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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered are persuasive as to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 102. Applicant presented arguments only in regards to the rejection of claim 1 over Vandemergel. Claims 5-8, 10, 15-18, 20 were previously rejected over Vandemergel (WO 2024126784 A1) in view of Don (KR 100784618 B1) and relied on Don for the teaching of a depression (as recited in amended claim 1). Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are now rejected over Vandemergel in view of Don.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandemergel (WO 2024126784 A1) in view of Don (KR 100784618 B1).
Regarding claim 1 and 5 and 15, Vandemergel (hereafter “D1”) discloses an automated storage and retrieval system (abstract) comprising: racking (figure 1) comprising a plurality of rails (7); a shuttle (2) comprising a wheel (figure 2b; [24]) that is configured to roll along at least one of the plurality of rails along a linear rolling path ([26]); and a wedge stop (blocking arrangement 10/10’) coupled, directly or indirectly, to the racking and proximate to the linear rolling path, wherein the wedge stop comprises a sloped surface (at second leg portion 11b’) that is configured to receive the wheel as the wheel is rolling along the linear rolling path ([29]).
D1 does not disclose wherein a depression of the wedge stop defines a first radius of curvature and the wheel defines a second radius of curvature, wherein the first radius of curvature is within five percent of the second radius of curvature.
Don (hereafter “D2”) discloses a wedge stop device (12) for stopping a wheels of a trolley (2), the wedge stop device (12) comprising a depression (12a) which matches and receives the wheel and has the same radius of curvature (figure 2) to slow the wheel travel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add a curved depression as taught by D2 in the upper side and at least partially in the sloped surface of D1 to secure the wheel in place of the wedge stop and prevent bounce back.
Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the wedge stop (10’) is configured to progressively slow and stop the rolling of the wheel along the linear rolling path (includes a ramp at the front second leg portion 11b’ – figure 5).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, D1 discloses wherein the sloped surface (at 11b’) of the wedge stop defines a slope angle relative to the linear rolling path ([29] discloses beveled front) but does not specify the exact angle beyond what is shown in figure 5, a slight angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to select the angle to be three degrees or less as a matter of obvious design choice as D1 already discloses selecting angle based on length of the leg portion.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, D1 as modified discloses wherein the wedge stop (10’) comprises a first end (front) and a second end (30, rear), wherein a first thickness of the wedge stop at the first end is less than a second thickness of the wedge stop at the second end, and wherein the depression is positioned within one inch of the second end (rear end at 30 is wider and as modified the depression would be at a top of 11b’ adjacent to the front of 30).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 17-18, D1 as modified discloses, wherein the wedge stop (10’) has a longitudinal length and the depression defines a longitudinal distance (as modified the depression would extend along a part of the top of 11b’ less than a quarter of the total length according to a wheel size) where a ratio between the longitudinal length and the longitudinal distance is at least 4:1 and up to 7:1.
Regarding claim 9, D1 discloses wherein the sloped surface of the wedge stop comprises a channel (in 11b’ adjacent 15’), wherein a width of the channel is within five percent of a width of a rolling surface of the wheel (11b’ configured to match a wheel width) ([29]).
Regarding claims 10-12, and 19-20, see the discussions of claims 1-3, and 5-9 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
