 22, and falls into the receptacle R or R’ of the transport vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, WO ‘695 teaches the delivery station has a sensor system to identity the respective individual product, see page 9, lines 10+.
Regarding claim 12, WO ‘695 teaches the delivery station has a delivery end, and the delivery end having a variable angle and/or height, see figures 3A and 3B.
Regarding claim 13, WO ‘695 teaches the driverless transport vehicle includes a cushioned catch wall, 156.
Regarding claim 14, WO ‘695 teaches the driverless transport vehicle has a front end in the direction of travel, and the cushioned catch, 156, wall arranged at the front of the driverless transport vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, WO ‘695 teaches a communication device to provide communication between the delivery station and driverless transport vehicle, see page 8, lines 25+.
Regarding claim 16, WO ‘695 teaches the communication device comprises a bidirectional communication device to provide bidirectional communication between the delivery station and driverless transport vehicle for time- and/or position-synchronisation of the transfer of the individual product, see page 8, lines 25+.
Regarding claim 17, WO ‘695 teaches the driverless vehicle includes a controller and a sensor to determine the vehicle's position, see page 8, lines 25+.
Regarding claim 18, WO ‘695 teaches the sensor comprises a laser scanner, see page 9, lines 1+, which uses a laser scanner to detect packages falling into the receptable R, and thereby detects the position of R versus R’.
Regarding claim 19, WO ‘695 teaches the delivery station has a plurality of rollers, 42.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/242695 in view of Boone et al. (US 5,701,989).
Regarding claim 20, WO ‘695 does not teach that the plurality of rollers of the delivery station includes lateral pressing rollers. Boone et al. teaches an article conveyor for conveying product along a conveyor path that includes rollers, 54, 56, and 58, and lateral pressing rollers, see rollers, 42, of conveyor belt, figures 3-5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the lateral rollers of Boone et al. with the delivery station of WO ‘695 in order to achieve the predictable result of guiding the product along the delivery path toward the delivery station.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 3, WO ‘695 is considered to be the best prior art and does not teach that the speed of the individual product and the synchronisation of the movement of the driverless transport vehicle are controlled based on the properties of the individual product. The delivery station of WO ‘695 is a chute which uses gravity to assist in delivering the product to the driverless transport vehicle. It would not be obvious to modify the WO ‘695 reference to control the speed of the products and the synchronization of the movemtn of the transport vehicle, as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, WO ‘695 is considered to the best prior art and does not teach that said accelerating the individual product includes accelerating the individual product such that the individual product leaves the delivery station at a positive angle deviating from the horizontal. The delivery station of WO ‘695 is a chute which uses gravity to assist in delivering the product to the driverless transport vehicle, the products fall from the delivery station into the driverless transport vehicle receptacle. Modifying the WO ‘695 reference to teach a positive angle, as claimed, would not be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon show other examples of vehicle loading methods and apparatuses. They are included to show the general state of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
13 January 2026