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 . 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 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.
Effective Filing Date
The actual filing date for the instant application is 10/18/2024. However, the instant application is a continuation (CON) of an earlier filed US application 17/478402, filed 9/17/2021, which itself is a CON of an earlier filed US application 16/172353, filed 10/26/2018. Furthermore, the applicant also requests domestic benefit to three separate provisionally filed US applications 62/681409, filed 6/6/2018, 62/641640, filed 3/12/2018, and 62/578030, filed 10/27/2017. Looking just at the earliest filed provisional application, 62/578030, the examiner can see a specification of only roughly 15 pages, which is clearly much shorter than the instant application’s specification of roughly 42 pages. As such, the effective filing date of each of the instant application’s claims under examination may be as recent as the instant application’s actual filing date of 10/18/2024, or potentially as early as the filing date of 10/27/2017 (filing date of 62/578030), depending on whether there is appropriate specification support for each particular claim in one or more of the earlier-filed specifications. In the case that a prior art rejection to one or more claims made in an Office action during prosecution of the instant application includes one or more prior art references that fall somewhere between 10/18/2024 and 10/27/2017 (an "intervening" reference), that is because the examiner did not see sufficient support for that/those particular claim/-s in one or more of those applications in the continuity chain that pre-date that/those particular reference/-s. If that occurs, if Applicant can specifically identify appropriate specification support for each of these claims in an earlier filed portion of this complex continuity chain, then the Examiner may determine that one or more of these prior art rejections against one or more of these claims will need to be withdrawn.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/08/2026. Claims 36-55 remain pending and are examined below.
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) 36 – 39, 43 – 46 and 50 – 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepek et al. (US Pub No: 2018/0303346 A1, hereinafter Lepek) in view of Wagner (US Pub No: 2007/0107620 A1, hereinafter Wagner) and Stryker et al. (US Pub No: 2018/0028377 A1, hereinafter Stryker).
Regarding Claim 36:
Lepek discloses:
A mobile carrier for autonomous operation carrying objects in an object processing system, the mobile carrier comprising: a body including a rectangular outline, the rectangular outline including four corners, the body including an upper surface and a lower surface. Figure 3A and 3B describes a vehicle body with four corners that has an upper and lower surface. Paragraph [0151] and figure 3C show a first outline 110 of a vehicle as seen from above.
Lepek does not disclose guide rails forming a carrying surface.
Wagner, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
a pair of guide rails on the upper surface, the pair of guide rails forming a carrying surface for a bin containing the objects. Paragraph [0028] and figure 6 describes a upper inner guide-way rail.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Lepek to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to show guide rails forming a carrying surface. One would have been motivated to do so to help organize traffic flow of multiple vehicles.
Lepek does not disclose each wheel being able to pivot in order to move forward, backward and side-to-side.
Stryker, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
and a wheel assembly at each of the four corners on the lower surface, each of the wheel assemblies comprising a wheel and a motor unit, each of the wheel assemblies pivoting 90 degrees about a vertical axis so that the mobile carrier can move forward, backward or side-to-side on a grid. Paragraph [0114] describes a front and rear set of castor wheels that has a four-bar linkage connected to motors, solenoids, etc… to power the wheels. It also describes caster wheels that can rotate between a horizontal and vertical axis.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Lepek to incorporate the teachings of Stryker to show each wheel being able to pivot in order to move forward, backward and side-to-side. One would have been motivated to do so because wheels are much more affordable and common than omni-directional wheels described in Lepek.
Claims 43 and 50 are substantially similar to claim 36 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 37:
Stryker teaches:
The mobile carrier as claimed in claim 36, further comprising a linkage between each of the four wheel assemblies so that the wheel assemblies pivoting 90 degrees about the vertical axis is performed simultaneously. Paragraph [0114] describes a front and rear set of castor wheels that has a four-bar linkage connected to motors, solenoids, etc… to power the wheels. It also describes caster wheels that can rotate between a horizontal and vertical axis.
The reason to combine Lepek with Stryker is for the same reasons as in claim 36.
Claims 44 and 51 are substantially similar to claim 37 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 38:
Stryker teaches:
The mobile carrier as claimed in claim 36, wherein each of the four-wheel assemblies further comprise a pivoting motor at the vertical axis. Paragraph [0114] describes a front and rear set of castor wheels that has a four-bar linkage connected to motors, solenoids, etc… to power the wheels. It also describes caster wheels that can rotate between a horizontal and vertical axis.
The reason to combine Lepek with Stryker is for the same reasons as in claim 36.
Claims 45 and 52 are substantially similar to claim 36 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 39:
Stryker teaches:
The mobile carrier as claimed in claim 36, wherein the wheel assemblies pivoting 90 degrees is passively actuated by a driven motion of the wheel and motor unit. Paragraph [0114] describes a front and rear set of castor wheels that has a four-bar linkage connected to motors, solenoids, etc… to power the wheels. It also describes caster wheels that can rotate between a horizontal and vertical axis.
The reason to combine Lepek with Stryker is for the same reasons as in claim 36.
Claim 46 is substantially similar to claim 39 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 40, 47 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepek in view of Wagner and Stryker and further in view of Valkov et al. (US Pub No: 2017/0278176 A1, hereinafter Valkov).
Regarding Claim 40:
Lepek, Wagner and Stryker teach the above limitations in claim 36. Lepek, Wagner and Stryker do not teach an actuatable paddle to retain the bin on a carrying surface.
Valkov, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The mobile carrier as claimed in claim 36, further comprising an actuatable paddle to retain the bin on the carrying surface. Paragraph [0022] describes a release actuator that is configured to actuate the switch 103 on the portable item containers 101. This is equivalent to the claim because the actuator can either hold or release the container.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Lepek to incorporate the teachings of Valkov to show an actuatable paddle to retain the bin on a carrying surface. One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine when items should be released or not (Abstract of Valkov).
Claims 47 and 53 are substantially similar to claim 36 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 41 – 42, 48 – 49 and 54 – 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepek in view of Wagner and Stryker and further in view of Sibley (US Pub No: 2018/0330325 A1, hereinafter Sibley).
Regarding Claim 41:
Lepek, Wagner and Stryker teach the above limitations in claim 36. Lepek, Wagner and Stryker do not teach an actuatable door at the carrying surface to discharge the bin containing the objects through the mobile carrier.
Sibley, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The mobile carrier as claimed in claim 36, further comprising an actuatable door at the carrying surface to discharge the bin containing the objects through the mobile carrier. Paragraph [0186] describes a door of a transport container 115 can be opened to move the transport container. In this case, the robot is a bin and the container is an object.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Lepek to incorporate the teachings of Sibley to show an actuatable door at the carrying surface to discharge the bin containing the objects through the mobile carrier. One would have been motivated to do so that the goods can be protected or removed as needed ([0106] of Sibley).
Claims 48 and 54 are substantially similar to claim 36 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 42:
Sibley teaches:
The mobile carrier as claimed in claim 36, further comprising a tilt tray on the carrying surface to discharge the bin containing the objects from the mobile carrier. Paragraph [0186] describes a chassis of the robot can be tilted to drop the container. In this case, the robot is a bin and the container is an object.
The reason to combine Sibley with Lepek is for the same reason as in claim 41.
Claims 49 and 55 are substantially similar to claim 36 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Wagner and Stryker are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Wagner and Stryker are directed to wheeled vehicles and are generally concerned with vehicle structures, of which the Applicant’s invention is concerned. The Applicant’s assertion that Wagner and Stryker are not directed to ‘warehouse grid robots, tote/bin carriers, and automatic storage and retrieval systems’ is irrelevant because those aspects are intended uses for the invention at hand. Specifically, the claims are directed almost entirely to physical structures of a vehicle (wheels, guide rails, body structure, etc.) and can be anticipated or obvious in view of any art that discloses vehicles and their structures, including those not directed to ‘warehouses, tote/bin transport, and/or storage and retrieval systems’. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding the secondary and tertiary references being non-analogous art are not persuasive.
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 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights