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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 6 of claim 1, the recitation “that lift” should be written as - - that the lift - -. 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) 1-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Moulin et al. (USP 10730696).
Claims 1, 9, 17 are being treated together, the difference in limitations of claims 9 and 17 are addressed at the end of the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17, Moulin et al. discloses a lift robot comprising:
a chassis (fig.2, 201) that defines a lift axis of the lift robot, the chassis has a frame (upright portion with wheels) with a wheel set ( 202, 303) mounted thereon, each wheel of the wheel set contacts a riding surface of a storage rack structure and supports the lift robot on the storage rack structure so that lift robot rides on the storage rack structure throughout a complete range of motion of the lift robot (seen in fig.5b); and
a payload bay (area above 205) connected to the chassis, the payload bay having a payload bed (bed on top of 205), for holding a payload thereon, the payload bed being disposed angled to the lift axis;
wherein the wheel set is configured so as to form a contact interface arranged along a substantially upright plane including the lift axis and the contact interface defines a lift interface engaging the riding surface (seen in fig.5), and
wherein the contact interface is maintained substantially continuously throughout the complete range of motion of the lift robot (seen in fig.5b).
[claim 9] wherein the lift interface is a common contact interface between the lift robot and storage rack structure throughout the complete range of motion of the lift robot (seen in fig.5b; the robot rides along the rack to form a common contact interface).
[claim 17] an end effector (205) that is actuated between an extended position and a retracted position relative to the chassis to transfer the payload on and off the payload bed; wherein the lift interface (interface between the wheels and the rack) defines a fulcrum about which the end effector in the extended position generates a moment on the chassis opposing an overturning moment from of the payload bay on the chassis.
Regarding claim 2, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 1, wherein the payload bed is substantially orthogonal (readily seen in figures 5) to the contact interface and the lift axis.
Regarding claim 3, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 1, wherein the payload bay cantilevers from the chassis (seen in fig.5).
Regarding claim 4, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 1, wherein the payload bay is arranged so that the payload bed cantilevers substantially orthogonal from the chassis (seen in fig.5).
Regarding claim 5, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 1, wherein the payload bay has an actuated end effector (205) that extends and retracts with respect to the chassis along an extension axis to transfer the payload to and from the lift robot, and the extension axis crosses the lift axis (seen in fig.5).
Regarding claim 6, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 1, wherein the chassis has a substantially upright frame (seen in fig.5) with a longitudinal axis substantially aligned with the lift axis.
Regarding claim 7, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 1, wherein the payload bay is on one side of the contact interface, and has a bay longitudinal axis that extends aside and projects from a side of the contact interface (seen in fig.5, it is outside the interface on the cantilevered robot).
Regarding claim 8, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 1, wherein the payload bay projects aside from but one side of the contact interface in a substantially cantilevered configuration (seen in fig.5).
Regarding claims 10-16, all these limitations were addressed in claims 2-8.
Regarding claim 18, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 17, wherein the payload bed is disposed angled to the lift axis (it is orthogonal).
Regarding claim 19, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 17, wherein the end effector in the extended position and the payload bay are on opposite sides of the lift interface and the end effector in the extended position substantially balances the payload bay (evident from fig.5; the effector 205 would extend to other side of lift axis to obtain the loads).
Regarding claim 20, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 17, wherein the lift robot is mastless, the chassis being arranged to seat onto and engage the riding surface of the storage rack structure so as to define the lift axis mastlessly (seen in fig.5).
Regarding claim 21, Moulin et al. discloses the lift robot of claim 17, wherein the end effector in the extended position extends along an extension axis from one side of the lift interface, the lift interface being disposed adjacent an end of the end effector in the extended position (evident from fig.6; the lift interface would be adjacent the most extended position of the end effector).
Regarding claims 22-28; these limitations have been addressed above and are mostly self evident from figures 5 and 6 in the prior art since they are mainly centered around different ways of claiming the cantilevered structure of the robot).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights