DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 1-16 are maintained in rejection despite Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed 08/13/2026. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/074257 A1 (“Austrheim”) in view of DE 29720452 U1 (“Hwang”).
Referring to Claim 1: Austrheim teaches an expansion joint (10) (Fig. 3) for connecting regions of a grid structure (104) including a plurality of tracks containing a first set of parallel tracks (27’) extending in a first direction and a second set of parallel tracks (27’’) extending in a second direction (Fig. 3D), the second set of parallel tracks running substantially transversely to the first set of tracks in a substantially horizontal plane such that the plurality of tracks are arranged in a grid pattern comprising to form a grid structure including a grid with a plurality of grid cells (122), each of the plurality of tracks having an upper surface profiled to provide two parallel track surfaces (claim 1) defining a double track for guiding two wheeled load handling devices (200, 300, 400) (Fig. 3D), the expansion joint comprising:
a first track element (11) and a second track element (12) (Fig. 4E), each of the first and second track elements providing a portion of a track of the plurality of tracks (Fig. 1), the first and second track elements being elongate (Fig. 4E), each of the first and second track elements having an interface portion, the interface portions being that are arranged to slide relative to each other in a longitudinal direction (page 6, lines 33-37) to provide a double track including two parallel track surfaces extending from the first track element to the second track element suitable for guiding two wheeled load handling devices across the expansion joint (Fig. 4D);
wherein the interface portion of the second track element is arranged to be substantially a 180° rotation about a vertical axis of the interface portion of the first track element (Fig. 4D).
Austrheim does not specifically teach the first and second track elements having the same track profile such that a single common track element provides both the first and second track elements. However, Hwang teaches a rail joint with embodiments having two steps (Fig. 2), male/female steps (Fig. 4) or three steps (Fig. 5), wherein in the three step embodiment of figure 5, the first and second track elements (A, B) have the same track profile such that a single common track element provides both the first and second track elements (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Austrheim to replace the male/female step joint with a three step joint having a single common track element profile, as taught by Hwang, as these are known equivalents and a single common track element profile would create a more gradual transition across the joint, and allow for a simplification of the joint components by eliminating the need to manufacture and pair separate male and female components, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of tracks (27’, 27’’) comprises;
a plurality of elongate track elements, and wherein the first track element (11) and the second track element (12) are configured and arranged to connect to each other at their respective interface portion to form a single elongate track element extending in either the first direction or the second direction (Fig. 4E).
Referring to Claim 3: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 1 or 2, wherein the upper surface of each of the first and second track elements (11, 12) is profiled to provide at least one guide surface of the track, said at least one guide surface being configured and arranged for constraining the wheels (401) of a load handling device (400) when on a respective track surface of the two parallel track surfaces (27’, 27’’) (Fig. 5D).
Referring to Claim 4: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 3, wherein the at least one guide surface comprises;
a lip or ridge upwardly extending from a respective track surface of the two parallel track surfaces (27’, 27’’) (Fig. 5D).
Referring to Claim 5: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 3, wherein the at least one guide surface of the first track element (11) is configured and arranged to butt up against the at least one guide surface of the second track element (12) in a closed configuration (Fig. 5D) to provide a continuous guide surface extending between the first and second track elements, and the first and second track elements are configured and arranged to separate from each other in an open configuration to provide at least one gap in the two parallel track surfaces between the first and second track elements (Fig. 5A).
Referring to Claim 6: Austrheim teaches that the interface portion of each of the first and second track elements (11, 12) is formed with male/female steps (page 7, lines 8-11) (Fig. 5A) that are configured to fit together in the closed configuration (Fig. 5D) and to separate in the open configuration (Fig. 5A) (page 18, line 29 – page 19, line 3).
Austrheim teaches two steps instead of three. However, Hwang teaches a rail joint with embodiments having two steps (Fig. 2), male/female steps (Fig. 4) or three steps (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Austrheim to replace the male/female step joint with a three step joint, as taught by Hwang, as these are known equivalents and a three step joint would create a more gradual transition across the joint with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 7: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 5, wherein the at least one gap comprises;
two gaps that are staggered in the longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig. 5A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to Claim 8: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 3, wherein the at least one guide surface comprises;
a first edge guide surface and a second edge guide surface, the first and second edge guide surfaces running longitudinally along the outer edges of each of the first and second track elements (11, 12) (see annotated Fig. 5D below); and
a central guide surface running parallel with the first and second edge guide surfaces such that an area between the central guide surface and the first and the second guide surfaces defines the two parallel track surfaces (27’, 27’’) (see annotated Fig. 5D).
PNG
media_image2.png
378
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen above in annotated Fig. 5D, Austrheim does not teach that the first edge guide surface is longer than the second edge guide surface. However, Hwang teaches a rail joint with embodiments having two steps (Fig. 2), male/female steps (Fig. 4) or three asymmetrical steps (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Austrheim to replace the male/female step joint with an asymmetrical three step joint, since these are known equivalents taught by Hwang, resulting in a longer second edge guide surface, in order to create a more gradual transition across the joint with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 9: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 1, further comprising;
a sliding connection for supporting the first and second track elements (11, 12) so as to allow the first and second track elements to slide relative to each other in the longitudinal direction (abstract).
