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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed5/7/2024. Claims 1, 3-11 were amended. Claim 2 was cancelled. Claims 13-16 are new. Claims 1 and 3-16 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/4/2025 and 12/5/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “manoeuvring” is spelled incorrectly, Examiner suggests it should be -- maneuvering --. For remainder of the action the word will be reviewed as “maneuvering”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (WIPO No. 201495901 - hereinafter Lindbo) in view of Cheng et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240317491 - hereinafter Cheng).
Re. claim 1, Lindbo teaches:
A service vehicle unit for operating in an automated storage and retrieval grid comprising a first set of rails arranged to guide movement of a container handling vehicle in respective first and second directions relative to the grid direction across the top of a frame structure, and a second set of parallel rails arranged perpendicular to the first set of rails to guide movement of the container handling vehicle in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, the first and second sets of parallel rails dividing the rail system into a plurality of grid cells the SVU, wherein the service vehicle unit comprises: [Lindbo; ¶55-¶56 shows load handlers vehicles travel on rails, #16 and bots accessing containers traveling on rails].
two or more wheel modules each having two or more wheels for respectively manoeuvring the service vehicle unit in the first and second directions, [Lindbo; ¶58 shows robotic handlers travel on tracks via perpendicular sets of wheels].
wherein the wheels for manoeuvring in the first direction can be lifted and lowered depending on a direction for manoeuvring the wheel module, and [Lindbo; ¶57 shows “robotic load handlers 4 can be configured to travel along the rails to access the various stacks 3 in the system. As illustrated in Fig. 3, an example robotic load handler can have two sets of perpendicular wheels for engaging the track. In some embodiments, the robotic load handlers may include a lifter or other mechanism which is used to select which set of wheels engage with the track and thereby control the direction of travel along the rails”].
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Cheng teaches:
wherein the two or more wheel modules are coupled together using a connecting device. [Cheng; ¶91 shows “hub driving devices 132 of two driving wheel assemblies 13 are used to perform independent driving controls. Two driving wheel bodies 131 may have different rotational speeds, so that the movable chassis 10 turns toward a side of one driving wheel body 131 with a lower rotational speed, to realize a turning function of the movable chassis”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Cheng in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 13, Lindbo in view of Cheng teaches service vehicle unit in claim 1.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Cheng teaches:
wherein the connecting device is a platform on which the service vehicle unit body is mounted and attached to the respective frame of the two or more wheel modules at attachment points. [Cheng; Fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Cheng in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 14, Lindbo in view of Cheng teaches service vehicle unit in claim 13.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Cheng teaches:
wherein there is a shock absorbing component at each attachment point between the connecting device and the frame of the two or more wheel modules. [Cheng; ¶62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Cheng in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Cheng in view of Abdolahad et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20160178628 - hereinafter Abdolahad).
Re. claim 6, Lindbo in view Cheng teaches service vehicle unit in claim 1.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Abdolahad teaches:
wherein the connecting device is a plexiglass cover. [Abdolahad; ¶98].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Abdolahad in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Cheng in view of Venuto et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230322036 - hereinafter Venuto).
Re. claim 7, Lindbo in view Cheng teaches service vehicle unit in claim 1.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Venuto teaches:
wherein the connecting device comprises at least one metal bar. [Venuto; ¶36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Venuto in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Cheng in view of Zhao et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220289269 - hereinafter Zhao).
Re. claim 8, Lindbo in view Cheng teaches service vehicle unit in claim 1.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Zhao teaches:
wherein one wheel module of the two or more coupled wheel modules is configured to act as a master and one or more other wheel modules are configured to act as a slave module. [Zhao; Abstract and ¶71 shows “electric truck steer-by-wire system, which includes a master control electric power module 14, a slave control electric power module 18, a road sensing motor module 4, a steering wheel 1, an upper steering column 3, a lower steering column 10, a rack-pinion steering gear 12, wheels 13, a first steering angle sensor 2, a second steering angle sensor 11, a steering domain controller 8 and a vehicle-mounted CAN network”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Zhao in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 9, Lindbo in view Cheng in view of Zhao teaches service vehicle unit in claim 8.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Zhao teaches:
wherein a torsion bar is connected at one end to a track shift mechanism of the master wheel module and at the opposite end connected to a track shift mechanism in the slave wheel module and arranged to ensure is used for ensuring simultaneous track shift of the master and the slave wheel module by transferring the power to raise and lower the wheels from the master wheel module to the slave wheel module. [Zhao; ¶10 and ¶71-¶76].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Zhao in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Cheng in view of Laplace et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190300282 - hereinafter Laplace).
Re. claim 10, Lindbo in view Cheng teaches service vehicle unit in claim 1.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Laplace teaches:
wherein the connecting device partially covers the top of the two or more wheel modules. [Laplace; ¶21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Laplace in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Cheng in view of Cocca et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20140200105 - hereinafter Cocca).
Re. claim 11, Lindbo in view Cheng teaches service vehicle unit in claim 1.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Cocca teaches:
wherein the connecting device fully covers the top of the two or more wheel modules. [Cocca; ¶21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Cocca in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Cheng in view of Schmalzl et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20170369293 - hereinafter Schmalzl).
Re. claim 12, Lindbo in view Cheng teaches service vehicle unit in claim 1.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Schmalzl teaches:
wherein the shock absorbing component is a helical spring. [Schmalzl; ¶16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Schmalzl in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 5, Lindbo in view Cheng teaches service vehicle unit in claim 14.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Schmalzl teaches:
wherein the shock absorbing component is a spring. [Schmalzl; ¶16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Schmalzl in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 15 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Cheng in view of Muramatsu et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20120311819 - hereinafter Muramatsu).
Re. claim 15, Lindbo in view Cheng teaches service vehicle unit in claim 14.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Muramatsu teaches:
wherein the shock absorbing component is comprised of an upper plate and a lower plate, and an elastic material sandwiched between the upper plate and the lower plate. [Muramatsu; ¶46-¶48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Muramatsu in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 3, Lindbo in view Cheng in view of Muramatsu teaches service vehicle unit in claim 15.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Muramatsu teaches:
wherein the upper plate and the lower plate and the elastic material each have a central hole for receiving a screw or a bolt. [Muramatsu; ¶46-¶48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Muramatsu in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Cheng in view of Muramatsu in view of Hattori et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190128365 - hereinafter Hattori).
Re. claim 16, Lindbo in view Cheng in view of Muramatsu teaches service vehicle unit in claim 3.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Hattori teaches:
wherein the elastic material is a rubber material. [Hattori; ¶11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Hattori in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Cheng in view of Schmalzl in view of Hattori.
Re. claim 4, Lindbo in view Cheng in view of Schmalzl teaches service vehicle unit in claim 5.
Lindbo doesn’t teach, Hattori teaches:
wherein the elastic material is a rubber material. [Hattori; ¶11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Hattori in the system of Lindbo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628