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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 22-36, and 38-39 are objected to because of the following informalities: dependent claims should begin with “the” instead of “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 26-29, 32, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8721250 to Razumov.
Regarding claim 21, Razumov discloses a rail vehicle for moving in two perpendicular horizontal directions on a rail system (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11),
the rail system comprising a first set of parallel rails in a first direction and a second set of parallel rails in a second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11),
the rail vehicle comprising: a vehicle frame (as evident from Figs. 10, 11);
rail engaging supports 28 for supporting the rail vehicle on the rail system (see Fig. 11); and
a plurality of wheel modules 18 configured to move the rail vehicle on the rail system;
wherein each wheel module comprises a wheel with a horizontal axis of rotation (as evident form Fig. 10),
each of the plurality of wheel modules allowing the wheel to pivot 90 degrees around a vertical axis such that a rotational direction of the wheel may be switched between the first direction and the second direction (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11);
each of the plurality of wheel modules and the rail engaging supports are vertically moveable relative to each other between a first position and a second position (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11), where: in the first position, the wheels are arranged to engage rails of the rail system and the rail engaging supports are clear of the rail system (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11); and in the second position, the rail engaging supports are arranged to engage rails of the rail system and the wheels are lifted clear of the rail system, such that each of the wheels may be pivoted around the vertical axis of each of the plurality of wheel modules to switch the rotational direction of the wheel between the first direction and the second direction (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 22, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 21, wherein the rail engaging supports are configured to hold the vehicle frame at a predetermined level relative to the rail system when in the second position (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 23, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 21, wherein the rail engaging supports are arranged on opposite sides of the vehicle frame (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 24, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 21, having four lower corner sections and a wheel module is arranged at each of the four lower corner sections (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 26, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 21, wherein the rail engaging supports are connected to an actuator assembly configured to move the rail engaging supports and the wheels in a vertical direction relative to each other, the actuator assembly comprising at least one actuator (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 27, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 26, wherein the rail engaging supports are vertically moveable relative to the vehicle frame and the plurality of wheel modules (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 28, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 27, wherein the actuator assembly is configured to move the rail engaging supports in a vertical direction relative to the vehicle frame (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 29, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 28, wherein each of the rail engaging supports is provided by a portion of a lever arm and the actuator assembly is configured to pivot the lever arm between the first position and the second position to displace the portion of the lever arm providing the rail engaging support vertically with respect to the vehicle frame (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 32, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 31, wherein the wheel pivoting assembly comprises a plurality of vertical shafts 20,
each vertical shaft connected to a corresponding wheel module (as evident from Figs. 7, 8),
each of the plurality of vertical shafts being rotatable by a corresponding wheel pivoting actuator to pivot the wheels around the corresponding vertical axes (as evident from Figs. 7, 8).
Regarding claim 36, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 21, wherein each wheel module comprises a single wheel (e.g. see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 37, Razumov discloses a container handling system comprising a rail vehicle and a rail system (see Figs. 10, 11), the rail system comprising a first set of parallel rails in a first direction and a second set of parallel rails in a second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (see Figs. 10, 11), the rail vehicle comprising substantially the same limitations set forth in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 38, Razumov discloses the container handling system according to claim 37, wherein each rail of the first set of parallel rails and the second set of parallel rails comprises at least one wheel track for guiding the wheels when in the first position, and each of the rail engaging supports comprises a lower portion configured to fit inside one of the at least one wheel tracks when the rail engaging supports are in the second position (as evident from Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 39, Razumov discloses the container handling system according to claim 37, comprising vertical column profiles supporting the rail system from below, the vertical column profiles defining multiple storage columns in which containers may be stacked on top of each other (as evident from Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 40, Razumov discloses method of changing a direction of travel of a rail vehicle operating on a rail system, the rail system comprising a first set of parallel rails in a first direction and a second set of parallel rails in a second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (see Figs. 10, 11), the rail vehicle comprising: a vehicle frame (see Figs. 10, 11); rail engaging supports 28 for supporting the rail vehicle on the rail system; and
a plurality of wheel modules 18 configured to move the rail vehicle upon the rail system (as evident from Figs. 10, 11);
wherein each wheel module comprises a wheel with a horizontal axis of rotation (as evident from Fig. 1), each of the plurality of wheel modules allowing the wheel to pivot 90 degrees around a vertical axis such that the wheel may change its rotational direction between the first direction and the second direction (see Figs. 10-12);
each of the plurality of wheel modules and the rail engaging supports are vertically moveable relative to each other between a first position and a second position (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11), where: in the first position, the wheels are arranged to engage rails of the rail system and the rail engaging supports are clear of the rail system (e.g. see Fig. 10); and
in the second position, the rail engaging supports are arranged to engage rails of the rail system and the wheels are lifted clear of the rail system, such that each of the wheels may pivot around the vertical axis of each of the plurality of wheel modules to change a rotational direction between the first direction and the second direction (see Figs. 11, 12);
the method comprising the steps of: moving the rail vehicle in the first direction on the rail system (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16);
stopping the rail vehicle (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16);
moving the wheel modules and the rail engaging supports relative to each other from the first position to the second position (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16);
pivoting the wheels 90 degrees around the vertical axis such that the wheels switch their rotational direction from the first direction to the second direction (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16);
moving the plurality of wheel modules and the rail engaging supports from the second position to the first position (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16); and moving the rail vehicle in the second direction upon the rail system (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16).
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.
Claim(s) 25, 31, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razumov.
Regarding claim 25, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose that each of the rail engaging supports comprises a lower portion having a width being equal to or less than the width of the wheels. Fig. 11, while not drawn to scale at least suggests a width less than that of the wheel. Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or “recitation of relative dimensions” are generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such dimension of the width of the supports relative to the wheels with the motivation of reducing weight of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 31, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 21, comprising a wheel pivoting assembly configured to pivot the wheels around corresponding vertical axes (see col. 5, ln 63-col. 6 ln 16; see Figs. 10, 11). Razumov does not explicitly disclose rotating the wheels simultaneously but discloses deploying support elements simultaneously (e.g. see col. 5, ln 3-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to rotate the wheels simultaneously such that a single control action rotates all the wheels and for safety reasons to the extent of mitigating operator error in the case of operator forgetting to rotate one of the wheels with the others rotated.
Regarding claim 33, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 32, wherein the wheel pivoting assembly but does not explicitly provide links interconnecting each of the plurality of vertical shafts and the corresponding wheel pivoting actuator, the links configured to convert movement of the corresponding wheel pivoting actuator into rotational movement of each the plurality of vertical shafts. Instead, Razumov discloses the connection between actuator 106 and the pivots / wheels is “implemented using any of well known mechanisms for rotating and turning wheels.” Examiner takes official notice to use a “link” connecting the actuator to the vertical shafts as such is well known in the art to facilitate rotation of the pivots / vertical shafts. See MPEP 2144.03. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of facilitating rotation of the pivots / vertical shafts.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razumov in view of US 20170305668 to Bestic et al. (“Bestic”).
Regarding claim 34, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 21, but does not disclose at least one of the plurality of wheel modules comprises a motor for driving a respective wheel of the at least one of the wheel modules. Bestic discloses such (see, e.g. [0023]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of powering rotation of the wheel to attain specific speeds.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razumov in view of US 20210147147 to Durai et al. (“Durai”).
Regarding claim 35, Razumov discloses the rail vehicle according to claim 21, but does not disclose that at least one of the plurality of wheel modules comprises a sensor for detecting a position of the wheel relative to the rail system. Durai discloses such (see [0048]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of ascertaining the location of the rail vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose the structure enabling linkage and horizontal shaft relationship such as the effect upon the shaft rotating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's colleague, SPE Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights