Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
Claims 1-25 are currently being examined.
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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more Claims particularly pointing out and distinctly Claiming the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly Claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for pre-AIA , the applicant) regards as the invention.
With respect to Claims 5 and 16, each contain a limitation with the phrase “the robot vehicle can move along the supporting rails” implies that there is an option as to whether the robot vehicle is or is not moving along the supporting rails. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claims 5 and 16 fail to particularly point out and distinctly Claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the Claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application Claim is not patentably distinct from the reference Claim(s) because the examined application Claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference Claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disClaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or Claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disClaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disClaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal DisClaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal DisClaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal DisClaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12, 14-17, and 19-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,494,239. Although the conflicting Claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the 145 patent discloses the following with respect to the Applicant’s Claims:
1. A robot vehicle for transporting storage bins in a bin storage system, wherein the bin storage system comprises (See Claim 1)
a plurality of storage columns for storage of a plurality of vertically-stacked storage bins, and (See Claim 1)
a plurality of supporting rails arranged in a two-dimensional matrix at a top of the columns, See Claim 1)
said supporting rails arranged in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, (See Claim 1)
wherein the robot vehicle comprises: (See Claim 1)
a cavity arranged to receive a storage bin from the storage columns in the bin storage system,(See Claim 1)
the cavity being arranged centrally within a body of the vehicle; (See Claim 1)
a first set of vehicle rolling means arranged to allow the robot vehicle to travel in the first direction along the supporting rails; and (See Claim 7)
a second set of vehicle rolling means arranged to allow the robot vehicle to travel in the second direction along the supporting rails; (See Claim 7)
wherein both of the sets of vehicle rolling means are arranged symmetrically around the cavity. (See Claim 8)
3. The robot vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of the sets of vehicle rolling means comprises at least four wheels. (See Claim 10)
4. The robot vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein the bin storage system comprises:
a three-dimensional storage structure comprising a plurality of pillars which are positioned with internal distances and in a rectangular arrangement, (See Claim 1)
wherein the rectangular arrangement of the pillars define the storage columns for the storage of a plurality of vertically-stacked storage bins, and (See Claim 1)
the supporting rails are arranged in a two-dimensional matrix on the pillars. (See Claim 1)
5. The robot vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein the robot vehicle comprises a lifting device arranged to lift a storage bin into the cavity, (See Claim 1)
wherein the robot vehicle can move along the supporting rails to positions immediately above a storage column and lift bins into the cavity for further transport along the supporting rails, and (See Claim 1)
wherein the lifting device is arranged to initiate descent to engage a storage bin prior to the robot vehicle comes to a halt above the storage column. (See Claim 1)
7. The robot vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein no component of the robot vehicle extends beyond an outermost periphery of the robot vehicle defined by the vehicle rolling means. (See Claim 15)
8. The robot vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein the cavity comprises a downwardly facing opening of an essentially same width and length as an opening of the storage column from which the storage bin is received. (See Claim 5)
9. The robot vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein a single robot vehicle essentially covers an opening of a single storage column while retrieving a storage bin such that a second robot vehicle traverses an adjacent storage column unhindered by the first robot vehicle. (See Claim 6)
10. An automated storage system comprising: (See Claim 10)
a three-dimensional storage structure comprising: (See Claim 10)
a plurality of pillars which are positioned with internal distances and in a rectangular arrangement, (See Claim 10)
wherein the rectangular arrangement of the pillars define storage columns for the storage of a plurality of vertically-stacked storage bins, and (See Claim 10)
a plurality of supporting rails arranged in a two-dimensional matrix on the pillars, (See Claim 10)
said supporting rails arranged in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction; and (See Claim 10)
one or more remotely controlled robot vehicles movable along the supporting rails, (See Claim 10)
each of said robot vehicles comprising a cavity arranged to receive a storage bin from the storage columns in the bin storage system, (See Claim 10)
the cavity being arranged centrally within a body of the vehicle, (See Claim 10)
a first set of vehicle rolling means arranged to allow the robot vehicle to travel in the first direction along the supporting rails, and (See Claim 10)
a second set of vehicle rolling means arranged to allow the robot vehicle to travel in the second direction along the supporting rails; (See Claim 10)
wherein both of the sets of vehicle rolling means are arranged symmetrically around the cavity. (See Claim 8)
12. The automated storage system according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the sets of vehicle rolling means comprises at least four wheels. (See Claim 10)
14. The automated storage system according to claim 10, wherein at least some of the plurality of supporting rails include two rolling tracks wherein the rolling tracks are configured to contact at least some of the vehicle rolling means of the robot vehicle. (See Claim 1)
15. The automated storage system according to claim 10, wherein the robot vehicle comprises a lifting device arranged to lift a storage bin into the cavity. (See Claim 1)
16. The automated storage system according to claim 15, wherein the robot vehicle can move along the supporting rails of the storage structure to positions immediately above a storage column and (See Claim 10)
lift bins into the cavity for further transport along the supporting rails of the storage structure. (See Claim 1)
17. The automated storage system according to claim 16, wherein the lifting device is arranged to lift a storage bin from the storage column to an end position within the cavity wherein the robot vehicle is moving along the bin storage system prior to the lifting device coming to an end position within the cavity. (See Claim 1)
19. The automated storage system according to claim 10, wherein the cavity comprises a downwardly facing opening of an essentially same width and length as openings of the storage columns from which storage bins are received. (See Claim 14)
20. A method of operating a bin storage system comprising a plurality of storage columns for storage of a plurality of vertically-stacked storage bins, (See Claim 1)
with a plurality of supporting rails arranged in a two-dimensional matrix at a top of the columns, (See Claim 1)
said supporting rails arranged in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and (See Claim 1)
a plurality of robot vehicles for transporting storage bins, (See Claim 1)
the method comprises:
positioning a cavity of one of the plurality of robot vehicles such that the cavity is aligned with one of the storage columns to permit the cavity to receive a storage bin from the storage columns, (See Claim 1)
wherein the cavity is arranged centrally within a body of the one of the plurality of robot vehicles; (See Claim 1)
receiving a storage bin from the storage column into the cavity; and (See Claim 1)
moving the robot vehicle along the bin storage system, (See Claim 1)
using a first set of vehicle rolling means arranged to allow the robot vehicle to travel in the first direction along the supporting rails, and (See Claim 1)
a second set of vehicle rolling means arranged to allow the robot vehicle to travel in the second direction along the supporting rails; (See Claim 1)
wherein both of the sets of vehicle rolling means are arranged symmetrically around the cavity. (See Claim 8)
21. The method according to claim 20, wherein the receiving a storage bin from the storage column comprises: (See Claim 1)
descending a lifting device of the robot vehicle into the storage column; (See Claim 1)
engaging a storage bin with the lifting device; and (See Claim 1)
lifting the lifting device of the robot vehicle with the storage bin from the storage column into the cavity. (See Claim 1)
22. The method according to claim 20, wherein a lifting device of the robot vehicle comprises one of:(See Claim 1)
a device configured to attach to the storage bin to lift and lower the storage bin; and (See Claim 1)
a device configured to hook onto the storage bin to lift and lower the storage bin. (See Claim 1)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 23-25 are 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. In the alternative, one or more of these claims may be incorporated as further limitations into the respective rejected independent base claim from which they depend. These allowable claims would make the rejected independent base claim allowable because the rejected base claim would then contain subject matter that was neither disclosed, nor taught or fairly suggested, in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s Claim limitations. Any hypothetical prior art rejection based on these references would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RANDAZZO whose telephone number is (313)446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and between 9:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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 RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights