DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated March 16, 2026, claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending. Claims 1-8, 12 and 15-20 are amended and claim 11 is presently cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is either a reply by the applicant should the claims subject to the rejection are patentable distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Although the claims are herewith considered, a terminal disclaimer must be filed in order to be fully responsive under MPEP 714.03. (MPEP 804(I)(B)(1)).
Applicant argues that Lert and Reimer do not disclose a “line voltage of the facility” being supplied to the charging rails and do not specify the voltage carried by the charging rail being a line voltage of the facility.
It should be noted that the power would necessarily originate from the facility, thus being powered by a line voltage of the facility. Directly or indirectly the charging rail is powered by the facility. However, for prosecution purposes, Danta et al US Pat. 5453053 is used to disclose that the rail is powered by a line voltage.
Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not modify Lert to include an additional capacitor for “charging” the already present onboard super-capacitor of Lert.
The claim language recites “a rechargeable energy storage device on each of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots”. Lert teaches “electronics and ultra-capacitors for energy storage” (see ¶242), thus, teaching the energy storage limitation. The claim further recites “a plurality of chargers comprising a charger on each of the plurality”. Reimer teaches using a capacitor to charge an energy storage device i.e. a battery (column 2 lines 54-55). The “electronics and ultracapacitors” as taught by Lert are considered the energy storage device and the capacitor of Reimer is considered the charging device. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a capacitor, as taught by Reimer, to charge the energy storage device of Lert in order to improve the supply of electricity to a vehicle, thereby extending the service life.
The applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not look at the motor vehicle self-contained onboard regenerative charging system of Reimer for modifying Lert as doing so would eliminate the charging rails of Lert.
However, when applying Reimer to Lert, it is the charging rails of Lert that would charge the capacitor of Reimer and in turn the energy storage device. The reference of Reimer is used to disclose that a capacitor that has been charged can charge a storage device. The method of providing charge to the robot is taught by Lert.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 11-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US12009678B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Application
Reference Patent
1. A power supply system for a plurality of autonomous mobile robots in a facility, the plurality of autonomous mobile robots configured to travel on a track system to transport containers to and from storage locations within the facility, the power supply system comprising:
a charge rail mounted in the track system, the charge rail configured to provide a first voltage, the track system configured to enable travel of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots while charging on the charge rail, the first voltage being a line voltage of the facility;
a plurality of chargers comprising a charger on each of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots, the charger on each of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots receiving the line voltage;
a plurality of rechargeable energy storage devices comprising a rechargeable energy storage device on each of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots; and
wherein the plurality of autonomous mobile robots are configured to be charged at different rates while on the charge rail.
11. A power supply system for a plurality of mobile robots in a facility, the mobile robots configured to travel on a track system to transport containers to and from storage locations within the facility, the power supply system comprising:
a charge rail mounted in a vertical rail of a vertical portion of the track system, the charge rail configured to provide a first voltage, the vertical rail further comprising a gear rack to enable vertical travel of the plurality of mobile robots while charging on the charge rail . . .
17. The power supply system of claim 11, wherein the first voltage is the line voltage from the facility.
11. … a plurality of chargers comprising a charger on each of the plurality of mobile robots, the charger on each of the plurality of mobile robots converting the first voltage from the charge rail to a second voltage smaller than the first voltage
a plurality of rechargeable energy storage devices comprising a rechargeable energy storage device on each of the plurality of mobile robots, the rechargeable energy storage device on each of the plurality of mobile robots being opportunistically charged using the second voltage as each mobile robot of the plurality of mobile robots travels on the track system to transport containers to and from storage locations within the facility; and
a plurality of coupling mechanisms comprising a coupling mechanism on each of the plurality of mobile robots, the coupling mechanism on a mobile robot of the plurality of mobile robots configured to be biased horizontally against the charge rail mounted on the vertical rail to contact the charge rail and transfer the first voltage from the charge rail to the mobile robot.
2. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of autonomous mobile robots are charged by being connected to the charge rail simultaneously.
2. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of mobile robots are charged by being connected to the charge rail simultaneously.
3. The power supply system of claim 1, further comprising a controller executing instructions to set charge rates of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots on the charge rail.
14. The power supply system of claim 13, wherein the MCS communicates with the charger on each of the plurality of mobile robots to independently control the charging of each of the plurality of mobile robots.
4. The power supply system of claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to send navigation instructions to the plurality of autonomous mobile robots.
13. The power supply system of claim 11, further comprising a material control system (MCS) executing instructions to control the navigation of the plurality of mobile robots and to divert a mobile robot from transferring containers to and from storage locations to connection with the charge rail where it is determined by the MCS that the mobile robot requires more charge to continue transferring containers to and from storage locations.
5. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots has a maximum charge power (Pmax) above which an energy storage device of an autonomous mobile robot does not charge faster.
16. The power supply system of claim 13, wherein the MCS positions the plurality of mobile robots on the vertical portion of the track system to charge at a rate slower than a maximum charge rate of the mobile robots at idle periods of the facility.
6. The power supply system of claim 5, wherein the charge rail has a power capability for simultaneously charging at least five autonomous mobile robots at Pmax of each of the at least five autonomous mobile robots.
6. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein at least five mobile robots of the plurality of mobile robots may simultaneously charge their rechargeable energy storage devices at a maximum rate for which the chargers and/or rechargeable energy storage devices of the at least five mobile robots are rated.
9. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein the charge rail is mounted in a vertical portion of the track system.
11. A power supply system for a plurality of mobile robots in a facility, the mobile robots configured to travel on a track system to transport containers to and from storage locations within the facility, the power supply system comprising:
a charge rail vertically mounted in a vertical rail of a vertical portion of the track system
12. The power supply system of claim 1, further comprising a controller configured to implement a hibernate function in an autonomous mobile robot of the autonomous plurality of mobile robots, the hibernate function disconnecting power loads from the rechargeable energy storage device when the autonomous mobile robot is forced to wait for an extended period away from the charge rail.
3. The power supply system of claim 1, further comprising a controller configured to implement a hibernate function in a mobile robot of the plurality of mobile robots, the hibernate function disconnecting power loads from the rechargeable energy storage device when the mobile robot is forced to wait for an extended period away from the charge rail.
13. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein the rechargeable energy storage device is a supercapacitor.
4. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein the rechargeable energy storage device is a super capacitor.
14. The power supply system of claim 13, wherein the supercapacitor is one of a regular electric double layer capacitor, a lithium supercapacitor and an ultra-low impedance capacitor.
5. The power supply system of claim 7, wherein the super capacitor is one of a regular electric double layer capacitor, a lithium super capacitor and an ultra-low impedance capacitor.
15. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein the charge rail is mounted in a vertical rail of the track system, the vertical rail further comprising a gear rack to enable vertical travel of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots while charging on the charge rail.
11. A power supply system for a plurality of mobile robots in a facility, the mobile robots configured to travel on a track system to transport containers to and from storage locations within the facility, the power supply system comprising: a charge rail vertically mounted in a vertical rail of a vertical portion of the track system, the charge rail configured to provide a first voltage, the vertical rail further comprising a gear rack to enable vertical travel of the plurality of mobile robots while charging on the charge rail;
16. A method of charging rechargeable energy storage devices of a plurality of mobile robots in an automated storage and retrieval system facility, comprising:
delivering a line voltage for the facility to a charge rail;
directing an autonomous mobile robot of the plurality of mobile robots autonomous to connect with a track comprising the charge rail;
setting charge rates for the plurality of autonomous mobile robots on the charge rail;
upon connection of the autonomous mobile robot with the charge rail, converting the line voltage from the facility to a lower voltage according to a charge rate set for the mobile robot to charge a rechargeable energy storage device of the mobile robot via a charger on the autonomous mobile robot; and
charging the rechargeable energy storage device of the autonomous mobile robot with the lower voltage.
18. A method of charging rechargeable energy storage devices of a plurality of mobile robots in an automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) facility, comprising:
(a) delivering an AC line voltage for the (ASRS) facility to a charge rail;
(b) propelling a mobile robot of the plurality of mobile robots along a vertical track comprising the charge rail, the mobile robot comprising a coupling mechanism configured to be biased horizontally against the charge rail mounted on the vertical track to contact the charge rail;
14. The power supply system of claim 13, wherein the MCS communicates with the charger on each of the plurality of mobile robots to independently control the charging of each of the plurality of mobile robots.
18. (c) upon connection of the mobile robot with the charge rail, converting the AC line voltage from the (ASRS) facility to a lower voltage usable to charge a rechargeable energy storage device of the mobile robot via a charger on the mobile robot; and
(d) charging the rechargeable energy storage device of the mobile robot with the lower voltage converted in said step (c) while the mobile robot is propelled along the vertical track in said step (b).
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the charge rates are set by a controller communicating with the plurality of autonomous mobile robots.
14. The power supply system of claim 13, wherein the MCS communicates with the charger on each of the plurality of mobile robots to independently control the charging of each of the plurality of mobile robots.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the controller is further configured to send navigation instructions to the plurality of autonomous mobile robots.
13. The power supply system of claim 11, further comprising a material control system (MCS) executing instructions to control the navigation of the plurality of mobile robots
Claims 7, 8 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US12009678B2 in view of Buchanan et al. US20040130292A1.
Regarding claim 7. The reference claims do not explicitly disclose that when a sum of Pmax of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots on the charge rail exceeds a power capability of the charge rail, charge rates of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots are set based on the power capability of the charge rail divided by a number of autonomous mobile robots coupled to the charge rail.
Buchanan teaches that when a sum of Pmax of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots on the charge rail exceeds a power capability of the charge rail, charge rates of the plurality of mobile robots are set based on the power capability of the charge rail divided by a number of autonomous mobile robots coupled to the charge rail (¶62 – sum of the power ratings leads to controller limiting power flow to not exceed power ratings, because the sum does not exceed, there is some division of the power between each of the mobile devices).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneously charging at least five energy storage devices at maximum rate for which the chargers and/or energy storage devices are rated of Buchanan’s into the reference claims in order to maximize power capacity for concurrently charging of predefined number of devices required (¶18-19).
Regarding claim 8. The reference claims do not explicitly disclose a charge rate of an autonomous mobile robot stored on the charge rail is set below Pmax of the autonomous mobile robot.
Buchanan discloses a charge rate of an autonomous mobile robot stored on the charge rail is set below Pmax of the autonomous mobile robot (Buchanan teaches limiting the power to a lower amount to provide a safety margin).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneously charging at least five energy storage devices at maximum rate for which the chargers and/or energy storage devices are rated of Buchanan’s into the reference claims in order to maximize power capacity for concurrently charging of predefined number of devices required (¶18-19).
Regarding claim 19. The reference claims do not explicitly teach that the charge rate is a sum maximum charge powers of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots on the charge rail exceeds a power capability of the charge rail, the charge rates of the plurality of autonomous mobile robot are set based on the power capability of the charge rail divided by a number of autonomous mobile robots coupled to the charge rail (¶62 – sum of the power ratings leads to controller limiting power flow to not exceed power ratings).
Buchanan discloses the charge rate is a sum maximum charge powers of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots on the charge rail exceeds a power capability of the charge rail, the charge rates of the plurality of autonomous mobile robot are set based on the power capability of the charge rail divided by a number of autonomous mobile robots coupled to the charge rail (¶62 – sum of the power ratings leads to controller limiting power flow to not exceed power ratings, because the sum does not exceed, there is some division of the power between each of the mobile devices)
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneously charging at least five energy storage devices at maximum rate for which the chargers and/or energy storage devices are rated of Buchanan’s into the reference claims in order to maximize power capacity for concurrently charging of predefined number of devices required (¶18-19).
Regarding claim 20. The reference claims do not explicitly disclose that the mobile robot is stored on the charge rail, the charge rate of the autonomous mobile robot is set below a maximum charge power of the autonomous mobile robot.
Buchanan discloses the autonomous mobile robot is stored on the charge rail, the charge rate of the mobile robot is set below a maximum charge power of the mobile robot (¶63 - Buchanan teaches limiting the power to a lower amount to provide a safety margin).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneously charging at least five energy storage devices at maximum rate for which the chargers and/or energy storage devices are rated of Buchanan’s into the reference claims in order to maximize power capacity for concurrently charging of predefined number of devices required (¶18-19).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US12009678B2 in view of Baldsiefen et al. WO2013010948A1.
Regarding claim 10. Lert does not explicitly disclose that the charge rail is mounted in a horizontal portion of the track system.
Baldsiefen discloses that the charge rail is mounted in a horizontal portion of the track system (FIG. 8 discloses a charging rail is directed substantially horizontally).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to allow for simple handling and flexible fixation (Baldsiefen; page 2, first paragraph).
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lert et al. US20160355337A1 in view of Reimer et al. US6713894B1 and Danta et al US Pat. 5453053A.
Regarding claim 1. Lert discloses a power supply system (¶27) for a plurality of autonomous mobile robots (¶216 – mobile robots; ¶232 – robot 1172; ¶170 – robots are autonomous vehicles) in a facility (at least FIGS. 15-18), the plurality of autonomous mobile robots configured to travel on a track system to transport containers to and from storage locations within the facility (¶232 – vertical and horizontal tracks), the power supply system comprising:
a charge rail mounted in the track system (¶232 - up-verticals equipped with charging rails), the charge rail configured to provide a first voltage, the track system configured to enable travel of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots while charging on the charge rail (¶232 – up-verticals may be equipped with charging rails so that Bots can recharge their super-capacitors while ascending; FIGS. 41A-B);
a plurality of rechargeable energy storage devices comprising a rechargeable energy storage device (¶242 – electronics and ultra-capacitors for energy storage) on each of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots (¶232 – up-verticals equipped with charging rails so that Bots can recharge their super-capacitors while ascending).
Lert does not explicitly teach a plurality of chargers comprising a charger on each of the plurality of mobile robots, the charger on each of the plurality of mobile robots receiving the line voltage; and wherein the plurality of autonomous mobile robots are configured to be charged at different rates while on the charge rail.
Reimer discloses a charger (capacitor 1) on each of the plurality of mobile robots, the charger on each of the plurality of mobile robots receiving the first voltage (the capacitor 1 can be charged by way of an electric connection - column 2 lines 54-55).
Reimer discloses the mobile robot (vehicle – column 1, lines 50-55) is configured to be charged at different rates while on the charge rail (column 3, lines 1-4 – the capacitor 1 charges the battery according to the requirements of the battery, thus is customized to the needs of the battery).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the charger and battery arrangement of Reimer to each of the robots of Lert, thus there being a plurality of chargers, in order to improve the supply of electricity to ta vehicle and increasing the service life of the rechargeable vehicle battery (Reimer column 1 lines 50-55).
Reimer does not explicitly disclose that the first voltage being a line voltage of the facility.
Danta discloses the first voltage being a line voltage of the facility(column 6, lines 19-34 – electrical power is supplied to the track for supplying power to the vehicle, the power at 240V which is known to be a line voltage)
Danta is relevant as it relates to providing power to a track. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the line voltage from the facility to the track, as taught by Danta, in order to provide a convenient way to provide power to the charging rail of Lert.
Regarding claim 2. Lert discloses that the plurality of autonomous mobile robots (¶170 – autonomous robots) are charged by being connected to the charge rail simultaneously (¶232).
Regarding claim 3. Lert discloses a controller executing instructions to set charge rates of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots (¶170 – autonomous robots) on the charge rail (¶210 -central control system controls the bots and manages the operation of the entire system; ¶232 – up-verticals are equipped with charging rails so that Bots can recharge; it follows that since the controller directs the bot to the vertical rail for charging, then the controller is sending instructions to charge at the rate that the charging rail charges).
Regarding claim 4. Lert discloses that the controller is further configured to send navigation instructions to the plurality of autonomous mobile robots (¶170 – autonomous robots) (¶210 -central control system controls the bots and manages the operation of the entire system; ¶27 – sensors indicate a location and navigation).
Regarding claim 9. Lert discloses the charge rail is mounted in a vertical portion of the track system (¶232).
Regarding claim 13. Lert discloses the rechargeable energy storage device is a supercapacitor (¶232).
Regarding claim 15. Lert discloses that the charge rail is mounted in a vertical rail of the track system, the vertical rail further comprising a gear rack to enable vertical travel of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots (¶170 – autonomous robots) while charging on the charge rail (¶232 -up-verticals may be equipped with charging rails so that Bots can recharge their supercapacitors while ascending; FIG. 44B illustrates gears that transport the bot vertically).
Regarding claim 16. A method of charging rechargeable energy storage devices of a plurality of autonomous mobile robots (¶170 – autonomous robots) in an automated storage and retrieval system facility, comprising:
directing an autonomous mobile robot (¶170 – autonomous robots) of the plurality of autonomous mobile robots to connect with a track comprising the charge rail (¶8 – a drive propels the mobile robot in multiple directions);
Lert does not explicitly teach delivering a line voltage for the facility to a charge rail; setting charge rates for the plurality of mobile robots on the charge rail; upon connection of the mobile robot with the charge rail, converting the line voltage from the facility to a lower voltage according to a charge rate set for the mobile robot to charge a rechargeable energy storage device of the mobile robot via a charger on the mobile robot; and charging the rechargeable energy storage device of the mobile robot with the lower voltage.
Reimer discloses setting charge rates for the mobile robot on the charge rail (column 3, lines 1-4 – the capacitor 1 charges the battery according to the requirements of the battery, thus is customized to the needs of the battery).
Reimer discloses that upon connection of the mobile robot (vehicle – column 1, lines 50-55) with the charge rail, converting the line voltage from the facility to a lower voltage according to a charge rate set for the mobile robot to charge a rechargeable energy storage device of the mobile robot via a charger (capacitor 1) on the mobile robot (column 3, lines 1-4 – the capacitor 1 charges the battery according to the requirements of the battery, thus is customized to the needs of the battery)
Reimer discloses charging the rechargeable energy storage device of the mobile robot with the lower voltage (column 3, lines 1-4: the capacitor charges the battery).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the charger and battery arrangement of Reimer to each of the autonomous robots of Lert in order to improve the supply of electricity to ta vehicle and increasing the service life of the rechargeable vehicle battery (Reimer column 1 lines 50-55).
Reimer and Lert do not explicitly disclose delivering a line voltage for the facility to a charge rail.
Danta discloses delivering a line voltage for the facility to a charge rail (column 6, lines 19-34 – electrical power is supplied to the track for supplying power to the vehicle, the power at 240V which is known to be a line voltage)
Danta is relevant as it relates to providing power to a track. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the line voltage from the facility to the track, as taught by Danta, in order to provide a convenient way to provide power to the charging rail of Lert.
Regarding claim 17. Lert discloses the charge rates are set by a controller communicating with the plurality of autonomous mobile robots (¶210 -central control system controls the bots and manages the operation of the entire system; ¶232 – up-verticals are equipped with charging rails so that Bots can recharge; it follows that since the controller directs the bot to the vertical rail for charging, then the controller is sending instructions to charge at the rate that the charging rail charges).
Regarding claim 18. Lert discloses the controller is further configured to send navigation instructions to the plurality of autonomous mobile robots (¶170 – robots are autonomous vehicles) (¶210 -central control system controls the bots and manages the operation of the entire system; ¶27 – sensors indicate a location and navigation).
Claims 5-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lert et al. US20160355337A1 in view of Reimer et al. US6713894B1 and Danta et al US Pat. 5453053 and in further view of Buchanan et al. US20040130292A1.
Regarding claim 5. Lert discloses an autonomous mobile robot (¶170 – robots are autonomous vehicles).
Lert does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of mobile robots has a maximum charge power (Pmax) above which an energy storage device of a mobile robot does not charge faster.
Buchanan teaches that each of the plurality of mobile robots has a maximum charge power (Pmax) above which an energy storage device of a mobile robot does not charge faster (¶52 – vehicle has a maximum speed charging where the power provided does not exceed the maximum power limit).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneously charging at least five energy storage devices at maximum rate for which the chargers and/or energy storage devices are rated of Buchanan’s into Lert in order to maximize power capacity for concurrently charging of predefined number of devices required (¶18-19).
Regarding claim 6. Lert discloses an autonomous mobile robot (¶170 – robots are autonomous vehicles).
Lert does not explicitly teach that the charge rail has a power capability for simultaneously charging at least five mobile robots at Pmax of each of the at least five mobile robots.
Buchanan teaches a power capability for simultaneously charging at least five mobile robots (FIG. 4 illustrates two batteries 160 and four vehicles; or FIG. 1 illustrates 6 vehicles) at Pmax of each of the at least five mobile robots (¶19).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneously charging at least five energy storage devices at maximum rate for which the chargers and/or energy storage devices are rated of Buchanan’s into Lert in order to maximize power capacity for concurrently charging of predefined number of devices required (¶18-19).
Regarding claim 7. Lert discloses an autonomous mobile robot (¶170 – robots are autonomous vehicles).
Lert does not explicitly disclose that when a sum of Pmax of the plurality of mobile robots on the charge rail exceeds a power capability of the charge rail, charge rates of the plurality of mobile robots are set based on the power capability of the charge rail divided by a number of mobile robots coupled to the charge rail.
Buchanan teaches that when a sum of Pmax of the plurality of mobile robots on the charge rail exceeds a power capability of the charge rail, charge rates of the plurality of mobile robots are set based on the power capability of the charge rail divided by a number of mobile robots coupled to the charge rail (¶62 – sum of the power ratings leads to controller limiting power flow to not exceed power ratings, because the sum does not exceed, there is some division of the power between each of the mobile devices).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneously charging at least five energy storage devices at maximum rate for which the chargers and/or energy storage devices are rated of Buchanan’s into Lert in order to maximize power capacity for concurrently charging of predefined number of devices required (¶18-19).
Regarding claim 8. Lert discloses an autonomous mobile robot (¶170 – robots are autonomous vehicles).
Lert does not explicitly disclose a charge rate of a mobile robot stored on the charge rail is set below Pmax of the mobile robot.
Buchanan discloses a charge rate of a mobile robot stored on the charge rail is set below Pmax of the mobile robot (Buchanan teaches limiting the power to a lower amount to provide a safety margin).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneously charging at least five energy storage devices at maximum rate for which the chargers and/or energy storage devices are rated of Buchanan’s into Lert in order to maximize power capacity for concurrently charging of predefined number of devices required (¶18-19).
Regarding claim 19. Lert discloses an autonomous mobile robot (¶170 – robots are autonomous vehicles).
Lert does not explicitly teach that the charge rate is a sum maximum charge powers of the plurality of mobile robots on the charge rail exceeds a power capability of the charge rail, the charge rates of the plurality of mobile robot are set based on the power capability of the charge rail divided by a number of mobile robots coupled to the charge rail.
Buchanan discloses the charge rate is a sum maximum charge powers of the plurality of mobile robots on the charge rail exceeds a power capability of the charge rail, the charge rates of the plurality of mobile robot are set based on the power capability of the charge rail divided by a number of mobile robots coupled to the charge rail (¶62 – sum of the power ratings leads to controller limiting power flow to not exceed power ratings, because the sum does not exceed, there is some division of the power between each of the mobile devices).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneously charging at least five energy storage devices at maximum rate for which the chargers and/or energy storage devices are rated of Buchanan’s into Lert in order to maximize power capacity for concurrently charging of predefined number of devices required (¶18-19).
Regarding claim 20. Lert discloses an autonomous mobile robot (¶170 – robots are autonomous vehicles).
Lert does not explicitly disclose that the mobile robot is stored on the charge rail, the charge rate of the mobile robot is set below a maximum charge power of the mobile robot.
Buchanan discloses the mobile robot is stored on the charge rail, the charge rate of the mobile robot is set below a maximum charge power of the mobile robot (¶63 - Buchanan teaches limiting the power to a lower amount to provide a safety margin).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simultaneously charging at least five energy storage devices at maximum rate for which the chargers and/or energy storage devices are rated of Buchanan’s into Lert in order to maximize power capacity for concurrently charging of predefined number of devices required (¶18-19).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lert et al. US20160355337A1 in view of Reimer et al. US6713894B1 and Danta et al US Pat. 5453053 and in further view of Baldsiefen et al. WO2013010948A1.
Regarding claim 10. Lert does not explicitly disclose that the charge rail is mounted in a horizontal portion of the track system.
Baldsiefen discloses that the charge rail is mounted in a horizontal portion of the track system (FIG. 8 discloses a charging rail is directed substantially horizontally).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to allow for simple handling and flexible fixation (Baldsiefen; page 2, first paragraph).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lert et al. US20160355337A1 in view of Reimer et al. US6713894B1 and Danta et al US Pat. 5453053 and in further view of Pari US9395723.
Regarding claim 12. Lert discloses an autonomous mobile robot (¶170 – robots are autonomous vehicles).
Lert does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to implement a hibernate function in a mobile robot of the plurality of mobile robots, the hibernate function disconnecting power loads from the rechargeable energy storage device when the mobile robot is forced to wait for an extended period away from the charge rail.
Pari teaches a controller (150, FIG. 1) configured to implement a hibernate function (col. 12, lines 8-10 and 66 through col. 13, line 5) in a mobile robot (100, FIG. 1), the hibernate function disconnecting power loads (col. 12, lines 8-10 and 66 through col. 13, line 5) from the rechargeable energy storage device (315, FIG. 3; rechargeable battery , capacitor; col. 4, lines 6-9; col. 14, line 6 through col. 15, line 1) when the mobile robot is forced to wait for an extended period (col. 12, lines 8-10 and 66 through col. 13, line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a hibernate function in a mobile robot, the hibernate function disconnecting power loads from the rechargeable energy storage device when the mobile robot is forced to wait for an extended period of Pari’s into Lert in order to reserve power.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lert et al. US20160355337A1 in view of Reimer et al. US6713894B1 and Danta et al US Pat. 5453053 and in further view of Brien US6265851.
Regarding claim 14. Lert does not specifically disclose that the supercapacitor is one of a regular electric double layer capacitor, a lithium supercapacitor and an ultra-low impedance capacitor.
Brien discloses that the supercapacitor (col. 7, lines 18-22; abstract) is one of a regular electric double layer capacitor (col. 7, lines 18-22; abstract), a lithium supercapacitor and an ultra-low impedance capacitor (col. 7, lines 18-22; abstract).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the rechargeable energy storage device is a supercapacitor of Brien’s into Lert in order to provide a long-life cycle, high load current and fast charging time device.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Webster et al. US20060052032A1 discloses power a track using a line voltage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM..
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, Drew Dunn can be reached on 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights