DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 28, 2023 and February 05, 2026 were considered by the examiner.
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 25-26 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 25, depends from claim 1, which is directed to a system/apparatus. However, claim 25 recites a method of using the remotely operated vehicle “for at least partly supporting a first downward facing rail system”. By reciting a method of use claim in a claim that depends from an apparatus claim, the scope of claim 25 is unclear. It is unclear whether infringement occurs when one makes the remotely operated vehicle, or whether infringement occurs when one actually uses the remotely operated vehicle for at least partly supporting a first downward facing rail system. Accordingly claim 25 is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Further, there appears to be no step recited in the method of claim 25 other than “using”. It is unclear what is encompassed by using.
Claim 26, depends from claim 1, which is directed to a system/apparatus. However, claim 26 recites a method of using the remotely operated vehicle “for at least partly supporting a first upward facing rail system having the first downward facing rail system arranged on its underside”. By reciting a method of use claim in a claim that depends from an apparatus claim, the scope of claim 26 is unclear. It is unclear whether infringement occurs when one makes the remotely operated vehicle, or whether infringement occurs when one actually uses the remotely operated vehicle for at least partly supporting a first upward facing rail system having the first downward facing rail system arranged on its underside. Accordingly claim 26 is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Further, there appears to be no step recited in the method of claim 26 other than “using”. It is unclear what is encompassed by using.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claims 1, 2, and 20, the term “driving means” is interpreted as disclosed in -- pg. 7, line 32 to pg. 8, line 2 -- of the specification.
In claims 1 and 20, the term “guiding means” is interpreted as disclosed in -- pg. 34, lines 25-33 -- of the specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior arts of record are, Delaporte (U.S. Application Publication No. 2019/0210221) and Borders et al. (U.S. Application Publication No. 2017/0174431) which relate to a robotic storage and retrieval system.
Delaporte discloses an automated storage and retrieval system with a horizontal base structure extending in a first direction and in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction, a first downward facing guide system being horizontally arranged, positioned above the base structure, and extending at least in the first direction, a robotic vehicle with a lower base provided with a driving means comprising a first set of lower wheels oriented in the first direction X, and a second set of lower wheels oriented in the second direction Y. Delaporte further discloses an upper base provided with guiding means configured for engagement with the first downward facing guide system. However, Delaporte does not disclose a guiding means comprising guiding means in the form of a first set of upper wheels arranged on an upper wheelbase directed in the first direction X, and a second set of upper wheels directed in the second direction Y, as required by claims 1 and 20 based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation as presented above.
Borders discloses an automated management of a high density storage facility including an autonomous movable frame. System discloses a base structure, a first downward facing guide system being horizontally arranged, positioned above the base structure, and extending at least in the first direction, an autonomous movable frame having a lower base with omnidirectional wheels for traveling in first direction X, and in the second direction Y, and an upper base provided with guiding means configured for engagement with the first downward facing guide system. However, Borders does not disclose a guiding means comprising guiding means in the form of a first set of upper wheels arranged on an upper wheelbase directed in the first direction X, and a second set of upper wheels directed in the second direction Y, as required by claims 1 and 20 based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation as presented above.
None of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, teach or suggest an upper base
provided with a guiding means in the form of a first set of upper wheels arranged on an upper wheelbase directed in the first direction X, and a second set of upper wheels directed in the second direction Y as recited in claims 1 and 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMESGEN M. MARU whose telephone number is (571)272-0039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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 at (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.
/TEMESGEN M. MARU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655