Referring to Claim 10: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 9, wherein the sliding connection comprises;
overlapping track support elements (11, 12) that are configured and arranged to slide relative to each other (abstract) (Fig. 5A).
Referring to Claim 11: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 10, wherein the overlapping track support elements (11, 12) comprise:
a slot (33) and slide bearing arrangement (14) in a junction area where the track support elements overlap (Figs. 6A-6C) (page 16, lines 2-25).
Referring to Claim 12: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 9, wherein the sliding connection comprises;
a connecting element (14) slidably receivable in an opening in each of the first track element (11) and in-the second track element (12) (Fig. 5B-5C) (page 15, line 14).
Referring to Claim 13: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 12, wherein the connecting element (14) comprises:
a first end secured in the opening of the first track element (11) and an opposing second end configured and arranged to be receivable in the opening of the second track element (12) (Fig. 5B-5C) (page 15, line 14).
Referring to Claim 14: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 12, wherein the first and second track elements (11, 12) each comprise a box section (Fig. 5B-5C) (page 15, line 14).
Referring to Claim 15: Austrheim teaches the expansion joint of claim 1, in combination with a grid framework structure (100) comprising;
a plurality of upright members (102) configured and arranged to form a plurality of vertical locations for one or more containers (106) to be guided by the upright members in a vertical direction (Fig. 1A), wherein the plurality of upright members are interconnected to define nodes at their top ends by a plurality of tracks (110, 111) including a first set of parallel tracks extending in a first direction and a second set of parallel tracks extending in a second direction (Fig. 1A), the second set of parallel tracks running transversely to the first set of tracks in a substantially horizontal plane to form a grid structure including a grid with a plurality of grid cells (122) for a load handling device (200, 300, 400) (Fig. 1A) which includes a pair of wheels (201, 301, 401) at the front and rear of the load handling device to move on the grid structure (Fig. 5D); and
a portion of the first and/or second set of parallel tracks (110, 111) including first and second thermal expansion joints (10) (claim 15) (page 6, lines 26-29), each of the first and second thermal expansion joints including an expansion joint of claim 1, the first and second thermal expansion joints being arranged in parallel (Figs. 3A-3F, 4B-4E, 5B, 6A-6C, 7A-7B) such that, when in use, pairs of wheels at a front and rear of a load handling device will be constrained on their respective track surfaces when moving across the first and second thermal expansion joints (10) (Fig. 5D).
Referring to Claim 16: Austrheim teaches a grid framework structure of claim 15 in combination with a storage and retrieval system (1) comprising:
i) the grid framework structure (100) as defined in claim 15;
ii) a plurality of stacks of containers (106) arranged in storage columns (107) located below the grid, wherein each storage column is located vertically below a grid cell (122) (Fig. 1A);
iii) a plurality of load handling devices (200, 300, 400) configured for lifting and moving containers stacked in the stacks, the plurality of load handling devices being configured to be remotely operated to move laterally on the grid above the storage columns to access the containers through the grid cells (page 1, lines 24-31), each of said plurality load handling devices including:
a) a wheel assembly (401) for guiding the load handling device on the grid (Fig. 5D);
b) a container-receiving space located above the grid (Figs. 1C and 1D); and
c) a lifting device arranged to lift a single container from a stack into the container- receiving space (page 2, lines 18-26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Austrheim has male and female interface portions on the first and second track elements, and therefore, Austrheim fails to teach that a single common track element, with the same track profile, provides both the first and second track elements. Further, Applicant argues that the embodiment shown in figure 8 of Austrheim cannot be reasonably interpreted as the interface with a single common track element. Examiner agrees and has withdrawn the previous rejection in favor of the rejection above citing Hwang as teaching a rail interface with a single common track element.
Applicant argues that Hwang does not cure the deficiency regarding the interface with a single common track element because Hwang teaches a single running surface for train wheels, not a double track with parallel track surfaces with an interface that is a 180-degree rotation. Examiner responds that in the combination with Austrheim it would be obvious to maintain Austrheim’s double track structure and merely use Hwang’s teaching of the three-step interface shape, as seen in Fig. 5 of Hwang, which comprises two sections A and B having a same track profile that is rotated 180 degrees relative to one another. The argument that Hwang teaches a single running surface amounts to a piecemeal analysis of the references, and it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
Applicant argues that there is insufficient motivation to combine Austrheim and Hwang because the rationale does not explain why Austrheim would look to Hwang’s railway noise reduction joint to modify Austrheim’s storage-system expansion joint, and further, the combination uses impermissible hindsight reasoning. Examiner responds that both references are reasonably pertinent to the problem of rail joints. Further, Hwang shows that the various interface shapes are known equivalents, and a single common track element profile would create a more gradual transition across the joint, dispersing forces more evenly and allowing for a smoother flow of vehicles. Further, using a common interface profile shape would allow for a simplification of the joint components by eliminating the need to manufacture and pair separate male and female components, with a reasonable expectation of success. In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it has been held that "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP § 2145(X)(A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights