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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-20 were amended by preliminary amendment.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 20 recite the term “track-shift motor”, not formally defined in the instant specification. The term appears not to denote a kind of motor, but rather the motor’s role and purpose within the invention. We interpret the track-shift motor as a motor whose effect is to provide power to a displacement mechanism in order to shift wheels up or down to engage or disengage with the rails of applicant’s ASRS. As such, any kind of motor that performs that function may be used to teach the track-shift motor of the claims.
Claim 9 recites the term “coplanar passive wheels”, not formally defined in the instant specification. We interpret this term as “coplanar wheels not driven by motors or other powered arrangements.” We note as an aside that the wheels of most conventional vehicles are coplanar with respect to some horizontal plane and that adjacent wheels are almost always vertically coplanar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Austrheim et al., US 2020/0391941 (hereinafter Austrheim).
Regarding claim 1,
Austrheim discloses:
A remotely operated vehicle (vehicle 400: fig. 5A) for handling a goods holder (container 106: fig. 5A) on a two-dimensional rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system (figs 1-2),
wherein said vehicle comprises a vehicle body defining a cavity (receiving space 8: fig. 5B) for storing the goods holder, a first set of wheels (wheels 25, fig. 5A) enabling movement of the remotely operated vehicle in a first horizontal direction of the rail system and a second set of wheels (additional wheels, figs. 5B, 10) enabling the movement of the remotely operated vehicle in a second horizontal direction of the rail system, said second horizontal direction being perpendicular to the first horizontal direction, wherein said vehicle comprises:
a first wheel mount (wheel plate 23: fig. 4A) which is vertically displaceable ([0025]-[0027]) relative to a frame of the vehicle body, the first wheel mount carrying a first pair of coplanar wheels of said first set of wheels;
a second wheel mount (fig. 6A) which is vertically displaceable relative to the frame of the vehicle body, the second wheel mount carrying a second pair of coplanar wheels of said first set of wheels, the second wheel mount being arranged parallel to and on an opposite side of said cavity to said first wheel mount;While the wheel mounts and displacement mechanisms of figs. 4-5 must necessarily be replicated on the opposite side of the vehicle in order for the vehicle to travel on the parallel rails of the ASRS, this arrangement is not seen in those figures because only one side can be visible at a time. However, Austrheim depicts in the open and exploded views of figs. 6-7 and discloses in [0110] the second set of parallel structures visible on the on opposite side of the vehicle.
a mechanism (displacement mechanism 16: fig. 4A) for vertically displacing the first wheel mount relative to the frame of the vehicle body ([0094]), said mechanism being movable between a first position and a second position such that the movement of the mechanism from the first to the second position results in the first wheel mount being displaced vertically relative to the frame of the vehicle body;
a coupling assembly (coupling link 19 and related components: figs. 4-5, highlight oval of fig. 6A, horizontal structures of fig. 6B) coupling the first and the second wheel mounts so that vertical movement of the first wheel mount is transferred to the second wheel mount;In addition to the cited figures, Austrheim discloses the claimed coupling mechanism in detail in [0100]-[0103] and clarifies the linkage between the two wheel sets in [0106].
and a motor section (upper hull of robot: fig. 4A) in which a track-shift motor (motor 17, not illustrated, [0099]) that drives said mechanism and a drive motor (drive units 6: fig. 3) for propelling said vehicle in X-direction are provided. We interpret the claimed “motor section” as the portion of the robotic vehicle 400 in fig. 4A above the cavity in which storage container 106 resides. This space contains various electromechanical devices and components including the claimed “track-shift” motor and the displacement mechanism 16 for raising and lowering the wheel assemblies.
Regarding claim 2,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the mechanism for vertically displacing the first wheel mount relative to the frame of the vehicle body is provided in a motor section of the remotely operated vehicle. As seen in figs. 4-5, the key elements of the displacing mechanism including aspects of the comprised coupling link are all in the upper section of the robot above the storage compartment previously identified as applicant’s “motor section”.
Regarding claim 3,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the mechanism for vertically displacing the first wheel mount relative to the frame of the vehicle body is driven by a motor provided in the motor section of the remotely operated vehicle. Austrheim discloses this placement of motor 17 in [0099].
Regarding claim 4,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the mechanism for vertically displacing the first wheel mount relative to the frame of the vehicle body is arranged opposite said first wheel mount. This arrangement can be seen in figs. 6-7 where the truncated triangular structures that represent the members (displacement plates 41 and 41’) that displace the wheel mounts are visible on opposite sides of the vehicle body. These members are connected to various coupling and driving components as seen in fig. 6B that are also elements of the overall displacement mechanism. For the purpose of this claim, we consider the “first wheel mount” to be the wheel mount on the opposite side from the driving part of the displacement mechanism.
Regarding claim 5,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the mechanism for vertically displacing the first wheel mount relative to the frame of the vehicle body is arranged outside a wheel base defined by the wheels of the first and the second wheel mounts.This arrangement can be seen in figs. 4-7 where displacement mechanism and related components are all above (i.e. outside) the section in which the wheel base and wheels are found.
Regarding claim 6,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the cavity for storing the goods holder is part of a cavity section of the vehicle, said cavity section being provided adjacent an external front wall forming part of a periphery of the remotely operated vehicle. This arrangement is seen in fig. 6. We consider the cavity section to be the region above the wheel section and below the motor section in which storage containers (goods holders) are held. Note that since both applicant’s and Austrheim’s robot can move in any orthogonal direction, all four such directions can be considered a “front” of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 6 and also:
wherein the second wheel mount forms part of the external front wall of the vehicle body.This arrangement can be seen in figs. 6-7. Again, because the vehicle can move in any orthogonal direction, all four such directions can be considered the front of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 6 and also:
wherein said external front wall is flat and perpendicular to a horizontal plane. This arrangement can be seen in figs. 6-7. We note that a parallelopiped structure such as applicant’s and Austrheim’s vehicles must necessarily comprise flat walls perpendicular to a horizontal plane.
Regarding claim 11,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein all wheels of the first set of wheels are arranged to be vertically displaced in unison. This arrangement can be seen in fig. 4-7 where the adjacent wheels are affixed to the same wheel plate and thus will be displaced in unison.
Regarding claim 12,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein all wheels of the second set of wheels are fixed relative to the frame of the vehicle. This arrangement is seen in fig. 5B where only the pair of wheels on the right side of the figure are connected to a displacement device and those on the left (orthogonal) side are fixed.
Regarding claim 13,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein said coupling assembly (various components of figs. 6-7 in designated ovals) comprises a horizontally extending bar that is vertically displaceable, said bar being provided above said cavity.This arrangement is seen in figs 6-7, wherein the various coupling elements are seen in external detail in lowered and raised configurations in fig. 7 and wherein the horizontally extending bar is seen in exploded view in fig. 6B. The horizontal bar fixing the rocker 21 is seen to be vertically displaceable and is also seen to be disposed above the claimed storage cavity.
Regarding claim 14,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 13 and also:
wherein the vertically displaceable bar and the first and/or the second wheel mount are coupled by at least one vertically extending coupler link (displacement link 22: fig. 4) that is vertically displaceable (vertical movement, [0097]-[0098] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 15,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein said coupling assembly comprises a first link arm (assemblage of 19, 21, 22: fig. 4B) and a second link arm (assembly including 22’: fig. 6B) arranged on opposite sides of the cavity. Regarding the second link arm, in fig. 6B, a second assembly comprising 22’ is seen on the opposite side from 22.
Regarding claim 16,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 15 and also:
wherein each of the first and the second link arms couples the first and the second wheel mounts. As seen in fig. 6, one of the link arms couples wheel mounts on one side of the root, and the other is on the opposite side. The coupling with wheel mounts is described in [0109].
Regarding claim 17,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 15 and also:
wherein the first and the second link arms are identical. While the depicted link arms of fig. 6B are not identical, Austrheim discloses in [0109] that in an alternative embodiment the structures of the coupler links may be replicated on the two sides of the robot.
Regarding claim 18,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 15 and also:
wherein each link arm comprises arm parts connected by means of joints so that all arm parts may rotate and/or translate in a single plane. This arrangement is seen in each of the zoomed-in coupling figures, including 4B and 8, wherein all the link arm pieces are jointed to move in the same plane.
Regarding claim 19,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
An automated storage and retrieval system comprising a remotely operated vehicle of claim 1 (200: fig. 1), said system comprising a plurality of storage columns (105: fig. 1) and a rail system (108: fig. 1) provided above the plurality of storage columns , wherein the goods holder (106: fig. 1) may be lowered into or lifted from any of the storage columns by the remotely operated vehicle operating on the rail system. These standard features of applicant’s prior art are seen in figs. 1-2 and disclosed in the whole of Austrheim’s BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ART section.
Regarding claim 20,
Austrheim discloses:
A method of operating a remotely operated vehicle (vehicle 400: fig. 5A) for handling a goods holder (container 106: fig. 5A) on a two-dimensional rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system (figs 1-2),
wherein said vehicle comprises
a vehicle body (overall structure: fig. 5B), a cavity (receiving space 8: fig. 5B) for receiving the goods holder and a first set of wheels (wheels 25, fig. 5A) enabling movement of the remotely operated vehicle in a first horizontal direction of the rail system and a second set of wheels (additional wheels, figs. 5B, 10) enabling the movement of the remotely operated vehicle in a second horizontal direction of the rail system, said second direction being perpendicular to the first direction, wherein said vehicle comprises
a first wheel mount (wheel plate 23: fig. 4A) vertically displaceable ([0025]-[0027]) relative to a frame of the vehicle body, the first wheel mount carrying a first pair of coplanar wheels of said first set of wheels,
a second wheel mount (fig. 6A) vertically displaceable relative to the frame of the vehicle body, the second wheel mount carrying a second pair of coplanar wheels of said first set of wheels, the second wheel mount being arranged parallel and on an opposite side of the cavity to said first wheel mount,While the wheel mounts and displacement mechanisms of figs. 4-5 must necessarily be replicated on the opposite side of the vehicle in order for the vehicle to travel on the parallel rails of the ASRS, this arrangement is not seen in those figures because only one side can be visible at a time. However, Austrheim depicts in the open and exploded views of figs. 6-7 and discloses in [0110] the second set of parallel structures visible on the on opposite side of the vehicle.
a mechanism (displacement mechanism 16: fig. 4A) coupled to the first wheel mount and for vertically displacing the first wheel mount relative to the frame of the vehicle body ([0094]) and an assembly coupling the first and the second wheel mounts (coupling link 19 and related components: figs. 4-5),Austrheim discloses the claimed coupling mechanism in detail in [0100]-[0103].
said method comprising:
providing a track-shift motor (motor 17, not illustrated, [0099]) that drives said mechanism and a drive motor for propelling said vehicle in X-direction in a motor section of the remotely operated vehicle;
and moving said mechanism ([0094]) coupled to the first wheel mount between a first position and a second position such that the first wheel mount and thereto associated pair of coplanar wheels and the second wheel mount and thereto associated pair of coplanar wheels are vertically displaced relative to the frame of the vehicle body.
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim in view of Austrheim, Trond, WO 2019206440 (hereinafter Austrheim2). Note for convenience we refer to paragraphs in US 2021/0155408, the US national version of Austrheim2.
Regarding claim 9,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not all aspects of:
wherein one pair of the first set of wheels is a pair of coplanar passive wheels. While all Austrheim’s wheels are coplanar in at least one plane, it’s unclear whether any are passive.
Austrheim2, art from the same applicant disclosing a similar vehicle, teaches:
wherein one pair of the first set of wheels is a pair of coplanar passive wheels. Austrheim2 teaches at least one set of passive wheels in [0064] and [0066]. All Austrheim2’s wheels are coplanar, with wheels on the same wheel mount coplanar in multiple planes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vehicle of Austrheim, wherein one pair of the first set of wheels is a pair of coplanar passive wheels, as taught by Austrheim2 because where the driving power of a single set of wheels is satisfactory, employing passive wheels in addition to driving wheels is plainly less expensive than driving all the wheels.
Regarding claim 10,
Austrheim discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not all aspects of:
wherein one pair of the first set of wheels is a pair of coplanar driven wheels supported by the first wheel mount, said mount being mounted to a structural crosspiece of the vehicle body. While Austrheim’s set of wheels 25 and wheel plate 23 in its fig. 4A could arguably be a disclosure of this limitation, it is not absolutely certain that those wheels are driven wheels because Austrheim only explicitly discloses driven wheels for the embodiment of fig. 3.
Austrheim2, art from the same applicant disclosing a similar vehicle, teaches:
wherein one pair of the first set of wheels is a pair of coplanar driven wheels (wheels 201’’ and 201’’’, motors 203 driving the wheels: fig. 8A) supported by the first wheel mount (assemblage of each wheel 201 and motor 203: fig. 8A), said mount being mounted to a structural crosspiece (connecting element 212: fig. 8A) of the vehicle body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vehicle of Austrheim, wherein one pair of the first set of wheels is a pair of coplanar driven wheels supported by the first wheel mount, said mount being mounted to a structural crosspiece of the vehicle body, as taught by Austrheim2, because as Austrheim2 notes in [0146], the motors of the claimed wheels may be larger and stronger than possible if the claimed wheel structures (as in previous examples of applicant’s art) were not present.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NO 317366 is one of the earliest examples of prior art disclosing the general details of applicant’s ASRS. WO 2019137866 is another example of applicant’s prior art outside the grace period disclosing a similar wheel mount displacement mechanism to that of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights